Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Because Valdez would not give Charles a rematch in a close fight that Charles said he took lightly and Ezz KO'd Coley Wallace beat Gilliam (who beat Valdez) and KO'd Bob Satterfield (who later dropped and dominated Valdez and Charles became THE NUMBER 1 CONTENDER because Valdes won a controversial decision over Archie McBride that most felt he lost and besides Nino lost 2 x to Archie Moore and lost to Harold Johnson, Bill Gilliam,Bob Baker in the span of 2 years before losing to the Mongoose again, finally he lost to Bob Satterfield badly ,dropped for a 9 count in a sort of elimination to Marciano's 50th defense but when he lost neither he nor Satterfield were marketable

 

HeGrant,

I detect sarcasm in your post, but I will bite anyway.


To answer your question...Marciano fought Charles instead of Valdes because Charles was the # 1 rated heavyweight contender.

Ring Magazine May 1954

Champion: Rocky Marciano
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Nino Valdes
3. Don ****ell
4. Jimmy Slade
5. Tommy Jackson
6. Roland La Starza
7. Dan Bucceroni
8. Earl Walls
9. Heinz Neuhaus
10. Tommy Harrison

Ring Magazine July 1954

Champion--Rocky Marciano
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Nino Valdes
3. Don ****ell
4. Jimmy Slade
5. Roland LaStarza
6. Hurricane Jackson
7. Don Bucceroni
8. Bob Baker
9. Earl Walls
10. Heinz Neuhaus

 

Actually, Weill arranged for a Marciano-Valdes fight to take place in Miami in 1955
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...WBIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sQQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4496,1820087


Again, I detect sarcasm in this post. I think you're trying to make a point about Larry Holmes.

 

yea it had nothing to do with the fact that Nino lost 2 X to Archie Moore and was also beaten by Harold Johnson, who Moore KO'd, Valdes also lost to Billy Gilliam who Ezz beat and finally Valdes lost(was dropped for a 9 count) to Bob Satterfield and eliminated himself to be Rocky's 50 th win and 44th KO

read up on it, some interesting facts

 

Valdez beat Charles after a run of losses. Valdez would not rematch Charles and was able to maintain a ranking by keeping busy but really and truly Charles came back from that loss beating better fighters. Charles beat the guys who valdez lost to and was the greater risk to the title than the man who old Joe Louis knocked out in one round. A fight with #2 Valdez would have been regarded a softer touch than #1 Charles.

Charles was a busy contender. It was a case of a busy contender dropping a decision on the road unexpectedly but then got right back to form. Ezz later looked sensational beating Satterfeild and Wallace by knockouts. This overshadowed the Valdez blip and anything Nino had done. Charles had beat more contenders altogether.

 

I don't know if Weill was wary of Valdes. I think Marciano stops him, but had they fought , it might have answered the question of how Rocky does against a big powerful , skilled,and most importantly young heavyweight challenger.
An emphatic win over him might have possibly enhanced Marciano's standing today, given the size of the heavyweight division in the last few decades and the absence of such a big,young class man on his resume as it stands.

To add.

Valdes best spell occurred between his 30th and 32nd birthdays.That makes him significantly younger than both Walcott and Moore, andyounger than Charles was in both Marciano fights.Those were Marciano's 3 best challengers.

 

If Valdez had knocked out Charles or outpointing him twice you could say Rocky ducked him but this is not the case. Ezzard dropped one decision to a nobody, couldn't get a rematch and went on to better things.

If Ocasio beat jimmy young only one time and refused to rematch him Young (if he put wins together like Charles did) probably would have gotten the shot at Holmes instead if Ocasio. And nobody would care.

Marciano beating valdes would be right up there with the Cokkell fight. Nobody would look back on it as a fight that proved anything. Old Joe Louis was better and as big. Valdes wasn't even young.

 

How much say did Marciano have in choosing his opponents


In today's boxing the phrase to much risk for not enough gain is used to explain why fighters sometimes don't fight certain fighters . Could it of been that Marciano fighting Charles instead of Valdez simply made economic sense

 

I have seen Valdez vs Satterfield, and to be honest Valdez is a bit apprehensive of slugging it out or using his size. Charles vs Marciano 1 was war! Based on that Charles deserved a re-match. I would however would have like to have seen Valdez get a shot over ****ell.

Not facing the #1 contender is a minor hole in Rocky's resume for sure, but Rocky pretty much fought the best out there, and perhaps was the first heavyweight champion to completely ignore the color line.