Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Funny you mention Joe Louis. Joe Louis knocked out Nino Valdes in 1 round in 1950.

 

Yes.

Valdes was the # 1 rated heavyweight contender from

October 1953-March 1954. Then he got demoted to # 2 for the following reasons

1. Refused a title eliminator rematch with Ezzard Charles

2. Won a controversial split decision over Archie Mcbride in Valdes hometown in which most had him losing

After Charles second loss to Marciano, Valdes was promoted back to # 1 from Oct 1954-May 1955 until he lost to Archie Moore.

 

Good Discussion

 

Charles was ranked higher.

The champions obligation is to meet the most highly ranked contender.

If Marcaino had happened to wish to avoid Valdez, then his wishes would have conveniently coincided with his obligations.

No case to answer.

 

Suzie informed me that Valdez was the #1 contender from September of 1953 to March of 1954, then again from October of 1954 to May of 1955. That's a combined 13 months at #1 out of a two year period without a single loss during that time frame and a win over Charles who ultimately got the shot over him.. Granted there were other factors as Q pointed out like Valdez's controversial affair against Archie Moore and the refusal to rematch Charles. But saying that the champ had no obligation to fight him is cutting it close. That was a fairly solid contender who lingered around near the top for a while during an era where competition was sparse.

 

"None of your speculation is in my post."


Sorry.

I am getting old and in my mind might have merged your argument with the similar ones he grant was making, but in a much more heavy-handed manner.

I apologize.

* I was responding to the line about Moore and Walcott being younger. I apologize if I read you wrong, but have to admit I don't see the point of bringing up the relative ages of these fighters with Valdes, who was not as good even if he was younger. This seems to imply that beating a younger man is somehow more important than beating a better man, or that just being younger makes one man better than another.

"simplistic"

This was way too judgmental, and extreme. I edited it out.

"skilled"

Off my judgment of the films, Valdes was not more skillful than Louis, only younger.

Anyway, peace if I got your point wrong.

 

Valdez trumped by Charles, and later by Moore.

You have to look at when Marciano's fights were scheduled, and the rankings at the time.

Marciano has the highest average ranking in his opponents, of any heavyweight champion who had more than two defences!

If he was avoiding anybody, then he was the luckiest fighter in history!!

This content is protected

 

I think it reasonable to think Valdes should have gotten the shot over Don C. I find it a bit of a stretch to think he should have gotten the shot over Charles after avoiding an elimination match with Charles. His folks simply played it safe and chose to wait.

On the other hand, Don C as the British champion and the #2 contender did have a good claim to a title shot also and had actually been a contender in the heavyweight or light-heavyweight divisions longer than Valdes.

*I guess my bottom line is that I wish Marciano had defended against Valdes rather than Don C, but in a larger historical context I think it much more important he defended against Charles (and, of course, Moore)

 

Valdes had 2 losses to Moore and Moore KO'd Johnson (who beat Valdes) and while Archie was not rated at heavyweight he won the elimination with Valdes, Valdes refusing to rematch Charles in an eliminator and then Charles Koing Bob Satterfield and Coley Wallace ....Valdes had one more chance in an eliminator but lost badly to Satterfield in 1955

 

Valdez had won 11 strait fights between July of 1953 to January of 1955, including some pretty big names. He was ranked #1 for a good portion of that time. During that same time frame Marciano fought Charles twice who Valdez had just beaten along with Roland Lastarza and then in May fought Don ****ell at the same time Valdez was fighting Moore. I can understand some of the stipulations under which Valdez was demoted. But stripping him of his number one status for refusing to rematch a guy he had already beaten to get a title shot, while Marciano was taking on what were arguably lesser men or ones whom Valdez had already defeated is bit iffy to me.. sounds like a political situation.

 

I understand what you're saying Bummy and saw those results on boxrec myself as well as have been following the replies from other posters here.. But the man was ranked number one for a good portion of a two year period, was riding 11 strait wins against quality opposition, including Ezzard Charles who got two shots over him.. Forcing him to rematch a contender whom he had already vanquished to earn a title shot when he was already #1 sounds dicey to me. I don't think the politcal forces that be wanted the title around Valdez's waste. not that he would have taken it, but still.... Incidentally, how were the United States' relations with Cuba during the mid 50's?

 

I'm going to get to the point and shorten things here.. I think Nino Valdez was FORCED to jump through extra hoops that most other contenders in history didn't have to and was forced to for a reason that was in the champion's best interest. Not his.

 

While Archie was light heavyweight champion he still beat Valdes and Valdes conqueror Harold Johnson and KO'd Bob Baker a high ranking heavyweight. from the end of 1952 to his first 3 fights of 1953 Valdes lost to Billy Gilliam (who Charles beat, Harold Johnson(who Moore beat) Bob Baker (who Moore Ko'd) and Valdes lost to Archie.....Nino then had a good win but over Charles (refused rematch eliminator) but a disputed win over Archie McBride in Havana hurt his luster but still Nino was put into the eliminator with Moore and lost again so while Nino had a spell at the top Archie was not rated at heavyweight but was the logical guy and most deserving

 

I think Valdez deserved a title shot over Lastarza and ****ell who both got a crack at the title during the same time frame that Valdez was teetering back and forth between #1 and #2. And I certainly agree that fighting Charles was a more important challenge, but Ezzard got two title shots, when Valdez who beat him never even got 1. If we're honest, Greg Page didn't do as much to deserve a title fight with Holmes, yet Holmes had his title stripped.

 

Magoo,

Valdes WAS going to get his chance.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...pkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2WQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2984,2686323


The plan was for a 1955 bout with Valdes in Miami. Don ****ell was chosen first, Valdes second. Valdes was going to get his shot against Marciano. However Archie Moore ruined those plans by demanding a match against Marciano, setting up a huge title elimination bout with Valdes...winner guaranteed to get Marciano. Valdes lost.

One could say Valdes got screwed, since the less deserving ****ell got the title shot before Valdes. However, The most important point here is that Valdes WAS going to get his shot against Marciano. Valdes has no one to blame but himself. He blew his shot by losing to a 38 year old light-heavyweight. Bottom line.


As for Charles...He was a former champion, higher rated, a better fighter, and a bigger draw. Of course he got selected over Nino.