willie pastrano v nino valdes circa 1955-59'

Holman was pretty far behind Valdes.

1. Valdes beat him easily
2. Valdes had a much better career than Holman
3. Holman was past his prime when he fought Pastrano

 

What's your explanation for Pastrano losing to Joe erskine whom Valdes flattened in one round?

This fight is taking place in 1955.

You keep bringing up miteff. Valdes was past his prime when he fought mitrfff, this should have no bearing on how a prime Valdes would do vs pastrano

Archie Moore was 45 years old, inactive, and had a tire around his midsection when he fought pastrano. He was so fat and lazy by that point that his title was stripped. Moore was not taking on the heavyweight divisions top contended anymore, he was feasting on journeyman level fighters. The 1955 archie moore was near his peak, he was a much better version. Valdes won 7 out of 15 rounds against archie Moore and nearly beat him. That's a far far better result than pastrano not being able to beat an obese 45 year old archie Moore. Do we agree?


Once again I had johnson beating pastrano 9 round to 6. I thought Johnsons speed and reflexes were worse in this fight than in 1953 when he fought Charles.

I rate Valdes win over charles a much better heavyweight win than anything pastrano has on his record.

Valdes destruction on hurricane Jacksom in 2 rounds was a better heavyweight result than anything on pastranos heavyweight record

Lastly this fight is taking place pitting pastrano at his best vs Valdes at his best. The Valdes who crushed ezzard Charles would destroy little willie pastrano.

 

Valdes was a potential world beater. Which is why Marcianos camp passed by Valdes to take on an easier opponent

Patrersobs camp completely ducked Valdes because they didn't want to throw Patterson in the ring with a big puncher who had 3 inch height 30lb weight advantage

 

Edward here is the bottom line


There is nothing in pastranos heavyweight record that even remotely suggests he could beat nino Valdes. He lost against 2nd rosters, average Europeans, and his management kept him clear of Young prime highly rated punchers.

There is plenty in Valdes record to suggest he could beat Pastrano...his domination of hall of fame heavyweight champion Ezzard Charles, his 2 round destruction of future number 1 heavyweight hurricane Jackson, his epic war with hall of fame fighter Archie Moore where he nearly defeated moore at his best, his knockout victories over top 10 heavyweights Summerlin, Erskine, Neuhaus, Carter, and decisions over Dejohn.

Valdes record at heavyweight Blows away pastranos. Not only did he fight much better competition at heavyweight, he almost beat much better heavyweights. Valdes in his prime never suffered embarrassing losses to 2nd rate heavyweights, and garbage Europeans like pastrano did

Stylistically, Valdes is 6 foot 3 215lb with a lot of punching power . Pastrano is 5 foot 9 180lb with no punching power. Whom do you make the favorite?

 

"Holman was past his prime when he fought Pastrano"

He fought Pastrano before he fought Valdes.

"Valdes beat him easily"

And Pastrano beat him also.

*I did come across a blog which had the NBA ratings, and Holman was their outstanding challenger in April, 1956, after a big KO of Bob Satterfield in early 1956. I think the equivalent of their #1 contender.

Holman was then beaten by Baker and Machen,

and then fought Pastrano. After the Pastrano fight he beat Ewart Potgeiter, before losing to Valdes.

Actually, I think Pastrano, Valdes, and later Cleveland Williams deserve strong credit for these victories. Holman was not losing to anyone but top contenders.

**As for your argument that Pastrano was protected, I don't see it. Holman was about as dangerous a puncher that was out there. McMurtry was unbeaten in 22 bouts with 18 knockouts. I can't see anyone assuming he couldn't punch.

 

McMurtry was knocked out in 1 round by Nino Valdes, dominated. The fight is on YouTube. To say McMurtry was outclassed is an understatement

So your pumping up McMurtry as a dangerous opponent yet facts show Valdes was a far better opponent.

McMutry was another of the long list of white hopes who overprotected well managed and steered of the dangerous top rated black heavyweights of the era .....like Harris erskine Pastrano etc until there manager decided to cash out on them

 

"Valdes' record at heavyweight blows away Pastrano's"

Yes. I agree.

But, Pastrano did defeat fighters who had wins over many of the top heavyweights of the era,

Walcott, Charles, Patterson, Moore, Machen, Valdes, Baker, Henry, Bivins, Satterfield, Ray, Thompson,

all lost to a fighter or fighters whom Pastrano defeated.

"Valdes never suffered embarrassing losses"

A valid point to a degree, but possibly true only because he got a hometown decision over Archie McBride in 1954.

And I don't exactly see why Pastrano's losses to London (on cuts) or Erskine are all that much more embarrassing than Valdes' losses to Bill Gilliam and Alex Miteff.

Truthfully, both men were erratic.

 

Ok again though, Holman lost to Valdes clearly and Valdes had a better career than Holman. So clearly there were big men out there who were a class above Holman like Valdes. Pastrano never fought a big man as good as Valdes. Valdes fought little men who were better than pastrano and he beat them

Holman while dangerous puncher did not have the skills or left jab of Valdes.

McMurtry I already explained was overhyped, you saw what Valdes did to him . It looked like a man against a boy.

I've asked you this 5 times, you keep avoiding it. What's your explanation for Valdes destroying joe Erskine in 1 round but Erskine beating pastrano?

How about pastrano getting stopped by Brian London, whom a washed up Valdes made quit in 7 rounds?

Why didn't pastrano ever fight the best heavyweights in the division like Patterson Johansson liston williams Machen Folley Valdes? These guys were the best head to head heavyweights of the late 50s early
60s


Your commending pastrano for taking on tough challenges like McMurtry and Holman? Both easy victims of Valdes.

What about the challenges Valdes took on? Prime archie Moore ezzard Charles prime harold Johnson Sonny liston zora Folley eddie Machen

 

Well

1. Common opponents. Those men Pastrano suffered embarrassing losses to erskine and London were men Valdes stopped inside the distance. Pastrano did not beat Gilliam or Miteff. By the way Valdes was not in his prime when he lost to miteff in my opinion.

Your argument is he beat fighters who beat those great fighters often well past there primes...well why didn't Pastrano beat those great fighters himself when they were in there prime?

Why didn't Pastrano ever test himself against the division's best fighters like Liston johannson Patterson Machen Folley Valdes Williams?

 

"Why didn't Pastrano beat those great fighters himself when they were in their prime?"

Because he was a boy then. He was 19 years old in 1955 when he beat Joey Maxim. He had just turned 20 when he beat Layne.

*I was wondering how many fighters in their teens defeated a former world champion who was still in the top ten? Can't be that many.

**It is interesting to me that you demand the fight be in 1955 when Valdes would be fighting a teenager who had been fighting at middle the year before. Seems to me that stacks the deck a bit. I would say the fight should have been held no earlier than 1957 when Pastrano was 21.

***common opponents--styles make fights. Erskine seems to have had a weak jaw which Valdes could exploit. Pastrano admittedly was not in any sense a puncher. But against all common opponents, Pastrano was 6-3-1 and Valdes 5-4.

 

I have something I have to do, but I'll be back tonight or tomorrow to continue the discussion.

 

Common opponents:

Valdes fought a prime Archie Moore twice in 1953 and 1955 which account for two of his losses. Would You would agree this version of Moore beats Pastrano without question? Pastrano fought a 45 year old Archie Moore

valdes fought a 25 year old Harold Johnson. Pastrano fought a 35 year ol Harold Johnson. Again age needs to be taken into context here

Valdes clearly had to fight the much better versions


Valdes other losse Alonzo Johnson occurred when Valdes was 34 years old and near retirement


All 3 of pastranos losses occurred when he was in his prime

 

No that is not concrete evidence at all

Valdes had to face prime versions of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson while Pastrano got to face 35-45 year old versions

The statistics are screwed for that reason


Valdes is a clear 3 to 1 favorite over Pastrano because of his size punching power and credentials