Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yes, he already beat some of them. However, it still would have been much more impressive if during a 22 month period of time, had he risked the title against them rather than fighting 2 stiffs.
Don't mean to slam him. Other champions certainly have done worse.
However, the fact remains that he could have had a much better title reign.
Realistically, how much better could Marciano's reign been?
Sure he could have fought Valdes, Johnson, Satterfield or several other guys.
However, pick 6 title defenses over a course of 3 years. How much better could it have been? Cockell is the only guy that doesn't really belong.
Would title defenses against Valdes, Satterfield, Johnson, Baker, Henry, etc. really been that much more impressive than Walcott, Charles 2x, LaStarza, Cockell, and Moore?
Of all of Marciano's title defenses, Cockell was not rated #1 as the others were. He was rated #2, as he was the British and Commonwealth champion. That he 'doesnt belong' sort of goes in the face of logic a bit considering he was rated rather highly. Then again, the diehard Marciano haters will argue that Weil had control of the IBC and had connections to MSG, etc. and that he picked and chosed who fought Marciano--- but the truth is the man with the most power in the IBC and MSG was Jim Norris. The fact that the Cockell fight wasnt held in MSG but rather in California, and against a fighter with no connection really to the IBC speaks more in volume to Marciano and Weil's credit than Norris's because The Rock was paid a huge amount of money for the Cockell fight (even though Weil stole a huge chunk of it). By the time Cus and Floyd came around, the IBC and MSG was well under investigation from the FBI and was on the ropes, and of course Cus made an exclusive deal where he single handedly put Jim Norris out of business because Cus then had all the power to say who would fight Patterson.
As for Valdes, Baker, Satterfield being 'superior' to the defenses of Charles, Walcott, Moore, I think if that was the case--- then those three men wouldnt of played 'musical chairs' so to speak trading wins and losses with everybody else in the division. They were young men, sure, but they just couldnt hold it altogether long enough to make themselves worthy of fighting for the title---- the fact that Marciano retired mainly because nobody could attract the money and attention that Moore, Charles, Walcott could just goes to solidify that fact. Earl Walls, was in truth the #1 contender when Marciano still held the crown, but he himself retired rather unexpectedly. There was just nobody really left of consequence. The big money came a couple of years after the fact, when Patterson was at his apex and Johansson came along, and rumors of comebacks started. But by then it was too late.
It doesn't p*ss me off. I think your ploy of trying to build up Frazier by tearing down anything about Marciano is quite laughable, but sadly predictable . . .
