Rocky Marciano ~ December 1954 'Ready to Fight Nino Valdes'

[Crease]

Just because you are bringing Jimmy Young in to the conversation doesn't prove anything. Young and Valdes are different fighters who fought in different eras.

I can't just throw up an upset like Rahman beating Lewis as proof that Martin Rogan would beat Wlad Klitschsko - it's just not credible. And frankly it doesn't make sense.

[Dubblechin]

Let's face it. Rocky was pretty much Weill's stooge. That creep treated the Rock like a dim-witted gofer, even slapping his face once in public for some imagined transgression. Marciano would have fought Godzilla if Weill told him to. Weill for devious reasons of his own twisted mind, did not want anything to do with Valdes. If he had wanted Marciano to defend against Valdes, Rocky would've fought him. End of story.

Would Rocky have whipped Valdes? Probably, but who knows for sure? That's what makes boxing so gaddam interesting. You just never know. Maybe George Molina would've devised a strategy to beat the Rock using Valdes' long left. Jab, Jab, Jab, Clinch. Laying his greater weight over Marciano's back and up against the ropes to tire him out. Or maybe Valdes lands one lucky punch [followed by an elbow] that splits Marciano's forehead so bad the nancy referee stops the fight. You just never know.

Thank you, fellow troll.

[Dubblechin]

Just because you are bringing Jimmy Young in to the conversation doesn't prove anything. Young and Valdes are different fighters who fought in different eras.

I can't just throw up an upset like Rahman beating Lewis as proof that Martin Rogan would beat Wlad Klitschsko - it's just not credible. And frankly it doesn't make sense.

First, I never said Valdes would beat Marciano. I said Marciano should've fought him but Weill didn't want that fight and blocked it repeatedly until Valdes lost.

And I missed when Martin Rogan beat the number-two contender to Wlad's title ...
And then Emanuel Steward demanded Rogan fight a handful of top 10 contenders ...
And Rogan beat them ...
And then Rogan was asked to fight an eliminator ... and Martin knocked the guy out in two ...
And then Rogan became the #1 contender ... and Steward said he still had to fight another eliminator ...
And then Steward scheduled the final eliminator off television in a desolate location with one judge who reffed previous Rogan fights and said he didn't like him or his style ...
And then that judge scored the eliminator for Rogan's opponent in a close fight ... that no one but the people in the arena saw ...
Thereby preventing Martin from fighting for the title.

When was that? Somehow I missed it.

Because if that's what happened, it sounds a lot like the Valdes situation. And Rogan got screwed, too.

[Crease]

Also, when you get another half hour to kill, Valdes beat a lot more guys who were ranked at heavyweight than that.
*Heinz Neuhaus
*Karel Sys
*Pat McMurtry
*Brian London
*Joe Erskine
*Mike DeJohn
*Johnny Summerlin

But that doesn't help your argument, does it? Better leave those names off.

Are you really going to put those guys in the "World Title Contender" bracket? You can't just start naming a lesser class of opposition and then trying to palm them off as significant movers of the Dvision at that time... They weren't.

Believe me I know. I've researched the 1950s Heavyweight Division for years.

[Dubblechin]

Also, when you get another half hour to kill, Valdes beat a lot more guys who were ranked at heavyweight than that.
*Heinz Neuhaus
*Karel Sys
*Pat McMurtry
*Brian London
*Joe Erskine
*Mike DeJohn
*Johnny Summerlin

But that doesn't help your argument, does it? Better leave those names off.

Are you really going to put those guys in the "World Title Contender" bracket? You can't just start naming a lesser class of opposition and then trying to palm them off as significant movers of the Dvision at that time... They weren't.

Believe me I know. I've researched the 1950s Heavyweight Division for years.

Pass them off. They were all top-10 ranked at heavyweight in the 50s. That was your criteria, right? Oh, I left off Wayne Bethea.

*Heinz Neuhaus
*Karel Sys
*Pat McMurtry
*Brian London
*Joe Erskine
*Mike DeJohn
*Johnny Summerlin
* Wayne Bethea

[Crease]

Dubblechin, Valdes had his big chance in 1955, he really did. That fight against Archie Moore was make or break for him and he failed.

I don't know why you are trying to keep up this one man crusade of yours...

Valdes had a terrible habit of losing against lesser fighters, check his record and you'll notice it. At least Cockell was doing exceptionally well when he got his shot against The Rock.

Listen, with respect - I'm really struggling with your point of view on this. I'm sure other posters could make even more compelling arguments regarding Baker or Satterfield. And yet, Valdes has become this standard which all Marciano-doubters can rally around.

[Crease]

Pass them off. They were all top-10 ranked at heavyweight in the 50s. That was your criteria, right? Oh, I left off Wayne Bethea.

*Heinz Neuhaus
*Karel Sys
*Pat McMurtry
*Brian London
*Joe Erskine
*Mike DeJohn
*Johnny Summerlin
* Wayne Bethea

You do realise that in the top 10 - you can only name 10 fighters... Those guys weren't the cream of the crop and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

[Crease]

Okay, this is open for debate but I'll throw down a list of 10 Heavyweight fighters from the 1950s: (I'll focus in from 1950-55 and I'll exclude Marciano)

Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles
Bob Baker
Bob Satterfield
Don Cockell
Rex Layne
Hurricane Jackson
Clarence Henry
Roland LaStarza
Kid Matthews

[Dubblechin]

Dubblechin, Valdes had his big chance in 1955, he really did. That fight against Archie Moore was make or break for him and he failed.

Listen, with respect - I'm really struggling with your point of view on this. I'm sure other posters could make even more compelling arguments regarding Baker or Satterfield. And yet, Valdes has become this standard which all Marciano-doubters can rally around.

More compelling arguments for Baker and Satterfield?

When were Bob Satterfield and Bob Baker the number-one contenders for Marciano's title?

And when did the IBC President Jim Norris publicly state he wanted Marciano to fight them, and when did Al Weill block their title shots by insisting they fight a couple eliminators first - even though they were already number-one?

I'm not a "Marciano doubter" or a "Marciano hater."

My point is the IBC was a dirty organization. Carbo, Gibson, Palermo were all convicted of federal crimes. (Jim Norris only avoided prosecution by using his influence). Al Weill was this collection of criminals' matchmaker ... in addition to being Marciano's manager. And the trials of those guys showed you could just as easily fix a fight through proper matchmaking as you could by paying off one of the participants.

In an era when there were fights on national television four nights a week, in major cities all over the U.S., how the hell did Moore-Valdes ... a heavyweight eliminator featuring the #1 heavyweight contender and the light heavyweight champion of the world ... end up off-television, in minor-league ballpark ... in the freaking desert (when all Vegas had were a half-dozen hotels on a single strip of road ran by the freaking MAFIA) ... with the referee (who didn't like Valdes) serving as the sole judge?

You're in the middle of a desert, the only hotels in town are run by the mob, and the mob staged the fight. Is everyone on the same page?

I keep repeating that but if you are going to fix a fight in favor of one guy, Al Weill couldn't have down a better job of making sure nothing favored Valdes.

We see bad decisions in boxing every week.

But people bring up the Moore-Valdes fight, and everyone is outraged if you raise any questions... even though every effort was made to ensure people didn't see it and, within a couple years, just about everyone involved in making that fight (excluding the fighters themselves) were charged with conspiracy and extortion.

But don't question that result ... or you're a troll.

Take a step back and look at the situation, and that fight sticks out like a sore thumb.

In an era when every major fight was televised, they buried that one in the desert. I checked, there were NO major fights in Vegas in the years before that or that year. Just this one. And, that night, the Moore-Valdes fight wasn't televised (if Nevada even had the infrastructure or capability to broadcast it). Instead, the Virgil Akins fight from New York was the featured fight.

If you don't think that situation was ripe to manipulate, you've got your head buried in the sand.

That's all.

[Dubblechin]

Okay, this is open for debate but I'll throw down a list of 10 Heavyweight fighters from the 1950s: (I'll focus in from 1950-55 and I'll exclude Marciano)

Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles
Bob Baker
Bob Satterfield
Don Cockell
Rex Layne
Hurricane Jackson
Clarence Henry
Roland LaStarza
Kid Matthews

I have no idea what you're doing. First you listed some guys Valdes fought who were once ranked in the top 10, now you're making the BEST OF lists from that era. You're all over the place.

Valdes fought and beat a lot of top 10 guys. He earned the number one spot. He was ranked number one. I have no idea what ranking the 10 best heavyweights from 1950 to 1955 has to do with anything.

I'm going to go.

[Crease]

More compelling arguments for Baker and Satterfield? When were Bob Satterfield and Bob Baker the number-one contenders for Marciano's title?

Perhaps not...

But Nino NEVER beat either of them. Satterfield beat him in 1955 - and Baker beat him twice. How are you gonna argue that case against that?

I keep repeating that but if you are going to fix a fight in favor of one guy, Al Weill couldn't have down a better job of making sure nothing favored Valdes.

Oh right. So it's Weill's fault that Moore beat Valdes? Thanks for clearing that up, I'm sure that we all appreciate it.

But people bring up the Moore-Valdes fight, and everyone is outraged if you raise any questions...

Because you are attempting to rewrite Heavyweight history. You are insinuating that there has been corruption and suggesting that there has been some sort of conspiracy against Valdes.

You're clutching for straws that aren't there. You can expect people to get exasperated at some point.

Would you never consider the possibility that Vades kept losing fights and that's why he was never Heavyweight Champion.

[Crease]

Valdes fought and beat a lot of top 10 guys.

Nino Valdes - good wins:
Aug 1953: Defeated Ezzard Charles by UD.
Sep 1953: Defeated Doc Williams by UD.
July 1954: Defeated Hurricane Jackson by TKO 2.
Sep 1955: Defeated Don Cockell by TKO.

losses:
Nov 1952: lost to Harold Johnson by UD.
Mar 1953: lost to Archie Moore by UD.
May 1953: lost to Bob Baker by UD.
May 1955: lost to Archie Moore by Decision.
Aug 1955: lost to Bob Satterfield by UD.
Dec 1955: lost to Bob Baker by UD.
Apr 1956: lost to Eddie Machen by UD.
Jul 1956: lost to Eddie Machen by KO 8.
Sept 1956: lost to Zora Folley by UD.

So that's 4 wins to 9 losses.

[Crease]

I have no idea what you're doing. First you listed some guys Valdes fought who were once ranked in the top 10, now you're making the BEST OF lists from that era. You're all over the place.

Well quite frankly, you stated that a list of outside/fringe contenders were among the top 10 Heavyweight contenders of those years. And I've wrote down a list of 10 Heavyweights who would make a more plausible top 10 of the 1950-55 years.

You've been caught out, you've been exposed... The guys that you've brought up weren't top 10 guys!!!!!

But thanks for playing.



This is starting to get funny.

[Dubblechin]

I have no idea what you're doing. First you listed some guys Valdes fought who were once ranked in the top 10, now you're making the BEST OF lists from that era. You're all over the place.

Well quite frankly, you stated that a list of outside/fringe contenders were among the top 10 Heavyweight contenders of those years. And I've wrote down a list of 10 Heavyweights who would make a more plausible top 10 of the 1950-55 years.

You've been caught out, you've been exposed... The guys that you've brought up weren't top 10 guys!!!!!

But thanks for playing.



This is starting to get funny.

Who would be more plausible? I listed them because they were actually ranked in the top 10. Go to the Ring monthly ratings for those periods. Go to the New York Times site and search for yourself. Every newspaper the Times has ever published is online. In the 50s, they covered boxing daily.

You supposedly have been researching the 50's era for years, and you don't even know who the guys were who were ACTUALLY ranked in the top 10 from month to month/year to year?

You don't have to make a "plausible" list ... and you don't have to make anything up ... the actual rankings from that period are freaking everywhere ... read them for yourself.

Don't claim to be a historian if you aren't.

[Dubblechin]

You are insinuating that there has been corruption.

Um, there was so much corruption, the U.S. Senate investigated, there were criminal trials, the organization was dissolved, and many of the players went to prison.

The sport and that organization were corrupt to the very top. I'm just pointing out yet another episode in a decade-long list that people like to overlook.

Have a nice weekend.

[Crease]

Who would be more plausible?

Well, to settle this dispute I will make a thread with a poll and let the BoxRec public decide this matter.

I listed them because they were actually ranked in the top 10. Go to the Ring monthly ratings for those periods. Go to the New York Times site and search for yourself. Every newspaper the Times has ever published is online. In the 50s, they covered boxing daily.

Itt's always appreciated when you've got links to back you up... So let's see the evidence.

You supposedly have been researching the 50's era for years, and you don't even know who the guys were who were ACTUALLY ranked in the top 10 from month to month/year to year?
Don't claim to be a historian if you aren't.

I don't tend use the New York Times website as a regular resource of information. There is a multitude of boxing websites, fight reports which can be found from various search engines & word-of-mouth testimony... It means I don't have to rely on a single newspaper website.

I'll have to remember that - you're not a historian if you don't use the New York Times.

You don't have to make a "plausible" list ... and you don't have to make anything up ... the actual rankings from that period are freaking everywhere ... read them for yourself.

First off you haven't proved your list by evidence as of yet. And even then, it would only be a monthly ranking which can change every four weeks... Hardly indisputable evidence.

Looking at fighter's professional record indicates the quality of them. And Valdes found a way to lose 18 times.

Enjoy your weekend contemplating Nino's loses against shit fighters.

[dempseyfire]

Also, when you get another half hour to kill, Valdes beat a lot more guys who were ranked at heavyweight than that.
*Heinz Neuhaus
*Karel Sys
*Pat McMurtry
*Brian London
*Joe Erskine
*Mike DeJohn
*Johnny Summerlin

But that doesn't help your argument, does it? Better leave those names off.

Are you really going to put those guys in the "World Title Contender" bracket? You can't just start naming a lesser class of opposition and then trying to palm them off as significant movers of the Dvision at that time... They weren't.

Believe me I know. I've researched the 1950s Heavyweight Division for years.

Pass them off. They were all top-10 ranked at heavyweight in the 50s. That was your criteria, right? Oh, I left off Wayne Bethea.

*Heinz Neuhaus
*Karel Sys
*Pat McMurtry
*Brian London
*Joe Erskine
*Mike DeJohn
*Johnny Summerlin
* Wayne Bethea

A major problem is that all but two of the names on that list Valdes beat after Marciano had already retired. If you want to say Patterson should've fought him, we're now having a completely different argument

The best name on that list, Johnny Summerlin, fought Valdes practically paralyzed and retired after the fight: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 03,3789423|

[Cap]

Doublechin does make some valid points. Valdes does appear to have been frozen out. When you look at the criminal backgrounds of some of the key players back then, it sounds like Valdes wouldn't play ball. If he had knocked out Moore there's a good chance Weill would have told him to fight another eliminator. This is nothing against Marciano. He was surrounded by some very nasty people.

[Crease]

Doublechin does make some valid points. Valdes does appear to have been frozen out. When you look at the criminal backgrounds of some of the key players back then, it sounds like Valdes wouldn't play ball. If he had knocked out Moore there's a good chance Weill would have told him to fight another eliminator. This is nothing against Marciano. He was surrounded by some very nasty people.

Dubblechin's argument is made up of speculation and opinions backed up with a single newspaper clipping. Not to mention that as the conversation progresses he reverts to the same old, tired points. Repetition is his ally and a keen willingness to disregard the opinions of others without carefully examining what they are telling him.

He makes accusations of Al Weill and frequent makes forceful statements like:

The fact is Nino Valdes was the number-one contender. He had a ONE FOOT reach advantage over Marciano. (If Marciano beat guys with a greater reach advantage than that, please let me know.) And Valdes could bang.

Which suggest that Nino was some mythical power puncher with a long reach - when it is just not true.

His entire argument focuses on an exceptionally small margin of time December 1954-May 1955. Other posters have asked him and urged him to examine Valdes' whole career and realise the truth for what it is - Valdes just wasn't that good.

He doesn't want to accept this and instead would rather perpetuate this "Great Nino Valdes" myth that others have fueled before him. It just gets comical after a while.

Gentlemen, this is not a 100-0 fighter who was ducked. This is not a Mike Tyson-like figure who was the most feared man in the sport.

Obviously Rocky did not fight him, but he kept losing against good fighters and thus ruining his chance at a title shot.

I'll say one last thing, if Rocky hadn't of fought Archie Moore - today people would be accusing him of ducking The Old Mongoose.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 84,2686323

[Ezzard]

When I first became a boxing addict in about 1983 Marciano's reign was considered one of the best. Walcott was a top champion. Charles got himself up for one last great performance. Moore was a p4p great and legitimate HW #1 contender. LaStarza underrated.

Seems like Marciano gets overly criticised.

Valdes would have been a tough challenge but Marciano would have beaten him.

[Tuan_Jim]

Modern boxing fans who have grown up with Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos just cannot comprehend Rocky Marciano. Height, weight and bulging muscles influence all heavyweight thought. Skill to them is not the fluid movement & punch variety of Walcott, Moore or Charles. They've never seen such skill at heavyweight. Skill is a simple jab, jab, jab and leap backwards in a straight line at the first sign of danger.

In 50 years time, after a half-century of repetitious fencing exhibitions between giant musclebound Eurasians, new fans will deride 'midgets' like Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier. That Tyson even outgunned multiple 6'5'' heavyweights with his rare mix of speed, power and skill won't be enough. Ah, but those guys weren't 280lb and 66-0 like the great Maglabov Blivshenkov! They don't count!

[Cap]

Funny, watching the brief clips of Marciano vs Vingo, Carmine doen't seem to be towering over the Rock, and I've seen a photo of them shaking hands, and Carmine must be sitting down 'cause no way is he 6'4". D DD

[Crease]

When I first became a boxing addict in about 1983 Marciano's reign was considered one of the best. Walcott was a top champion. Charles got himself up for one last great performance. Moore was a p4p great and legitimate HW #1 contender. LaStarza underrated. Seems like Marciano gets overly criticised.

I think so too. I've said this repeatedly on this site over the years, but back in the '50s the Walcott/Charles/Louis triangle was considered the height of the sport. The fans loved having three great fighters competing against each other over the years. Particularly the Walcott vs Charles series of fights, which were occurring when Louis was trying to make a successful come back. The fans were made for it, they knew they were watching history in the making.

Imagine for a moment, in today's boxing - if Manny Pacquaio were to fight Floyd Mayweather three times in 15 months and that both fighters were considered the at the height of their game, it would be groundbreaking stuff. That's the sort of thing that Walcott vs Charles was.

The funny thing is that Marciano was considered a sideshow. An exciting fighter who was aggressive, who hit hard - but who had serious fundametnal flaws. No-one (except maybe Weill & Goldman) predicted that Rocky would go on become the Number One fighter in the Heavyweight Division. Even when he fought Joe Louis and knocked him out, it was disregarded by the boxing aristocracy that it was because Joe was "over the hill" and "he held on for too long" and that sort of thing. Rocky's win was devalued and discredited as soon as he beat Joe.

The point that I am making is - when Rocky was World Champion he HAD TO fight Charles & Walcott. Jersey Joe has a rematch clause in the event of him losing the title (although I've seen this being disputed) - so Rocky was committed to giving him the rematch. Then, he HAD TO fight Charles. Ezzard was still considered a top fighter, a high-profile name and a great fighter of his time. So they fought twice, and The Rock beat him.

Consider this - if Rocky had not fought Ezzard, it would be a glaring omission on his Heavyweight reign. His critics would say repeatedly that he deliberately ducked Charles and all the rest of it. And the same would undoubtedly have been said about Archie Moore if The Rock had of retired in the summer of '55.

And the sort of criticism that he would get would ne much, much more credible that this Nino Valdes myth that springs up around these parts from time to time.

[Crease]

Valdes would have been a tough challenge but Marciano would have beaten him.

What I find central to this Valdes myth is: Would he have beaten Rocky?

Undoubtedly this has to be a key issue here, although most of the advocates of this myth tend to shy away from this question and say that it is not relevant - because the issue is that Goldman steered Rocky away from Valdes and avoided him at all costs.

But for me, this question must be included in the conversation. And to their credit - most of these Vadles mythers actually believe that Marciano would have beaten him. Which I often find comically funny.

One last thing on the subject, I have heard posters say that Marciano avoided Valdes and choose an "easier" fight by taking the Archie Moore. And for me, that has to be the final straw in reducing their argument to absurdity.