Russ Anber on Marciano.

Some here think Charles was #1 during the 1954. OLD FOGEY for example. This is why I underlined it.

I have read the decsion was disputed in some quarters. This was the news report I had archived, so I presented it. The news read does not call it a robbery, but does say that one man judged the fight, and the ending was not satisfactory to all. Fans do not throw stuff into the ring for the heck of it. Perhaps the scoring or the fouls did not agree with the fans. This fight is not on film.

 

I understand that. In fact, I have used a tennis reference before to explain hollow victories when one fighters is well ahead in the match, but has to retire due to an injury.

Here's what I 'd like to see Marciano_Fraizer explain. When Valdes beat Charles, he was ranked ahead of him and went on an un-defeated run. Charles was 2-2, before Marciano gave him a title shot. Has there ever been a heavyweight title shot given to a man who was recently beaten by a contender, ranked behind him, and 2-2 in his last four fights?

Chalk this one up as a clean ACE, and game, set and match if no reply is given. This was my central point in this thread. If Marciano_Frazier can find an example or two, it will be rare, and my point still stands.

 

Actually I think most people know that the Ring wasn't around in1904 M. I used that illustration for two reasons ,one it shows that the most deserving contender doesnt allways get the title shot ,and two I knew it would get a rise out of you.ps By no stretch of the imagination could Finnegan or Munroe be called deserving contenders.

 

Here in England they do, or have done in the past. Notoriously at the Hagler-Minter fight. And at Bruno-Witherspoon.
Bottles, chairs etc.

 

You didnt listen to what he said. He claimed valdez was # 1 contender in 1955, not 1954. Charles was # 1 during 1954, however valdez was # 1 in 1955. Valdez LOST his # 1 ranking in 1954, Charles was placed back at # 1 in 1954 from march all the way to September.

 

Mendoza,


Ring Magazine rankings for August, 1954

Champion--Rocky Marciano

This content is protected

2. Nino Valdes
3. Don Cockell
4. Jimmy Slade
5. Roland LaStarza
6. Hurricane Jackson
7. Dan Bucceroni
8. Bob Baker
9. Earl Walls
10. Heinz Neuhaus

 

How does Valdes being rated #1 in 1955 have anything to do with the ratings for 1954. How many times must it be pointed out that Valdes slipped behind Charles in the spring of 1954 and Charles was rated the #1 contender when he fought Marciano. Valdes regained the Ring #1 spot in the fall of 1954. He was rated #1 when Marciano fought Cockell in 1955. Cockell was #2. Read the August, 1954 Ring ratings posted above by SuzieQ.

 

Where we disagree is that you seem to think that losing a split decision to Harold Johnson was a disaster for Charles and completely eliminates him-hence the constant 2-2 talk. Well, losing to Johnson might prove Charles was slipping, but Johnson was simply a much better fighter than Valdes and had utterly dominated Valdes when the two had fought a year earlier, losing only 1 round on 1 of 3 judge's cards.

You also seem to dismiss Charles' impressive knockout of Satterfield, and Satterfield was certainly the definition of erratic, but he had beaten Johnson and knocked out Baker, both of whom had beaten Valdes. Satterfield would later dominate Valdes in 1955.

Valdes was offered a rematch with Charles, the winner to fight Marciano. Why didn't he take it?

You say Charles did not rebound well from the loss to Valdes but why this interpretation? Losing to Johnson does not prove much as everyone lost to Johnson at one point or another, including Moore, and the fight was a split decision in Johnson's home town. Charles next two fights were impressive knockouts of contenders Wallace and Satterfield.

The issue isn't whether Charles was slipping. I think he was, but you could have made that argument with Ali in 1973 going into the Foreman bout. In his last three fights he had lost to Norton, and then barely edged Norton and Frazier in fights many disputed. A slipping Charles was still a more formidable opponent than Valdes whose total claim rested on upsetting Charles in a fight in which Charles was looking past Valdes toward his fight with Johnson three weeks later.

 

Walcott and Foreman were both given shots coming off defeats, Walcott to Rex Layne and Foreman to Tommy Morrison, and both went on to win the championship.

There were those in other divisions given a shot coming off defeats or mediocre runs.
Jimmy Carter--was 1-2-1 going into his fight with Ike Williams. He drew with Tommy Campbell, lost to Calvin Smith, defeated Percy Bassett, and then lost a return to Bassett. Carter ko'd Williams in 14.

Lauro Salas--lost to Art Aragon and still got a shot at Carter. He also lost to Carter, but despite a very mediocre lifetime record, got a second shot and defeated Carter to become champion.

Paddy DeMarco--had lost 3 of his last 5 and 6 of his last 11 before getting a shot at Carter and winning.

Willie Pastrano--was 4-3-3 in his last 10 fights when he got a shot at Harold Johnson and won.

 

My comment--if Valdes deserved to be #1 contender because he beat Charles, why isn't Moore the #1 contender as he had beaten Valdes, as well as Baker, Johnson, Slade, and Satterfield?

Gleason's spin is quoted without comment, but Valdes had in fact lost badly earlier to Moore and Moore was the betting favorite in this fight, showing that the public did not view Valdes as the top contender. Moore was riding a 19 fight winning streak, one far more impressive than the one Valdes was on.

Bottom line for me--I think Valdes actually was rated higher than he should have been through most of his career. Moore was clearly better and had done more at heavy. So had Johnson. Had they been rated at heavy, Valdes would never have gotten above #3.
In 1958 Valdes moved all the way up to #2, above Machen, Moore, and Folley, all of whom had defeated him, Machen twice, including once by knockout, and Moore also twice.
Between 1952 and 1956, the peak of his career, from his draw with Joe McFadden through his loss to Folley, Valdes went 14-10-1.

 

My point was that Charles by no means had the worst run coming into a championship fight. I don't see the point either.

 

Styles make fights. Could be the Marciano brain trust thought Valdez might make Rocky look bad even if he won. Charles was a household name and had a decent record. I kind of wonder who would've been a bigger draw against Rocky.

 

As to a disparaging reference to Jack Munroe fighting Jim Jeffries. I won't go into the history behind that confrontation, but it was a fight the boxing public wanted and was a damn sight better matchup than Jeff's fight with Finnegan, which was a joke. According to Munroe's manager Harry Pollock, the fight might have been very different if someone from Jeff's camp hadn't spiked an orange that Munroe bit into shortly before the fight began.

As for Jack Johnson. I couldn't care less that he got ignored. When he stepped into the international spotlight and fought Marvin Hart he looked so bad the ref gave the nod to Hart. His later actions in denying title fights to men of his own race were inexcuseable.

Russ Anber is a good trainer and cornerman, but a boxing historian he ain't. He has one of the few weekly boxing shows on TV and struggles to keep the network sharks from terminating it. More power to him.

 

Personally I feel stylistically valdez was an easier fight for marciano than charles. Standup Big Sluggers like Joe Louis/Nino Valdez/Rex Layne are made for Rock. Small Speedy boxers gave him trouble.