Russ Anber on Marciano.

edit

 

edit

 

Anber's biggest claim to fame is that he was the chief second for Otis Grant in Grant's fight vs Roy Jones Jr in 1998.

 

But you can make it thirsty. No point here, just a random observation.

 

All kidding aside, this is an awesome debate between some very serious boxing scholars. I love it. Suzie Q, you are now a force to be reckoned with. Respect.

 

Since this post is quoting one which I have responded to, just let me point out that I have addressed it.

 

For several reasons.

1 ) He beat Charles by a clean margin. I am amazed this gets little press by the biggest Marciano fans.


2 ) Ring Magazine had Valdes #1 annually in 1953 AND 1954.


3 ) Valdes was on a winning streak, Charles was not.

Just because Ring Magazine opted to move Charles up to #1 when the Marciano fight was close to being made does not make it right. Seldom do we ever see a guy (Charles ) who was 2-2 in his last four fights leap frog a guy ( Valdes ) who beat him that is ranked #1 and is on a winning streak. And you can quote me on that.

I think this thread has run its course. Let us just say in my opinion Valdes should have received one of Marciano’s two title shots in 1954.

I also believe Valdes had more left in 1954 than Charles did. Indeed, we all know Charles went into the tank from 1954 to finish. Some may say Marciano ruined him. In truth Charles was already on the decline, Marciano just have him an extra shove when Charles was on the downside of the hill.

 

clean margin? he beat an overweight charles on his worst night by 1 round difference on 2 cards.... hardly a "clean margin". Good win, but lets not get carried away.

Charles was rated # 1 by Ring Magazine when he got the title shot vs marciano in 1954, these are undeniable facts.

Charles was 11-2 in his last 13 fights, and coming off big knockout wins over ranked punchers big coley wallace, bob satterfield and had beaten harold johnson only to get robbed.


Valdez was on a minor win streak, but who did he beat outside of charles that was any good?

The very fact how Nino Valdez became rated # 1 in the first place was very flawed. how did valdez get rated over harold johnson and archie moore?

So your claiming a heavyweight champion shouldnt give a rematch in a close fight?


Also what is your opinion about marcianos camp giving Valdez a final title eliminater in 1955 and booking a fight with valdez in miami in the fall of 55?

If valdez had fought marciano in 54, do you think marciano would have physically ruined him and perhaps valdez would have went in the tank as well?

 

You are reading it wrong. Valdes won a UD. ~ referee: Cy Gottfried 7-2 for Valdes | judge: Morris Feingold 5-3 for Valdes | judge: Gus Jacobson 5-3 for Valdes.

Valdes won by TWO rounds on two cards, and 5 rounds on another. This is a clear margin, SuzieQ. Not a 1 point differnce. Also, at best Chalres won 3 rounds of 10 in the eyes of all three judges!

Sure, it was a gift rating to sell the fight if you ask me. It was not an failry earned rating since Vlades was on a roll and had recently beaten Charels. Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 fights!!!!

Dejohn, Summerlin, Erskie, Tommy Jackson, and Parker. Vlades beat some good fighters. You seem to like Valdes in Non-Marciano threads. Odd.

By beating Charles, and two other contenders.

No, I'm claiming Marciano should have given Valdes a title shot in 1954 before Chalres.

Vlades finaly lost to Moore. This time Marciano picked the winner. Funny, he did not do that when Vlades meet Charles.

No. Valdes was not shot like Charles. As far as we know, Walcott hook could have ruined Chalres, or Valdes could have done the job before Marciano ever meet him. I do think Maricano defeats Valdez, but it is not a sure thing if Rocky fights like he did vs Cockell, LaStarza II, Savold, or some of his 1951 fights vs no names

Box rec has a few notes on some of Marciano's fights in 1951 vs fighter with losing records:

Vs 10-14 Red Applegate: This was a bruising, crowd-pleasing battle. Marciano won handily enough but failed to even knock down his opponent, who had fought only twice in the previous two years. Applegate's best round was the third, which the referee also took from Marciano because of a low punch. Red landed plenty of good punches, typically in the early parts of rounds, but Marciano almost always came back later to take the play away. Marciano's best round was the sixth. The attendance was 4167 and the gross gate was $7,6l6.

>>Could not KO a 10-14 fighter who lost 5 in a row, and lost a point to a low blow?

Vs 13-15-1 Art Herni: Henri frequently outfought Marciano with left hooks in the first three rounds, and landed four nifty uppercuts at close range in round three. Marciano hurt him with a two-handed attack in the fourth round and Art did not land much after that, although defending himself cleverly. The fight became one-sided and uninteresting. Marciano dropped Henri for two nine-counts in the ninth and the referee stopped it. Marciano was slow, sluggish, and cumbersome, and made one of his poorest showings. Attendance was 4386 and the gross gate was $8285.

>> Not a good showing here either vs a fighter who lost 5 of his last six.

 

If 2 of the judges had scored 1 round different for charles, the fight is a draw. That means its a very close fight. Take note this was one of charles poorest showings, he showed up at the heaviest of his career. Impressive win for valdez still though. I found a quote once charles quoting the valdez fight as "the worst showing of my career".

Why? Ezzard Charles was 11-2 in his last 13 fights, and was coming off two spectaculr knockouts over RANKED punchers 6'3 200lb coley wallace(beat marciano), and bob satterfield. His Decision loss against Harold Johnson was a farve, I scored it for charles as did many others.

You say Valdez was on a roll but outside of the one upset charles win, he certainly did not beat anyone of note and he was given a gift hometown decision over Obscure Journeyman archie mcbride. Not exactley lighting up the scenary.

I said who did valdez beat in 1953-1954? you named two parker and jackson. James J parker is on youtube getting Mauled up badly by an Old Archie Moore. how good was he? he was unranked. Jackson was a very good win for valdez i have seen the fight on film, but Jackson himself was a very bizarre fighter, defintley not championship calibre. Valdez also was lucky to get a decision against Journeyman Archie Mcbride for crying out loud. Thats a red flag. On the flipside, Charles beat better contenders in Wallace and Satterfield, and NBA issues a charles valdez rematch, which was DECLINED by Valdez.

I like him in this thread too. I just dont like it when people makes false claims about information.

Neuhas and jackson arent exactley world beaters

Why? Charles was rated # 1, Valdez # 2 in mid 1954. That would mean marciano would have avoided fighted his # 1 contender(charles) a great fighter former champion and he would still be accused today of ducking ezzard to beat up a inconsistent cuban.

Finally? Valdez should have lost to archie mcbride in 1954.

Why should Valdez' one upset win over charles gaurantee him a title shot over the likes of archie moore, harold johnson, bob baker all who beat him?

Marcianos camp booked a fight with valdez in miami in fall of 55, valdez lost his final title eliminator, he has no one to blame but himself.

Now Charles was shot when he fought Marciano??

On the flipside, What if Valdez shows up like the way he fought 185lb archie mcbride, 180lb bob satterfield, 180lb archie moore, 177lb harold johnson. what then?


What does Valdez have that is capable of beating an ATG in his prime like rocky Marciano?

 

What do you mean by "little press"? I've never disputed it. Generally, you only add a footnote about a decision if it was disputed or very lopsided. This was neither.

Yes, but they did not have him #1 when Marciano was fighting Charles.

Charles had won his last two fights over name opponents. Satterfield was better than anyone Valdes had beaten aside from Charles (and Satterfield later beat the bejesus out of Valdes himself, by the way). He had won 11 of his last 13 fights. The two losses- one of them a disputed split decision- ultimately look like a hiccup in that perspective. It was not all that unusual for a highly-active champion to have such a brief slump. Charles had beaten four top 10 opponents during the last year before those two losses and had beaten two more since- he was 6-2 against top 10 fighters in the last year-and-a-half before the Marciano fight was scheduled. It may look nicer to you to reduce all of his fight history to a numerical 2-2, but that just isn't the way it works.

The RING ranked Charles #1, and the NYSAC ruled Charles the more worthy challenger. If you really think Valdes deserved the higher ranking, you should blame them, not Marciano or his camp.

I think, following a reasonable system of ratings, like the one I depicted in my analogy, that Charles was reasonably and accurately recognized as a better challenger for Marciano's title than Valdes. I do think Valdes was deserving of a title shot during late 1953 through early '55, but not wildly deserving or especially moreso than two or three other guys who did receive shots. As Marciano fought the widely-recognized #1 challenger in five of his six title defenses, I do not believe any claims that he was ducking Valdes or any other fighter are reasonable. If there was ever a champion who genuinely and consistently fought the best in his title reign, it was Marciano.

Look at Valdes' losing streak in late '52 to mid-'53. The men he lost to were: Harold Johnson by an embarrassingly lopsided shut-out (Charles took Johnson to a disputed split decision less than a year later), Billy Gilliam (Charles subsequently beat Gilliam about six months later), Archie Moore (Charles had beaten Moore three times back in the '40s, though this can be overlooked based on the time discrepancy), and Bob Baker. Hence, Charles had fought and produced better results against three of the four men Valdes had just lost to going into their fight, two of those men well within a year of their beating Valdes! Moreover, two fights after their fight against each other, Charles brutally knocked out Satterfield in two rounds, and the following year, that same Satterfield badly defeated Valdes over 10. Based on common opponents, Charles was still absolutely a better fighter than Valdes in '53-54.

 

What I dont get is the whats the difference between marciano scheduling to fight nino valdez in 1955 vs 1954? It was better and smart for marciano to fight valdez in fall of 55 in miami liked planned because it allowed or valdez to firmly esstablish himself as a genuine top contender and threat to the champ allowing him to become more popular and a bigger draw by 1955. it made more sense for rocky to wait till 1955 rather than 1954. Had valdez won that final title eliminator, its marciano vs valdez, there never would have been a marciano vs moore.

 

I would also like to add one more thing and I hope people in this forum respond to this......

One poster here Charles vs Satterfield was an unimpressive performance by ezzard charles. I couldnt disagree more. Charles displayed more than one trait in this fight that makes him a great fighter. It was clear from the opening bell satterfield had brought his A game tonight, and we all know how dangerous bob is when he is on. Charles got battered in the first round, took satterfields best punches, but not only didnt go down, he recovered to knock bob out with one punch. Now lets take a look.......Satterfield either battered, knocked down, or knocked out big 6'3 210lb + Quality fighters like Big Cat Williams, Bob Baker, Nino Valdez, John Holman. These big men got hit by satterfield and that was it....they folded up. Yet a much smaller 185lb Charles(on the decline) weathers satterfields storm. This is impressive and not only shows charles remarkable recup powers, underated chin, and warrior mentallity. He could have easily folded up, but like a great fighter he used his experience and savvy to survive the hurricane. In the 2nd round, and charles does not get enough credit for this......he knocked out bob with one of the most perfectly executed one shots i have ever seen. He bore in with a high gaurd and threw a fast right cross which satterfield slipped to his left, and by doing this satterfield for a brief amount of time had oppertunity for counters. For those on the forum like me who box, when you slip to the left like that when you make another fighter miss right cross you can counter with sharp left uppercut to the head, or left hook to the body, or even a right lead to the head followed by left to the body......or a LEFT HOOK. satterfield went for the left hook counter.....but being the great fighter charles was even after he missed the right cross.....just like in sequence in fluid motion he automatically came over the top with a fast sharp crisp left hook....BAMMMMMMMMMMMM! satterfield goes down out cold. That was just an artist finishing a masterpiece. Such an amazing set-up. Who said charles couldnt punch at heavyweight? satterfield didnt go down when big fellas like big cat, valdez, baker hit him. I sometimes wonder if patterson actually did it harder than ezz. Charles proved his Heart/Durability/Instincts/power/accurary in this fight to the optimium levels.

 

I never hear of Russ Anber till this thread. I see he's an *******, the Canadian Max Kellerman. One of these guys trying to make name by knocking a great fighter.

 

bump