Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Because Charles was his #1 contender and Valdez was #2 when it was time for Marciano to pick an opponent for the outdoor stadium season.

Valdez was #1 when Maricano picked #2 ****ell for a comeback opponent to test out his surgically reparied face. The intention was to fight Valdez next but he lost to Moore in the eliminator.

You know all this, and no, its the not the same as Holmes refusing to fight Dokes becaues he was his "Stablemate", refusing to rematch Weaver because "fight him once, why fight him again!", and missing Thomas, Coetzee becaues there was more money on the table,..etc.

Marciano faced the RING #1 contender 5 times out of 6. Holmes never faced a RING #1. No basis for comparision. NONE.

Marciano and Louis faced their #1 contenders more than any other Champion in the modern era by a considerable margin.

 

No, you are mistaken. Valdes was safer than Charles. Nobody at the time thought valdes was a risk at all.

There is no shred of evidence that valdes represented a harder fight than Charles. Nothing. Johnson,Moore,Gilliam, McBride all beat valdes. Why not marciano?

Valdes needed to prove his decision over Charles was not a fluke. But he would not. And Charles' next wins over shadowed Nino completely.

 

Really, reading the articles at the time. Moore was considered the biggest threat to Marciano. And Rocky and his team were accused of ducking him more than anybody.

Sports illustrated in particualar championed Moore as the man to beat Marciano. When Rocky beat him, Sports Illustrated finally gave him credit as a great fighter after being highly critical of his reign.



Six months ago, when Al Weill was giving Archie Moore the usual brush and trying to decide which bum—Nino Valdes or Don Cockell—was the best meat for Rocky, Moore started talking up his rights again.

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/1955/09/05/667007/win-or-lose-archie-moores-publicity-campaign-for-the-title-fight-makes-him-the-sports-communications-champ[/url]



[url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rMaH5RsHSTIJ:sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1129641/index.htm+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us[/url]

Then it may be time for Archie Moore, who has stepped neatly into the Methuselah role, now that his fellow 20-year-man Jersey Joe has become a peaceful citizen in [url]Camden[/url]. Old Archie, pushing 40, ain't what he used to be. His legs were wobbling from plain tiredness in his spectacular title defense against [url]Harold Johnson[/url] last fall. He would have been all over an earnest, slow-moving fighter like [url]Nino Valdes[/url] a few years back. Just the same, he isn't hand-picked. In fact Archie Moore's life story can be summed up in half a dozen words: he's the antithesis of the hand-picked. Tough to fight and never much of a draw, this incredible old fistic-machine has been forced to wander all over the world to keep working at the trade he has mastered

 

"significantly younger than both Walcott and Moore"

That didn't help him defeat Moore. Moore also remained a ranked heavyweight contender, and the champion of his own division, years after Valdes was gone from boxing.

The world was full of guys younger than Walcott and Moore, as it in recent years has been full of guys younger than Wlad and Vitali, or earlier younger than Holyfield or Lewis. Doesn't make any of these young guys the best fighter in the world or even a particularly good fighter.

That a younger fighter is better than an older fighter or a big fighter is better automatically than a smaller fighter is, in my judgment, thinking which is disproven by history.

 

Marciano fought 5 #1 contenders and 1 number 2 contender. Moore beat Valdes 2 X so Moore was the logical contender even though he was still the light heavyweight champ. Marciano was the sole unified Champion

Holmes never unified and had ample opportunity against Tate,Weaver,Thomas,Dokes,Coetzee and Holmes never rematched a tough fight (that would be like Marciano never rematching Walcott & Charles & Lastarza) Holmes also gave up a belt not to fight Page....I think Larry knew there were some stylistic problems and I for one felt there may be a strong chance he would have lost to certain guys.

I dont blame Larry for all but Larry did have a habit of finding the weaker guys of the era or novice guys with 10,10,13,14,14,15,16, fights

In the case Of Leon Spinks Coetzee KO'd him in 1 and Larry fought him 2 years later. In the case of Snipes & King stealing the decision from Coetzee after being dropped 2X by Coetzee, Larry gave Snipes the title shot and almost paid for it....IMO if that right hand came from Coetzee Holmes may have not gotten up but we will never know

At least Dokes and Weaver and Tate fought the best and Dokes paid for it by getting Ko'd by Coetzee and Tate by fighting a renewed Weaver

Marciano and the Klitschko's could make many more title defenses fighting that way and avoided the # 1 guy and remember there was one set of ratings in Marciano's day not the W.B.C.,W.B.A. etc.


Marciano fought big guys on his way up but the better guys were the smaller men, 5"10 Satterfield KO'd 6"3 Cleveland Williams and 5"11 Moore KO'd 6"2 Bob Baker and beat the 6'3 Nino 2X, Satterfield then dominated Valdes and dropped him for a 9 count around the time of Moore-Marciano thus ruining Nino's cred for a title shot and Marciano's 50th win and 44th KO

I think the emphasis of the time was to fight the #1 contender and the best fighter, Marciano did this well and he was sole Champion......I can imagine what certain guys would be saying if Marciano fought Valdes instead of Moore (who beat Nino 2x )

 

"the worn down Charles"

"bigger, younger, stronger Valdez"

Then why didn't the Valdes camp simply take the Charles rematch with the winner to get Marciano. They refused that fight and so Satterfield was subbed.

 

"Charles lost to Valdez, lost to Johnson, was rocked by Satterfield"

Valdes did upset Charles with Charles probably looking ahead to the very tough upcoming fight with Johnson.

"lost to Johnson"

In a very close fight. Valdes also lost to Johnson but in a very one-sided fight.

"was rocked by Satterfield"

Before he knocked him cold. Satterfield seems an odd fighter to drag in as he was KO'd by Charles but dominated Valdes. Satterfield was only fighting Charles because Valdes refused an elimination fight.

 

"skilled"

Valdez wasn't particularly skilled. Not only little guys like Moore, Johnson, and Satterfield handled him, but the more skilled big fellow Bob Baker also handled him twice.

"ghost of Louis"

This ghost stopped Valdes in an exhibition in 1950. I think the ghostly Louis of 1951 still handles any version of Valdes. I don't dispute that Louis had slipped, but Valdes was simply so far below Louis in class that it wouldn't matter.

 

"plain and simple"

Not to me. It does seem plain and simple to me that if Valdes was the better fighter, he should have simply taken the elimination fight and eliminated Charles to get his shot at Marciano.

Archie Moore-

I think the fly in this ointment is that Moore proved better than Valdes, and also Johnson, Baker, and Satterfield, and Marciano defended against him.

 

*By the way, Weill lobbied for Baker in 1955--a man as big as Valdes who had defeated Valdes once and would again--over Moore.

Moore simply had all the credentials for a championship shot and the sporting press rallied strongly behind him.

 

Valdes was simply not so good that you could sell him as a championship contender.
Someone had to pay Marciano to get this fight going, but to make a profit would be impossible.
By the way Valdes was big and strong looking, but when he had to fight in the ring, he was below averadge.

 

Wasn't Validez ranked #1 for a time during Marciano's reign though?

 

None of your speculation is in my post:huh
I don't know why you would interpret it so? I just said if Marciano had fought Valdes it might have given us a yard stick as to how he would cope with a big skilled young heavyweight.And I emphatically reiterate that.

I picked Marciano to beat him and by ko.:huh

Do you think I started watching boxing this week?
Do me the courtesy of reading some of my earlier posts if you want to get an opinion of my ability to read a fight .
Simplistic my left bollock!

 

He wasn't a great fighter but neither was he below average ,to say so is just plain silly.

If he was below average, what does that say about the state of the heavyweight division during Marciano's reign?atsch

 

Charles was the # 1 contender. That is why he got the title shot against Marciano. Weill picked the higher rated, better opponent in Charles.