Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

You're a man who lives and dies by the telling of ring magazine ratings. Does a man who appears as #1 in these ratings for two strait years, briefly broken by pockets of months where he was perhaps around #2 not qualify?

 

Fair enough.

I think you're dismissing the Jones fight too easily. Yes Lastarza reversed it, but getting beaten by a complete journeyman just three fights before challenging for the title doesn't look good. And as I've mentioned before, the rex Layne fight ( which is what secured Lastarza's shot ) was deemed by many as a robbery.. Why wasn't lastarza forced to give him a rematch? Why was Valdez's arm twisted to rematch Charles?

SuzieQ

I know and agree.

I have never made this claim... However the fact that charles got not one but TWO fights with Marciano while the man who defeated him never even got ONE, doesn't sit well with me.. But no argument from me on weather or not Charles was the better man.

Agreed, but retrospect doesn't free up a champion of what his obligation was at the time.

 

after losing 4 in a row to Harold Johnson pretty wide and then Bob Baker and Billy Gilliam and Archie Moore, I think it is agreed Valdes had to dig himself out of a whole in 1953 and he did garnish a win over Ezzard Charles but he had a controversial win over Archie McBride in Havana and most felt he lost ...while Archie not rated because he was light heavyweight champ still deserved the shot, Archie Ko'd Harold Johnson and Bob Baker (who Beat Valdes) In the meantime Charles beat Gilliam (who beat Valdes)

so while Valdes turned down an elimination with Charles and Satterfield filled in Valdes agreed to an elimination with Moore and lost for a 2nd time

Then Valdes lost again in an elimination to Satterfield

and while Kocell was less deserving than Moore or Valdes, we all know that fight was for the nose testing after the split in the Ezz fight with the winner of Moore-Valdes to have a title shot secured

 

His prestige dimmed by a lacklustre victory over James J. Parker, big Nino Valdes of Cuba today planned a European invasion to bolster his chances for a September title shot at heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano. The two 6'3" heavyweight's were expected to put on a punching bee but later the customers booed and stamped their feet. There wasn't anything resembling a knockout even though Parker came into the ring with 22 kayo scalps and Nino with 20 KOs to his credit." -Associated Press

• Unofficial AP scorecard - 7-3 Valdes
• NYSAC Chairman Bob Christenberry stated after the fight that he would be returning the $5,000 bond - which Valdes posted three weeks earlier as a challenge to Rocky Marciano's title - due to Valdes' poor showing.

Post fight comment

• "Off last night's fight we can't consider him (Valdes) a worthy challenger. But things can change by the time Marciano meets Ezzard Charles in June." -NYSAC Chairman Bob Christenberry

 

Clutching at straws to criticize Marciano for missing the Valdez fight.

 

Magoo,

I never said Valdes didn't deserve a title shot. My case is he did not deserve it over Ezzard Charles, but he did deserve it over don ****ell. However, Marcianos management had arranged for Marciano-Valdes to take place after ****ell. So Valdes was destined to get his shot, he wasn't being shunned by the Marciano camp.


Magoo,

Charles got a rematch because the first fight was one of the most grueling, classic battles in ring history. It was a close fight, and the rematch was a huge draw, it would bring the biggest gate in by far. The plan wasn't for Charles to automatically get 2 shots, charles earned his 2nd shot with that fantastic display in the first fight.

 

Wow thinking about how ezazard charles was able to keep such rating being a former middleweight is amazing

 

Would you describe Valdes as big, powerful, skillful(?), and young?

 

nice article on valdes-charles 1953

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...RzczAAAAIBAJ&sjid=juoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3014,765680

 

Magoo,

Correction.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...3TwvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Md4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=7314,137040

Valdes did not claim the # 1 spot in Ring Magazine until Dec 1 of 1953. That means he was # 1 contender by Ring Magazine for a period of 10 months. Not 13.

 

Because Marciano didnt fight a big young skilled [yes good jab, decent defence,]puncher there is a question mark over his ability to handle such a man
.As his best opponents were older men,[ and I believe them to be past prime whatever their performances against him may have been] it is natural that one would like to see how he would have handled a younger fresher challengerThis doesnt mean he wouldn't do well against him it's just an unanswered question,similar to Jeffries major victories imo.

Rocky kos Valdes imo, but because he didn't meet him, whatever the rights and wrongs of that may have been, we cannot be certain of that.

Possibly Valdes would box conservatively in the face of Marciano's measured agression and lose a points decision, maybe a narrow one, this could have an impact on how he is perceived today.
It's unfortunately all supposition because it didn't happen.

Peace indeed.:hi:

 

This does not tell the full story. I suppose you want to know why Marciano did not fight Nino in 1953 and 1954?

1953 Rocky could only fight twice because of tax and the outdoor season. He was contracted to rematch Walcott. Then the fight everyone wanted to see (more than Rocky v Nino) was a voluntary defence against Lastarza.

1954 Rocky waged war with the next best heavyweight in the world Ezzard Charles. Ezzard was active, proven, in form, a former world champion who had argued he'd won the last Walcott fight and was knocking out Rockys contenders left right and centre.

So that leaves 1955 where the authorities tried to get Nino a shot but he blew both fights.

Again, Nino outpointing Charles as an unknown was seen as a blip on Charles's busy schedule. He was prone to drop a decision when he fought so often. Charles sought a rematch, didn't get one, then went on to continue beating better men than Nino and over shadow him as a contender in 1954.

 

Joe Louis's autobiography does not list this exhibition ,and I argued with Choklab that it didn't happen . After he produced proof that it did,and also after being accused by him of refusing to admit I was wrong ,[which has never been a problem for me],I posted a public thread entitled," I Got It Wrong",holding up my hands to my mistake. Choklab has never commented on that.
Sorry to interject on your thread but I wanted that out there,and when I made the thread dealing with it it was incorporated in another.

Back to the thread, Louis stopping Valdes in a round is indeed impressive especially as he was past prime,then again, I think it could be argued Valdes was not at his best yet.Still a fine result!

 

And he lost it quickly after that, perhaps do to the poor showings against McBride and Parker, while Charles had the great performances against Wallace and Satterfield.

Valdez didn't reclaim the #1 spot until after the second Marcinao fight. So just using the annual ratings, it looks Valdez was sitting on the #1 spot for a year when he did not.

There was a thread where me and someone else broke down the monthly ratings going into these fights and Charles was #1 when Rocky fought him both times.

If Rocky was more active, Valdez would have got his shot. But as pointed out, Marciano was a stadium draw as CHampion and only fought twice a year in warm weather. He failed to impress at the right times. And letting Satterfield take his place in the eliminator was just stupid.