Russ Anber on Marciano.

1. "I think fans of Rocky don't want to look at the other side of the coin in terms of Valdes being worthy of a title shot in 1954."
It was the chairman of the NYSAC who deemed him unworthy, not me. I think he was worthy of a shot, but Moore, Johnson, and Charles were more worthy, with Satterfield and Cockell in the mix also. It depends what you look at. Valdes was clearly not THE outstanding contender.

2. If Marciano had fought Valdes and not Charles, he would be subject to far more withering criticism over why he did not fight a top 20 all time heavyweight and a p4p ATG in order to take on Valdes with his spotty record. It would be a lot like Jeffries avoiding Johnson to defend against Munroe.

 

A Marciano-Valdes fight might have been good, but I think
that Rocky still wins!

Though, what about Bob Baker, Clarence Henry and Earl Walls??

I think that these fighters were capable of giving Rocky a tough
fight.


Grebfan9
www.firstroundboxing.com

 

Dont forget Bob Baker who beat Nino Valdez twice, and had beaten a number of good fighters. Baker is very underated on ESB, all I ever hear is nino valdez, but baker was probably the better heavyweight, and certainly more consistent in his prime. Baker should have gotten a shot at Ezz charles title. Also Coley Wallace a clone of Joe Louis in some areas similiar to valdez in size and power, he was a ranked puncher who held a win over rocky marciano, marciano wanted revenge. charles knocked wallace out

 

I agree, all 3 overlooked fighters. Rocky would have beat them, but all 3 were worthy of battling the rock.




Walls was a 6'3 200lb boxerpuncher with a huge right hand and crisp boxing skills

Baker is on youtube, he was big 6'2 220lb skilled big man with terrific handspeed and heavy hands, solid defense.

Clarence Henry was 6'1 185lb with lightning like electifying power in both fists, very sharp dynamic boxer.


ESBs john garfield spoke very well of henry and baker.

 

Mendoza: No. I am saying post these four losses in 1953 to the Moore fight, Valdes was #1 rated, beat Charels, and got no title shot. I am also saying that Vlades clearly had more left post 1954 than Chalres did. Don't you think Vlades had more left in 1954 than Chalres did?



Here are some headlines:

 

Marciano's camp made big strides to fight nino valdez in 1955, the fight almost happened. Valdez has no one to blame but himself but losing his final title eliminator.

I think Mendoza is overlooking the fact Charles was physically ruined by marciano in there 1954 fights, thats why he was the never the same again. Had Nino Valdez taken horrible beating from marciano, he probably would never have had the success post 1954.

 

"Moore closed fast to win. In the eyes of many ringsiders, he came with a rush to overtake the longarmed cuban. The Associated Press scored the fight for Moore." - New York Times May 3 1955



I wish I could post the whole article here, but i dont know how to post a PDF

 

Who had more left is clearly Monday morning quarterbacking. Who knew in 1953 or 1955 when Bob Baker was defeating Valdes that Valdes would last longer as a rated fighter than the younger Baker? No one, and I don't see what relevence there is in asking that judgements made in 1954 reflect your hindsight knowledge of what happened in 1957 and 1958.

Valdes actually performed better in 1957 and 1958 than he did in the Marciano era in my judgement, despite his increased age.

By the way, if you were judging from 1956, I don't know if you would actually judge that Valdes was doing better than Charles, even though Charles had collapsed. Charles was 6-5 in 1955 with wins over top ten men Norkus, Holman, and Andrews. Valdes was 2-3 in 1955, with wins over journeyman Battling Jack Flood and Cockell. In 1956 Valdes went 4-3 and Charles 2-4, but all of Valdes' & Charles' victories were over unrated fighters.
Putting it all together, Charles went 8-9 in 1955 & 1956, defeating three ranked fighters. Valdes went 6-6, with only Cockell, who was blown out by Kitione Lave in his next fight and promptly retired, rated when he fought him.

 

Ah, gawan! Yer mudda wears army boots! It's plain as da nose on yer mush dat Earl Walls woulda knocked Marchigano on his arse! When da Hooded Terror was tolt dat da Rock wouldn't fight him he lost all intorest in da sport.

 

Just like the way he lost to marcianos sparring partner tommy harrison??

Not True, Marcianos management discussed a fight with walls, but walls simply hadnt proven himself enough at this point and was not a big enough draw. They wanted him to fight a guy like archie moore, to prove himself worthy of a title shot in 1956 for marcianos 50th win, but walls retired. He was due to take on Ewart Potgeiter the 7'2 325lb giant. Walls could have been replaced instead of cockell, but so could have valdez or baker. But a 1955-1956 fight between walls and marciano was discussed. Walls was a fast starter and dangerous right handed puncher with good size, could have been interesting for as long as it lasted until rocky knocked him out.

 

I think Chalres showed signs of being shot well before meeting Marciano. He was 2-2 before meeting Marciano, a bit shop worn, and no stranger to the count.

Like I said before, from 1954 to finish, Vladez had more left than Charles did. While Charle was more famous, he was not better in 1954 the finish of his career.

 

I will repeat that the constant repetition of 2-2 relies on the Harold Johnson fight to sell your case, but the fight was very close and Johnson very good. He might have upset Charles in 1948. He was much better than Valdes and had dominated him.

Also, who would be the better fighter in 1958 is neither relevant nor practical in making a judgement in 1954.

 

No, Charles WAS ranked #1 during 1954. Valdes was #1 in 1955 when the quote you just underlined was written, and no one has disputed that, but Charles was #1 from March to September of 1954.

I have seen at least three different newspaper accounts that explicitly affirm their agreement with the decision, heard of another that did, and I am not aware of so much as one that disagreed with it. It is true that some fans were upset afterwards, but that does not amount to legitimate dispute among qualified scorers. Moore won the fight officially by a comfortable margin, and there seems to be unanimity or very near-unanimity amongst the press that the decision was fair. You seem to have latched onto this idea very strongly, but insofar as I can tell, it is for the most part unfounded.

 

Then why do you persist in arguing that Valdes was/should have been ranked higher? Explain the flaw in my analogy, or else you're just skirting around it.

Valdes was not ranked ahead of Charles for the majority of 1954. He was ranked briefly at #1 at the end of 1953, but lost it due to fighting largely mediocre competition and having a disputed hometown decision against a journeyman in early '54, while Charles regained the position in March of that year after a pair of wins over top 10 opponents.

This example is not legitimate in the first place, because your premise is wrong. Charles WAS NOT ranked behind Valdes when he fought Marciano. Were you to remove that clause, I could probably find an example or two.