All championship opponents are "hand-picked:. It's not like the challengers get to pick. And by the way, who was more deserving than Charles? I think the Valdes myth has been well-exploded.
How about when Jack Munroe got a title shot against Jeffries,in1904,? At that time Jack Johnson was coming in with wins over Ed Martin,Mcvey x2,Fergusonx2 and Butler,in 04 he beat Mcvey by ko and Frank Childs by dec,was Munroe the number 1 contender do you think?
No, you're wrong, actually. Charles was viewed as a much greater test than LaStarza was when the schedule was conceived. I have the September, 1953 issue of RING Magazine, which explicitly discusses the Marciano camp's plan to match their man with LaStarza, then Charles, and the thinking was certainly not "They want to get a less-demanding opponent after LaStarza." Charles was the #1 contender for Marciano's championship at the time the camps began seriously talking about the fight, and was #1 again by the time it came off. No one is hand-picking opposition by fighting the #1 challenger for his title. Cockell is the only Marciano title opponent who was "hand-picked." All of the others were widely recognized as #1 contender for his championship at the time of the defenses. Russ Anber is disgustingly biased against Marciano, and his commentary is utter spin-jobbing.
Yes, I was on a trip without a computer for a few days there. I will address the propaganda which is being put forth in this thread shortly.
There was no such thing as #1 Ring Magazine contenders back then. The title matches were the champions choice, and unlike Johnson, Jeffries pretty much fought the best out there when he was champion. Jeffries vs Munroe was a grudge match based on Munroe surviving 4 rounds with Jeffries in an exhibition match, then distorting the facts to the press. Since there was no film or radio back then, Jeffries felt the need to set the record straight. This and Munroe being a solid fighter in 1904 is why he got a title shot.
Disagree. As I said before Valdez has the head to head win, and won 10 in a row, three of which were vs contenders. Charles was 2-2 just before Marciano gave him a shot, and to be frank did not re-bound well from the loss. This to me suggests Charles was a bit past his prime and on a .500 streak before Marciano gave him a title shot. Again, my point is in June 1954, Valdes was doing better than Charles in the ring, and Marciano should have given Valdez the title shot, not Charles. On a scale of 1-10, this rates as maybe a 4. I dont see this a huge deal, but I do think Valdez should have been the choice. I don's see Valdez as outstanding either. The fact that such a fighter can be #1 ring ranked suggests the division was at a down period when Marciano was champion. Cockell was not at good as Valdez was, and was ill. The Moore vs Valdez fight was controversial in some quarters. The ref made the call alone.
You talk about valdez last ten fights? what about charles last ten fights?? Charles won 11 out of his last 13 fights(including johnson controversial loss) while valdez had won just 10 out of his last 14 fights. Charles was coming off 2 devastating knockout victories over ranked punchers wallace and satterfield. Valdez was coming off a highly controversial win over B level archie mcbride.
But Thats just not true. Charles did very well vs Marciano, and did better vs johnson, satterfield, moore, gilliam than valdez did. Valdez refused to rematch charles for a reason.
No, Valdes was not ranked higher. Charles regained the #1 contender position in March and didn't lose it until after the Marciano rematch. 1. Yes, there was reason. 2. No, Valdes had not won 10 fights in a row when Marciano-Charles was scheduled- he had won seven in a row, with only one over a serious contender, and had subsequently gotten what many considered a gift split decision over the small, obscure journeyman Archie McBride on his own home turf near the end of that run. 3. Charles was 2-2 in his last four going into the Marciano fight, but this is number spinning; Valdes was 7-4 in his last 11 at the time, while Charles was 9-2 in his own, for example. The fact is that the Valdes loss was seen as a blip on the radar screen, with Valdes being a journeyman with a mediocre record while Charles was a great former champion, the Johnson fight was a disputed split decision, and Charles had subsequently come up with back-to-back emphatic knockouts over top 10-ranked opponents in #9 Wallace and #6 Satterfield- meanwhile, Valdes had beaten pretty mediocre competition, refused a rematch with Charles that would have ensured him a title shot, and had hell getting a hometown split decision over Archie McBride. Valdes had had only one win over a serious contender (his next best was borderline-top-10 Neuhaus) and had a history of being dominated more often than not when he stepped up; what this looks like in perspective is more that Valdes' camp is hanging on to their one big win and trying to parlay their way into a title shot. Valdes is floundering and lucky to win against a very mediocre opponent, Charles is beating the much better competition at this stage, and Charles has a history of being a much, much better fighter, in spite of a slight weak patch the previous year. Charles did not "leap-frog" Valdes by "losing twice and fighting less." You can't leap-frog someone unless you start out behind them. I'm going to try and illustrate how this works using a sort of hypothetical points system, something like what they use in tennis. So, let's say (these numbers are arbitrary figures making a general point) that going into their fight against each other, Charles, being a legendary ex-champion and an absolute elite heavyweight for the last five or six years running who is on a strong winning streak over contenders and looking like a good candidate for first man ever to regain the heavyweight title, has 100 points. Valdes, on the other hand, being- to this point- a mediocre gatekeeper who has lost four times in the last nine months and has never beaten a top 10 fighter, has only 50 points. So, when Valdes pulls an upset over Charles, let's say Valdes gains 20 points and Charles loses 20 points- that puts Charles at 80 over Valdes at 70. Then, Charles loses to Harold Johnson and drops another 10 points, while Valdes beats Heinz Neuhaus and a couple journyemen and gains 10 more points- now it's Valdes at 80 points to Charles' 70 at the end of 1953. But subsequently, Charles defeats two top 10 opponents in pretty impressive fashion (stopping #9 Wallace and #6 Satterfield) and gains 15 points back, while Valdes fights mediocre competition and does relatively poorly (winning a disputed hometown decision against an obscure journeyman), losing 10 points, and so Charles moves back up to 85 points compared with Valdes' 70- and that is the situation going into the Marciano-Charles fights. Hence, although Valdes has gained ground while Charles has lost ground, Charles is still clearly the higher-ranking fighter on balance.
suzieQ says : MOORE AND VALDES MEET MONDAY (United Press, Sunday, May 1, 1955) LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- Light-heavyweight champion Archie Moore and Nino Valdes of Cuba, both of whom have been clamoring for a shot at Rocky Marciano's heavyweight crown, are scheduled to meet in a 15-round outdoor fight here Monday. Former world champion James Braddock will referee. Moore, the 38-year-old veteran of at least 142 trips to the ring, is an 8-5 favorite to whip the 30-year-old heavyweight from Havana. For Archie, who at various times registered from San Diego, St. Louis and Toledo, Ohio, this is a major step in a campaign aimed at forcing a match with Marciano. A loss by Moore would ruin his heavyweight title hopes, if there is any basis for such hopes. But Moore needn't worry if he loses. He still will be the lightheavyweight champion, and in prospect is a most prosperous chance to meet Bobo Olson, the middleweight champion who wants to rule the light heavies.From the looks of Archie this past week, weighing about 200 pounds, the sturdy battler might have to detach a leg in order to make 175 pounds for an Olson match, but that problem will come later. This content is protected A loss to Moore would eliminate him from contention. A win over the aging Moore? Bobby Gleason, Nino's manager since 1951, put it this way:"We are already the No. 1 challenger. We can't be the No. 1 1/2 challenger, can we? All we can gain is maybe the prestige Archie has built up as a light heavyweight and his campaign to fight Marciano."This prestige, and maybe a few paltry dollars, is about The "few paltry dollars" posed a thought. Jack Kearns, who manages Joey Maxim, who lost three times to Moore and more recently to Olson, is promoting the fight here. With a perfectly straight face, the Old Doc, the Medicine Man of boxing, insisted that Moore and Valdes were guaranteed $50,000 apiece -- and they would get it. Valdes weighs a trim 206 and probably will go into the ring at 208. He has won 11 straight fights, seven by knockouts, and his better known victims include Ezzard Charles and Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson. Moore has not fought since he stopped Harold Johnson in a title fight last August in New York. He is obviously well padded around the midsection. But Archie is a workman and should know if he's ready for a tough fight. As for his heart condition -- seems the box score is something like 5-3 -- physicians' examinations, that is-- that Archie does have a heart condition. And the fight review: ARCHIE MOORE NEARS HEAVY TITLE SHOT(United Press, Tuesday, May 3, 1955) LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- Light heavyweight champion Archie Moore established himself as the top contender for the world heavyweight crown Monday night by batte ring big Nino Valdes of Cuba half blind to win a 15- round decision. Referee James Braddock, former heavyweight champion and sole judge of the bout, favored 38-year-<BR>old Moore on rounds, 8-5-2. It was an excellent fight in which Moore's superior speed and snap in his punches beat the tall Cuban, who had been generally rated top contender for the heavy title. The bout was staged before a crowd of 10,800 in Cashman Field as the sun was setting. A gate of $102,678 was registered. The twilight fight was the most important boxing contest ever held in Las Vegas. Although Moore weighed 196 1/2 pounds, the heaviest of his career, he appeared much faster than 30-year-old Valdes, who is somewhat awkward. Valdes packed 209 1/4 pounds on his six-foot-three frame. There were no knockdowns in this battle between two good punchers, but the effects of their blows resulted in Valdes' left eye being swollen tightly shut in the 13th. Moore was bleeding from the nose and lower lip at the finish and his left eye was swollen -- but he could see very well. In the dressing room, Moore said, "Valdes died in the last three rounds."Because of his victory over the number-one heavy contender, Moore will demand a heavy title shot at the winner of the Rocky Marciano-Don Cockell championship bout at San Francisco on May 16. "If I can't get that shot, I'll defend my own title against Bobo Ols on," he said. Despite his 196 1/2 pounds, the mustachioed battler said he was sure he could pare down to the 175-pound limit for a defense.Archie and big Nino engaged in a very rough brawl, and each dropped several low blows during the slugging. Accordingly, Referee Braddock penalized each one round. He took the fifth from Moore and the 11th from Valdes on fouls. It was such an excellent bout that many of the fans thought Valdes had won. Some of them began throwing<BR>cushions into the ring. But announcer Al Schenk, well<BR>known New York comedian, ordered the throwing stopped "lest you injure someone seriously." And therewas no more cushion-tossing.
Wow Thanx for proving my point that Moore clearly uncontroversially beat Valdez. Ps You still have yet to provide a source from a boxing writer or newspaper that states they thought valdez won the fight
1. Everyone here already knew that Valdes was ranked #1 going into the Moore fight and was on a winning streak. Underlining/coloring those words in no way helps your argument. 2. SuzieQ asked you for a newspaper source or expert who thought Valdes won the fight, not a footnote stating that some fans did. You've failed entirely to satisfy his request, since the entire article explicitly indicates that Moore won the fight clearly- NOTICE: "Light heavyweight champion Archie Moore established himself as the top contender for the world heavyweight crown Monday night by battering big Nino Valdes of Cuba half blind to win a 15- round decision." "It was an excellent fight in which Moore's superior speed and snap in his punches beat the tall Cuban." It is true that some of Valdes' fans disputed the decision and threw things in the ring, but that does not constitute a scorecard from a credible observer- I have never seen a newspaper account of this fight that indicated the author thought Moore didn't deserve the decision.