Thoughts on Marciano's resume?

I've never thought Marciano did ,or ever would duck a fighter,I don't have that same confidence about his manager.

 

Charles was the #1 when Marciano fought him, Valdez only beat Charles after iirc

The Don Cockell fight was previously scheduled before the Charles rematch as well, so Valdez sort of just got unlucky.

I think it's a bit silly to say 1 year made a huge difference for Valdez though

 

Y'know, we could go back and forth on this, but I wasn't around back then and you apparently were, to know how little clamor there was. It's a difficult thing to ponder even though it was never my argument to begin with. But I decided to do a bit of research on the subject, so I centered on the weak link in Rocky's title reign where a Valdes or Baker bout should have taken place and of course that is the Cockell fight. So I centered on around the time the fight was signed. I figured maybe writers would have a thing or two to say about the next title fight and this is what was said:

To begin, Al Weill was still denying who Rocky would be fighting next and this was the second week of February (the Cockell fight would be signed on about the 16th). However, NY writer Whitney Martin announced in late January it was going to be Don Cockell in San Francisco in May.

The AP report on the latest Ring ratings stated: "Nino Valdes remains the leading challenger to Rocky Marciano, although 2nd ranked Don Cockell will be getting the title shot."

NY writer Murray Rose wrote: "If it were just a matter of common sense, Cuba's Nino Valdes and England's Don Cockell would be matched to determine the next opponent for heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano." (We know how that turned out when they were matched several months later)

A nameless manager who it was said surreptitiously without naming him had two world champions and was part of the promotional drive for the fight, stated behind closed doors: "The bum won't last three rounds with Rocky but don't quote me."

Another unnamed manager who claimed to have seen Cockell fight 5 times: "This is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on a sucker public."

NY writer Pat Robinson wrote: "We personally haven't been under so much pressure to help build up a palooka since the time they tried to sell us Johnny Paychek as a worthy contender against Joe Louis. Don't say we didn't warn you."

Archie Moore was quoted as saying: "They are talking about a Marciano title defense against Don Cockell, the British champion. My sparring partner can whip Cockell, and Al Weill knows it. Weill is a disgrace to boxing."

So if there was any clamor going on at the time, it was negative in regards to Cockell as an opponent. Again, it was never my argument to begin with. I merely stated in regards to the OP that Rocky's record was only missing the big heavyweight. And this was the time the void should have been filled.

 

Valdes beat Charles to take his number 1 spot, since Valdes did not lose during the ensuing period why would he lose his placing to Charles who had lost 2 of his last 4 fights before facing Marciano?

 

Thats the truth of it Cockell had no business being in there with Rocky and I dont care where he was rated,he got rated by beating Mathews and Lastarza.Lastarza imo didnt deserve his shot either he got it on the back of getting a split dec from Layne who was never the same after Marciano brutalized him,and neither was Lastarza. Valdes proved the injustice of Cockell getting a shot instead of him when he massacred him later.

 

Because Satterfield beat Valdes, who was beaten by a revitalized Charles, which made Charles once again the #1 contender

 

He beat everyone who was put in front of him. All he could do and is what it is. There was nothing in Valdes' record that indicates to me he had anything for Rocky, despite his physical advantages, so I don't see that as a gaping hole in Rocky's resume. Did Valdes deserve the shot more than Cockrell? Probably, but caca happens and life is unfair.

 

My thought has always been that it's a minimally respectable resume in that he did just enough to weather serious criticism that he ducked his most important challengers but not enough to claim that he cleaned up the division's worthy challengers. By this I mean his resume does not compare with those of Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, or Lennox Lewis who during their reigns aggressively took on all challengers for an extended period of time.

Of course, Marciano fought at a time when the government taxed high-income earners at a marginal rate of 90 per cent. And Marciano was a relatively small man who had a style that would have burnt him out early if he fought too often. These were understandable considerations, but they still make his resume less impressive than the resumes of the champions I mentioned, IMHO.

 

Valdes beat Charles on the 11 th of August 1953.
Charles ddn't beat Satterfield until13th Jan 1954.
And crucially Satterfield did not beat Valdes until13th Jan 1955!

 

If you are number one in1953 and number one in1954,I'd say that indicates you deserve a title shot.Certainly before Cockell who got a split dec over a washed up Lastarza.

 

He had four losses and 1 draw from 52-54. No one thought he was a good opponent nor a good draw. He finishes his career ok I suppose but at the time he wasn’t a threat and realistically wasn’t. Archie Moore rightfully got the shot.

 

Don't disagree with you an iota, and it's certainly grist for discussion at a boxing history forum. Just ain't a lot anyone can do about it nearly 70 years down the road, plus I don't think it's a huge gaping hole in Marciano's resume. Hole? Yeah. Enough of one to take Rocky down notches? Meh.

 

Moore got the shot after beating Valdes,that clinched his chance.
Therefore the implication is that Valdes was a worthy challenger and beating him meant a great deal!
He was number 1 at the end of 53 and 54.The Ring magazine thought he was a good opponent that's why they ranked him number 1 at the end of 53 & 54! There were articles in the Ring trumpeting a Valdes title shot.
You want to count Charles beating Satterfield no9 and Wallace unranked as evidence he was the rightful challenger,and ignoring that he had lost his two previous fights , to Johnson and Valdes!
You can't have it both ways!
BTW Charles did not go to number 1 he went to number2.
In his career Valdes beat
Cockell
Jackson
Neuhaus
Agramonte
Williams
Sys
Charles
That's more men that were ranked than Lastarza and Cockell combined ever beat! Chronologically the argument that because Moore beat Valdes that disqualified Valdes for a title shot is false.

 

Valdez for sure would have been better than Don but in regards to Moore the better man won and the better man got the shot. Valdez had a chance to get a shot and he
Just couldn’t pull out the win. Was a good fight though.

 

Its not about taking Rocky down,its about countering the oft stated assertion that he fought everyone who deserved a shot,he didnt.