willie pastrano v nino valdes circa 1955-59'

"5 foot 9"

Suzie-you have a tendency to take a point with an element of truth in it and exaggerate it until it loses all effectiveness with an informed reader.

There might be some question about Pastrano's real height, as there seems to be with almost every fighter,

but the Boxing Register lists him as 5' 11 3/4"

not 5' 9"

Pastrano, of course, is much shorter and smaller with a far shorter reach than Valdes, and certainly this might swing a fight between the two,

but, if this listed height is correct, he was as tall or taller than Moore, Johnson, and Satterfield,

and on film he appears to me to be noticeably taller than the 5' 10" Johnson when they are standing side by side.

*Did Pastrano ever defeat a 6' 3" guy? With a huge punch?

Yeah, Holman, who I think might have had a bigger punch than Valdes.

**This did he defeat a 6' 3" guy who weighs 215 and has a punch, etc. argument is always true until the match is made. It was equally true of Harold Johnson and Bob Satterfield prior to their fighting Valdes, but both beat him easily.

 

"Why are you defending Pastrano here?"

Because I don't like to see fighters trashed.

"midget"

As I posted above, this to me is a ridiculous argument. Pastrano was as tall, or perhaps even taller, and about the same weight in shape, as Satterfield or Johnson.

"feather-fisted"

A better argument. It certainly is a valid point that Pastrano might not have had the fire power to keep Valdes honest. But the Holman fight undercuts this quite a bit. If Pastrano could defeat Holman, it is certainly within reason that he could defeat the somewhat better, but certainly similar, Valdes.

And to an honest observer, the wild card is that none of Valdes' opponents had the lateral movement that Pastrano brought to the table.

 

Holman was the NBA's top challenger in April of 1956. He fought Pastrano in February of 1957. In between he lost decisions to Bob Baker and Eddie Machen.

By the way, are you certain he was not still rated by the NBA?

The NBA seem to have rated Holman higher than The Ring. Nat Fleischer had a thing for clever boxers and sometimes undervalued the big punchers.

 

You are arguing both sides of the street with this age thing.

You keep referring to a "prime Moore" but Moore was older even in 1953 than Harold Johnson was in 1963. And Moore was quite a bit older in 1955.

And what about Johnson.

From 1950 to 1955 when he was younger, Johnson went 22-7.

Throwing out the bizarre Mederos fight brings his record to 22-6.

It is fair to point out that four of these losses were to Moore and Walcott, better men than he fought in the sixties,

but he also had losses to the erratic Satterfield by decision and to the good but not outstanding Billy Smith by KO.

According to the Boxing Register, he was 9-6 during this five year span against rated opposition--9-2 if we discount Walcott and Moore.

From 1956 on Johnson went on a 19 bout winning streak, the longest of his career after his initial 24 bout winning streak at the beginning of his career. Again according to the Boxing Register, he was 8-0 against rated fighters, with 5 of his victories coming in 1961 and 1962, including a win over Eddie Machen, a one-sided win over Doug Jones (next perhaps to the Charles fight, his most impressive filmed performance) and a solid win at his opponent's home ground over Gustav Scholz. He followed the loss to Pastrano with wins over Henry Hank and Hank Casey.

So Johnson was 21-1 from 1956 to 1964 (and at least 9-1 against rated opposition-bizarrely, the Boxing Register doesn't count Jesse Bowdry whom Johnson beat in an elimination for the NBA crown as a rated fighter. He had to be rated by the NBA)

And Johnson continued to win up to 1968, with only one loss to Johnny Persol. Overall, he was 26-2 from 1956 through 1968.

Bottom line--what is the evidence Johnson had gone back?

 

Ok, Boxrec lists Pastrano's height as 5'10", which is what I think he looks on film. His reach is listed as 72", 7" shorter than Valdes.

Styles Styles

Valdes had those advantages you listed, and is known for being a good jabber who mauls in close. Pastrano has never faced a long world class 79" jab before, and he doesn't have any punching power so he won't be able to keep Valdes from mauling in him close. Valdes mauled an all time great heavyweight in ezzard charles, he had no trouble closing the gap on a brilliant boxer like charles.

Harris landed his jab all night on Pastrano, Valdes' jab is longer, more powerful, and I think better. Erskine was outboxing Pastrano easily.


Years after the wonderful fencing duel between Erskine and Pastrano, Angelo Dundee acknowledged Erskine as a master of his trade. Dundee had been confident that his man Willie could come back from England with a nice little win on his ledger. “No excuses,” Angelo said. “No cop-outs. Erskine was brilliant and the better man on the night. I was surprised at his skill. If he had only been a bigger man, and if he could have developed a heavier punch, he would have been a world beater. As it was, he beat Pastrano and a lot of other good fighters. Willie and I left England knowing we had to re-think our plans for the future.”


Dundee is pretty much admitting it here that both Erskine and Pastrano were small skilled guys who couldn't compete with the big men because they couldn't punch hard enough.


Again, I think this is important. Dundee is admitting Erskine had the better skills than Pastrano. But Erskine got killed in Valdes by 1 because he couldnt punch hard enough to keep Valdes off of him.

What makes you think Pastrano has enough power to keep Valdes off of him?


Lastly, how do you explain Pastrano suffering so many losses in his prime to average heavyweights?

Who beat Valdes in his prime other than world class heavyweights? Perhaps 1, Billy Gilliam. Pastrano lost to several average heavyweights harris, london, johnson, calderwood, bowdry, erskine

But again, Valdes proved himself a clear cut better heavyweight than Holman, and beat Holman pretty easily when Valdes was over the hill. I think a prime Nino Valdes is a big step up from John Holman. Maybe not in punching power, but in SKILLS, LEFT JAB, ABILITY. If holman didn't knock you out, he wasn't going to beat you. Valdes is different, he has a world class jab 79"(which Holman lacked), and Valdes has shown on his resume the ability to outpoint world class hall of fame heavyweights.

Valdes does not need a knockout to beat pastrano, he can outpoint him as well. This is a key element that Holman did not have in his fight with Pastrano. Valdes is a good boxer, a much more well rounded fighter than Holman.


Holman was also unrated when Pastrano defeated him. Valdes was # 1 in the world when he beat Ezzard Charles in 1953.

Well who do you pick 1957 Pastrano vs 1954 Nino Valdes?


I am interested on your opinion on if you think Pastrano deserved those top 5 ratings in the heavyweight division 4 years in a row 55-58 by ring magazine

You tell me if his heavyweight resume warranted that high of a ranking? Beating a washed up Rex Layne in 1955 elevated him to top 5?

I am talking about beating a 6 foot 3 215lb guy with a punch who had world class skills as well!

Except Johnson and Satterfield both could punch hard(Pastrano could not punch) and both proved they could defeat the very best world class heavyweights. Pastrano did not. Pastrano did a lot worse in the heavyweight division than those guys. He lost to average heavyweights several times in his prime.


Styles Styles, Pastrano had no firepower to keep Valdes off of him.

Which is countered by Valdes good powerful left jab of 79". Pastrano tries to run away, Valdes will pile up points with his jab, which pastrano won't be able to deal with. Once Valdes gets inside, he will maul pastrano to death


If Valdes could figure out a way to beat a clever much better boxer in Ezzard Charles, why couldn't he figure out a way to beat Pastrano?

He definitely does not have the firepower to keep Valdes honest. Again, Holman was not on Valdes skill level. Valdes had much better skills and a left jab to go along with his power. He also beat John Holman quite easily. Him defeating Holman does not prove he can handle a 6'3 215lb puncher with a good left jab and good boxing skills who had a much more proven heavyweight resume.

If you are going to give Pastrano this much credit for beating Holman, than be sure to give Cleveland Williams plenty of credit too for knocking out Holman when Chokelab trashes that victory.

I don't know about NBA. I am talking about Ring Magazine.


Again, look at the Erskine-Pastrano fight.


“It was the finest exhibition of classic boxing I have ever seen. They tricked and slipped and feinted each other all night long. They baited each other with all manner of subtle shifts and manoeuvres. It was a master class in boxing at its best and you didn’t want it to end. It was televised at the time and I don’t know whether it is still available or lost in the archives. But it would serve as an excellent training film for any young professional.”


Here they are talking about how much great feinting, MOVING, and skipping erskine did. Seems Erskine had a very similar style of Pastrano, except he was better! Did Valdes have trouble with Erskine's movement, slickness? That same "Slick" erskine got destroyed by Valdes in 1. Valdes had no problem walking Erskine down and knocking him out. Pastrano with no power seems be walking on the same path of destruction as erskine was.

Valdes fought a prime archie moore in 1955. He closed Archies Eye, the fight was dead even going into round 15. He almost beat Moore. If he could do that well against Moore, why can't he do better vs the far inferior Pastrano?

If he could beat Ezzard Charles, who is far better than Pastrano, why can't he have an easier time with Willie?


You neglect the Roy Harris styles matchup. Harris is a standup boxer, who jabs. Valdes stands taller than Harris and also jabs. He hits much harder than Harris and is bigger. What does Harris bring to the table vs Pastrano that Valdes didn't?

 

Nice Stats,

My eyes show me his reflexes, speed were better sharper in 53 vs Charles and 54 vs Moore than in 1963. It's a good win for Pastrano, Johnson aged well but again I had Johnson winning the fight 9 rounds to 6. The decision was controversial. Valdes beat Ezzard Charles in 1953, a more impressive win, and there was no doubt about who won that fight.


Archie Moore was far better in 1953 and 1955 than he was in 1962 at a fat 203lb when he fought pastrano. Do we agree here?


How do you think Pastrano would have done vs the 1953 and 1955 Archie Moore?

 

"For Willie Pastrano, the defeat was a psychological blow which continued to nag at him on his return home. He entertained serious thoughts of quitting the game and pursuing less rigorous pleasures. Angelo Dundee had other ideas. Joe Erskine’s lack of size and a commanding punch kept coming back into Angelo’s mind. Pastrano was no less handicapped and he was hardly likely to win the world heavyweight championship. "

Interesting Dundee himself thought Pastranos PUNCH kept him from becoming a world class heavyweight. He said it was the reason a better slicker Erskine couldn't make a dent. So what makes you think Pastrano had the punch to keep Valdes off of him?



Interesting, Pastrano saying he wants no part of sonny liston. hope chokelab reads that.

 

I agree that Charles was a bigger scalp than any Pastrano had,

but Johnson was a much better fighter than Valdes, beat Charles a month after Valdes did in a fight Charles was definitely not taking lightly and looking past, also beat Moore once, and lost to Pastrano in a championship match.

How would Pastrano do in 1953 and 1955 versus Moore. (I assume you mean a mature Pastrano, not a 17 & 19 year old)--He would have lost, as did Valdes. I am not at all certain his dancing style and fast jab wouldn't have given Archie some problems, if much different ones than Valdes did. Archie had more trouble with the small Johnson than he did, as far as I can tell, with Valdes.

Johnson looked great to me against Doug Jones in 1962. Jones was quick enough to bother Ali in 1963. Pastrano was clearly quicker than Johnson, and by extension Jones. I didn't notice Johnson having gone back at all, myself,

and scored the fight 8-6-1 for Pastrano.

 

"here they are talking about the feinting, moving, and skipping Erskine did"

Too bad this doesn't show on the films which survive of Erskine. He looks very ordinary. Johansson has no trouble plodding flat-footed right up to him and can't seem to miss him with his jab. And I don't think of Johansson as a jabber. Erskine was also clearly out of his depth against Cooper by the time they were filmed in, I think 1959 and 1962, but Cooper was a fine boxer with a great left and might also have been able to outbox Pastrano.

Bottom line--off his filmed performances, I can't even imagine Erskine beating Harold Johnson who was generally beating much better fighters easily.

So why did he beat Pastrano? I don't really know without a film, but Pastrano had suddenly gone into a three bout losing streak. The Erskine debacle was sandwiched between losses to London, whom Pastrano had earlier beaten, and Alonzo Johnson, whom he would beat later.

Pastrano was a playboy and not always into his fights. Lack of focus and poor training could explain his down periods, but all this is speculation.

One big difference between Pastrano and Erskine was chin. Erskine was stopped frequently. Pastrano lost on cuts to London, and I don't know much about that fight, and retired in his last fight apparently with a body injury. He was only down once in his career and was never counted out. John Holman broke his nose in the first round with a left hook and Pastrano fought on for ten rounds to win an easy decision.

 

I might be missing something, but where is Liston mentioned.

What seems to be said is that if you can't handle the second-rate Erskine, it is time to reconsider. Also, as speed and stamina was key to Pastrano, he was better when lighter. Alonzo Johnson was quoted to that effect after Pastrano beat him in their rematch when at a much lighter weight than he was in their first fight.

As for Dundee's quote in an earlier post--it would be rather ungracious and ungentlemanly to visit a foreign country and say something along the lines of "your fellow only beat my fellow because my fellow was partying and out of shape and off his game." Guys of Dundee's generation wouldn't have talked like that.

 

Edward

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_Pastrano.htm

" I boxed heavyweights for four years until I realized sonny Liston wasn't my cup of tea"- willie Pastrano


I think you and I can agree on one thing. Pastrano would have to be in great motivated shape to beat or even compete with Valdes, and willie did not come in shape too often. Do we agree here?

The Pastrano who lost to erskine Harris Johnson would not beat Valdes

 

I had never seen the Liston quote. Okay.

I certainly agree that Pastrano has to be in top shape and focused.

I'm assuming he would take Valdes very seriously, as he did Harold Johnson and John Holman.

I don't think Harris was as bad as you make out. He beat Baker in 1957 and Charlie Powell in 1959 in the fight directly after Powell had knocked out the then #2 rated Valdes.

Powell was every bit as big and athletic as Valdes or Baker or Williams, although not over his career as good a fighter. But who would have been certain of that in early 1959?

Harris getting KO'd by Liston is not that big an embarrassment. He kept getting up and lasted longer than Floyd Patterson was able to in two fights, or that the very tough Wayne Bethea was able to.

 

Edward

Read this

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=HVYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5004,4699298&hl=en

Valdes manager says Cus avoids punchers, says Cooper and London lasted only one day trying to spar with Valdes. Said Johansson manager pulled out of Valdes fight because he wasn't ready for Nino