BoxRec

Archie Moore decisioned him. However Archie then went down to 175 to fight ex middleweight Bobo Olson, and on to fight Marciano from then.

An interesting note is that of Rockys 6 defences, 4 where against ex light heavyweight champions, Charles x 2 and Cockell, and Moore. Also rematches with Walcott and Roland La starza who also only weighed around 185.

Has any heavyweight champion since the war fought so many light heavies?

This is possibly one of the weakest eras in heavyweight boxing (apart from the present). Granted men were smaller then and the difference between heavyweight and light heavy was not nearly as pronounced as it is now The war had also played a part in reducing the talent pool.

Broomhall wrote:Archie Moore decisioned him. However Archie then went down to 175 to fight ex middleweight Bobo Olson, and on to fight Marciano from then.

An interesting note is that of Rockys 6 defences, 4 where against ex light heavyweight champions, Charles x 2 and Cockell, and Moore. Also rematches with Walcott and Roland La starza who also only weighed around 185.

Has any heavyweight champion since the war fought so many light heavies?

This is possibly one of the weakest eras in heavyweight boxing (apart from the present). Granted men were smaller then and the difference between heavyweight and light heavy was not nearly as pronounced as it is now The war had also played a part in reducing the talent pool.

Isn't as cut and dry as that--- Archie fought a rather large amount of heavyweights, good, bad, inbetween while campaigning as the Light Heavyweight champion. He also kayoed Bob Baker in one round--- the same Bob Baker who went the distance twice with Nino Valdes. Archie, in my mind, was quite possibly the best heavyweight around, despite being LHW champion as well. Archie had a tremendous resume--- but he knew, and would later admit, that Marciano was just too strong and powerful for him; which is amazing considering Valdes and Baker towered over Moore.

As for the Q "Has any heavyweight champion since the war fought so many light heavies?"

It's a rather interesting question you pose to ask, since we wouldn't see dinosaur sized heavyweights until the 2000's on a regular basis and the weight classes made formal changes--- when Roy Jones campaigned against Ruiz, the limit used to be 196+ was heavyweight. Now the limit is 211+, and 176-210 is considered Cruiserweight. Before all that, though, Cruiserweight was 176-195. The majority of heavyweight champions who came down the pipe--- up until the 2000's--- would be considered either light heavyweights or cruiserweights.

Joe Louis, who campaigned throughout the war, fought Billy Conn (2x's) as well as John Henry Lewis, James J. Braddock, Kingfish Levinsky, Ezzard Charles, and I am sure several others who were former light heavyweights. The same can be said of Jersey Joe Walcott, Marciano, and even Patterson. Muhammad Ali fought some light heavyweights, as did Frazier, Norton and Foreman. Division jumpers, and those who matured physically later in life--- abound in boxing and have been common place since time immemorial. So the argument of size, especially against Marciano, is rather illogical.

Broomhall wrote:Archie Moore decisioned him. However Archie then went down to 175 to fight ex middleweight Bobo Olson, and on to fight Marciano from then.

An interesting note is that of Rockys 6 defences, 4 where against ex light heavyweight champions, Charles x 2 and Cockell, and Moore. Also rematches with Walcott and Roland La starza who also only weighed around 185.

Has any heavyweight champion since the war fought so many light heavies?

This is possibly one of the weakest eras in heavyweight boxing (apart from the present). Granted men were smaller then and the difference between heavyweight and light heavy was not nearly as pronounced as it is now The war had also played a part in reducing the talent pool.

Correct on all points.

Broomhall wrote:Has any heavyweight champion since the war fought so many light heavies?

Heavyweight Champions of later eras also defended against Light Heavies & Cruisers. So there's nothing unusual about it, nor anything to devalue his legacy. Heavyweight Champions before Marciano defended against lighter weight champs and it's been going on since the days when Bob Fitzsimmons won the Heavyweight title.

To ignore the history of weight-jumping to fight for the Heavyweight title and just focus it on Marciano as a means to somehow slate The Rock is absurdly amusing.

Broomhall wrote:This is possibly one of the weakest eras in heavyweight boxing (apart from the present).

There's a strong case to say that this was one of the more stronger Heavyweight eras.

Crease wrote:

Broomhall wrote:Has any heavyweight champion since the war fought so many light heavies?

Heavyweight Champions of later eras also defended against Light Heavies & Cruisers. So there's nothing unusual about it, nor anything to devalue his legacy. Heavyweight Champions before Marciano defended against lighter weight champs and it's been going on since the days when Bob Fitzsimmons won the Heavyweight title.

To ignore the history of weight-jumping to fight for the Heavyweight title and just focus it on Marciano as a means to somehow slate The Rock is absurdly amusing.

Broomhall wrote:This is possibly one of the weakest eras in heavyweight boxing (apart from the present).

There's a strong case to say that this was one of the more stronger Heavyweight eras.

I wasnt slating anyone, just putting forward arguments for debate. As for Heavyweight champions post war defending against ex light heavyweight champions this happened pretty rarely and much less than happened in pre war eras. I cannot think of too many defences in which this happened-Bob Foster/Frazier, Moorer lost to Foreman and of course Holyfield jumped from cruiser-but not too many.

I did also point out that generally men where much smaller then so the jump to heavyweight was not such a big one, and I did say light heavies ad not cruisers.worth also poinitng out that Marciano, Lewis an Patterson would all probably have fought in the cruiser division today.

Broomhall wrote:As for Heavyweight champions post war defending against ex light heavyweight champions this happened pretty rarely and much less than happened in pre war eras. I cannot think of too many defences in which this happened-Bob Foster/Frazier, Moorer lost to Foreman and of course Holyfield jumped from cruiser-but not too many.

Well just off the top of my head I can name a load:
David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Tomasz Adamek - each of the team were World Cruiserweight Champs who moved up and foguht for a World Heavyweight Title.

Then of course you have the likes of:
Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, John Henry Lewis, Billy Conn, Gene Tunney, Mike Spinks, Floyd Patterson, Roy Jones Jr

All of which fought a Light Heavy, moved up to Heavyweight and fought for the Heavyweight Title.

Il Duce wrote:James Braddock

Commented that though Nino Valdes was the #1 Heavyweight at the end of 1954, he felt
that many of the Light-Heavyweights were 'equal to' or better than the big Cuban.

James Braddock was the Referee for the Nino Valdes - Jimmy Walls bout at King's Stadium
in Hamilton, Bermuda on December 11, 1954.

He said that Nino was 'big', but was slow and wide-punching, and would have little chance against
a sharp-puncher like Rocky Marciano,

Unfortunately for Valdes, James Braddock was also the referee and sole judge in his fight with Archie Moore. Braddock lifted Moore's hand at the end of the fight (like you might see in a British ring) and said he scored it 8-Moore, 5 Valdes, 2-Even.

So, essentially, the guy who admitted he favored light heavys and didn't think much of Valdes before the fight gave eight of the 15 rounds to Moore in, by all accounts, a razor-thin fight.

Valdes collapsed in the ring when Braddock raised Moore's hand ... feeling he'd been robbed.

What I don't understand is Nino Valdes was the clear #1 contender as of October 1954. Jim Norris, head of the IBC, met with Al Weill in October because he wanted Marciano and Valdes to fight in February 1955.

Norris also wanted Moore and Olson to fight - and Moore said he would if the winner could fight Marciano.

Don Cockell was the #2 contender.

While he waited for he Marciano fight, Valdes fought twice - in December 1954 and January 1955 - scoring two knockouts.

Yet, for some reason, Valdes is told he has to fight Moore and Marciano signs to fight the 10-1 lower-rated Cockell instead.

Weill didn't want Marciano to fight Valdes. Marciano never fought anyone with a reach like that.

Dubblechin wrote:What I don't understand is Nino Valdes was the clear #1 contender as of October 1954. Jim Norris, head of the IBC, met with Al Weill in October because he wanted Marciano and Valdes to fight in February 1955.

Norris also wanted Moore and Olson to fight - and Moore said he would if the winner could fight Marciano.

Don Cockell was the #2 contender.

While he waited for he Marciano fight, Valdes fought twice - in December 1954 and January 1955 - scoring two knockouts.

Yet, for some reason, Valdes is told he has to fight Moore and Marciano signs to fight the 10-1 lower-rated Cockell instead.

Weill didn't want Marciano to fight Valdes. Marciano never fought anyone with a reach like that.

On the contrary, Marciano fought a few men on the way up who had reaches just as long, if not more so. Never forget, that Carmine Vingo--- who Marciano almost killed in the ring--- was 6'4" tall. A cruiserweight by modern standards, yes, but Vingo was one of a few men well over 6'0" that Marciano fought. Valdes, if memory serves me correct was only 6'2" or 6'3" in height. Besides, I think if "reach" is the lone argument someone has for Valdes being a bonafide threat to The Rock, then I believe that person is seriously undermining Marciano's vast abilities on getting on the inside. Contrary to popular opinion or belief, Marciano seldom got hit with a clean shot on the way win.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Dubblechin wrote:What I don't understand is Nino Valdes was the clear #1 contender as of October 1954. Jim Norris, head of the IBC, met with Al Weill in October because he wanted Marciano and Valdes to fight in February 1955.

Norris also wanted Moore and Olson to fight - and Moore said he would if the winner could fight Marciano.

Don Cockell was the #2 contender.

While he waited for he Marciano fight, Valdes fought twice - in December 1954 and January 1955 - scoring two knockouts.

Yet, for some reason, Valdes is told he has to fight Moore and Marciano signs to fight the 10-1 lower-rated Cockell instead.

Weill didn't want Marciano to fight Valdes. Marciano never fought anyone with a reach like that.

On the contrary, Marciano fought a few men on the way up who had reaches just as long, if not more so. Never forget, that Carmine Vingo--- who Marciano almost killed in the ring--- was 6'4" tall. A cruiserweight by modern standards, yes, but Vingo was one of a few men well over 6'0" that Marciano fought. Valdes, if memory serves me correct was only 6'2" or 6'3" in height. Besides, I think if "reach" is the lone argument someone has for Valdes being a bonafide threat to The Rock, then I believe that person is seriously undermining Marciano's vast abilities on getting on the inside. Contrary to popular opinion or belief, Marciano seldom got hit with a clean shot on the way win.

I have no idea what Carmine Vingo's reach was. And I never saw Carmine Vingo fight - I'm guessing you didn't either.

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.

The head of the IBC wanted to make Marciano-Valdes and he wanted it in February 1955. Valdes was knocking guys out in tuneups preparing for Marciano. And Marciano's manager (also an IBC matchmaker) said they'd consider it, but instead he gave the shot to a guy more Marciano's size and rated below Valdes (Cockell).

Roadblocks were put in Valdes' path and, unfortunately, he didn't make it around them. You can say Valdes wouldn't have won against Marciano. Maybe he wouldn't have. But the fact is we'll never know because Marciano's camp took steps to try to get around facing him.

There was no rationale for the champ's camp to insist the light heavyweight champ fight the number-one heavyweight contender ... while the champ fought the (10-to-1 underdog) #2 contender instead.

Moore wasn't the top contender at heavyweight. Cockell wasn't. Valdes was.

The IBC officially named Valdes as "the logical" contender. (Since they couldn't name a "mandatory" that's how they identified the person they wanted a champ to fight next.)

So, instead, something illogical took place.

And, frankly, there was no rationale for having a former heavyweight champ who expressed his dislike for Valdes to be the ref and sole judge in an eliminator involving Valdes.

Styles make fights. Moore "apparently" - since we haven't seen the film so we'll have to trust in Braddock's judgement - was a "just a little too slick" for Valdes in their eliminator.

But we never saw Marciano fight a tall banger with a foot reach on him, either. I would've liked to have seen it.

As it is Il Duce story, I have not read much of it, but honestly from seeing about 15 Nino Valdes fights, I do not rate him as a top contender even in the very poor Marciano championship time.

In fact, the only other time the IBC named a "logical" contender during Marciano's reign, it was Ezzard Charles. And Marciano fought him two times and was involved in wars both times.

But when they named Valdes the logical contender, there was no title shot.

Instead, Valdes ended up engaging in two tuneups to prepare for his expected fight with Marciano, and then Marciano's camp declined to defend against him because they wanted Valdes to beat Moore first.

Cockell, on the other hand, got a free pass.

Woller wrote:As it is Il Duce story, I have not read much of it, but honestly from seeing about 15 Nino Valdes fights, I do not rate him as a top contender even in the very poor Marciano championship time.

When Antonio Tarver called out Roy Jones after Jones won the heavyweight belt from John Ruiz in 2003, it seemed ridiculous. At that moment, Jones was considered one of the best fighters who ever lived. And there was nothing in Tarver's previous bouts to suggest he could beat Jones.

In fact, when Tarver was named the number-one contender in 2000, Jones refused to fight him unless he beat Eric Harding in an eliminator. So Tarver fought Harding and he lost and Harding got the shot.

But we found out when they did fight that Tarver had Jones' number.

I don't know if Valdes would've had Marciano's number, but Rocky's camp made ZERO effort to meet him ... even when the IBC was pressing them too.

Il Duce wrote:

Woller wrote:As it is Il Duce story, I have not read much of it, but honestly from seeing about 15 Nino Valdes fights, I do not rate him as a top contender even in the very poor Marciano championship time.

I 'never' said Nino Valdes was a very good fighter.

But he did deserve the 'Logical Contender' status in late-1954.

I agree that he did.

Crease wrote:

Broomhall wrote:As for Heavyweight champions post war defending against ex light heavyweight champions this happened pretty rarely and much less than happened in pre war eras. I cannot think of too many defences in which this happened-Bob Foster/Frazier, Moorer lost to Foreman and of course Holyfield jumped from cruiser-but not too many.

Well just off the top of my head I can name a load:
David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Tomasz Adamek - each of the team were World Cruiserweight Champs who moved up and foguht for a World Heavyweight Title.

Then of course you have the likes of:
Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, John Henry Lewis, Billy Conn, Gene Tunney, Mike Spinks, Floyd Patterson, Roy Jones Jr

All of which fought a Light Heavy, moved up to Heavyweight and fought for the Heavyweight Title.

Without the artistic licence I did stress light heavies and not cruisers, and I already mentioned Charles and Moore who fought Marciano. Gene Tunney was pre war (I said post war) Floyd Patterson was never a light heavy champ, which leaves us post war with Spinks, Roy Jones, and Bob Foster. (there may be one or two others ) So I think I was right in saying I cannot recall a heavyweight champ post war who defended his tile against so many ex lightheavy weight champions. 2/3 of Marcianos defences where against ex light heavy champs and he was dropped by Moore-did Ezzard Charles knock him down as well? I dont think you could say the same of Patterson, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc

Joe Frazier bombed out bob foster without too much trouble as I recall and foster was as good a light heavy champ as you will get, Frazier also a smallish heavyweight-there may be some comparisons there with how Marciano struggled a bit with Moore and Charles.

None of this is to critiscize Marciano just stuff to debate.

Ezzard Charles was never a world light heavyweight champion. Neither was Don Cockell, unless you're counting British or European titles. Only Archie Moore was.

Il Duce wrote:

Dubblechin wrote:Ezzard Charles was never a world light heavyweight champion. Neither was Don Cockell, unless you're counting British or European titles. Only Archie Moore was.

I think you're 'Splitting Hairs' on that statement.

Ezzard fought primarily as a Light Heavyweight, and couldn't get a Title fight at 175 lbs., back in his early career.

Nino Valdes couldn't get a heavyweight title fight, should I list him as a world heavyweight champion?

(I'm kidding.)

If someone says Marciano made two-thirds of his defenses against Light Heavyweight champs, I think those fellows considered "champs" should've at least fought for the Light Heavyweight Title.

That's not splitting too many hairs.

Dubblechin wrote:

Il Duce wrote:

Dubblechin wrote:Ezzard Charles was never a world light heavyweight champion. Neither was Don Cockell, unless you're counting British or European titles. Only Archie Moore was.

I think you're 'Splitting Hairs' on that statement.

Ezzard fought primarily as a Light Heavyweight, and couldn't get a Title fight at 175 lbs., back in his early career.

Nino Valdes couldn't get a heavyweight title fight, should I list him as a world heavyweight champion?

(I'm kidding.)

If someone says Marciano made two-thirds of his defenses against Light Heavyweight champs, I think those fellows considered "champs" should've at least fought for the Light Heavyweight Title.

That's not splitting too many hairs.

No I think you are right in this context, and I was wrong, but I did feel that Cockell being a british/european champion did count. Which I still think makes half of Marcianos title defences against ex or reigning lightheavyweight champions. This probably reflected the era of generally smaller people, but I also feel is a weakness in the argument in having Marciano rated so highly.

Broomhall wrote:
Which I still think makes half of Marcianos title defences against ex or reigning lightheavyweight champions. This probably reflected the era of generally smaller people, but I also feel is a weakness in the argument in having Marciano rated so highly.

Its not fair to try and compare eras in boxing when talking about ATGs. Marciano fought the best around at that time, he beat them all and retired undefeated. Would he have gone 49-0 in the 1960s/70s, no I doubt he would but would many of the alphabet champs today have won a title in other eras, again probably not.

Comparing fighters head to head is one thing (Tyson vs. Marciano for example) but comparing overall achievements really needs to be done on an individual basis. In my book Marciano is an ATG. Any fighters career, results or opposition can be torn apart or made to look bad.

Controversial wrote:

Broomhall wrote:
Which I still think makes half of Marcianos title defences against ex or reigning lightheavyweight champions. This probably reflected the era of generally smaller people, but I also feel is a weakness in the argument in having Marciano rated so highly.

Its not fair to try and compare eras in boxing when talking about ATGs. Marciano fought the best around at that time, he beat them all and retired undefeated. Would he have gone 49-0 in the 1960s/70s, no I doubt he would but would many of the alphabet champs today have won a title in other eras, again probably not.

Comparing fighters head to head is one thing (Tyson vs. Marciano for example) but comparing overall achievements really needs to be done on an individual basis. In my book Marciano is an ATG. Any fighters career, results or opposition can be torn apart or made to look bad.

An interesting argument, and one to think about

Broomhall wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Broomhall wrote:
Which I still think makes half of Marcianos title defences against ex or reigning lightheavyweight champions. This probably reflected the era of generally smaller people, but I also feel is a weakness in the argument in having Marciano rated so highly.

Its not fair to try and compare eras in boxing when talking about ATGs. Marciano fought the best around at that time, he beat them all and retired undefeated. Would he have gone 49-0 in the 1960s/70s, no I doubt he would but would many of the alphabet champs today have won a title in other eras, again probably not.

Comparing fighters head to head is one thing (Tyson vs. Marciano for example) but comparing overall achievements really needs to be done on an individual basis. In my book Marciano is an ATG. Any fighters career, results or opposition can be torn apart or made to look bad.

An interesting argument, and one to think about

When talking about weights as well you need to remember Marciano averaged only 186.9lbs in all his title fights and was often outweighed. Its not like he had a 30-40lb weight advantage over his opponents. He would walk around outside the ring well over his fighting weight but would train down to the 187lb region, he carried no fat or excess weight. Many heavyweights these days are the complete opposite as they deliberately bulk up.

Read Russell Sullivan's bio of the Rock. According to him Al Weill and Jim Norris were business partners and actually controlled most of the top heavyweight contenders of the day. As for Valdes, he had opportunities to shine and he failed. Earl Walls was campaigning for a shot, but when the combine turned him down he retired.

Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 81
What I don't understand is Nino Valdes was the clear #1 contender as of October 1954. Jim Norris, head of the IBC, met with Al Weill in October because he wanted Marciano and Valdes to fight in February 1955.

Norris also wanted Moore and Olson to fight - and Moore said he would if the winner could fight Marciano.

Don Cockell was the #2 contender.

While he waited for he Marciano fight, Valdes fought twice - in December 1954 and January 1955 - scoring two knockouts.

Yet, for some reason, Valdes is told he has to fight Moore and Marciano signs to fight the 10-1 lower-rated Cockell instead.

Weill didn't want Marciano to fight Valdes. Marciano never fought anyone with a reach like that.

1. Al Weill did want to take on Nino Valdes. That is why he set up a final eliminator between Valdes and Moore for the right to fight Marciano. Valdes lost to Moore, so he blew his chance. Moore went on to get his ass kicked by Marciano.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 96,1820087

This shows right here that Weill had every chance of giving a shot to Nino as long as he didn't screw it up. Weill said "Valdes will get his chance."

2. Don Cockell got his shot. Marciano took on Don Cockell as a "Tuneup" for the winner of Valdes-Moore. Why? Because he wanted to test his nose out after suffering that severe injury against Ezzard Charles the previous september. Cockell was rated # 2 in the world. How many champions take on the # 2 contender in the world as a tuneup? FYI All the previous men Marciano defended his title against(Walcott II, Lastarza, Charles I and II) were all rated # 1 contender in the world when Marciano fought them. How many HW champions have taken on their # 1 contender in every single title defense before? Marciano deserved one "easy" fight.

3. I don't know why you make such a big deal about Valdes reach. Valdes lost to 5'10 180lb fighters like Bob Satterfield, Harold Johnson, and Archie Moore. Marciano was a completely different animal than those fighters. Valdes clearly did not know how to utilize his reach against smaller fighters. Valdes did have a nice jab, and good punching power, but he liked to trade on the inside and was slow and off balance a lot. Futhermore, he was inconsistent, and had questionable work ethic and heart at times. Marciano would break him down I reckon. As for Valdes jab, Rocky took on a 6'2 213lb Joe Louis who still had a tremendous jab(My opinion a better jab than Ninos). Joe Louis actually Knocked out Nino Valdes in 1 round in 1950.

4. I think Rocky-Valdes would have been a nice fight. Should he have taken on Valdes instead of Cockell? Yes. Did he plan on taking on Valdes after the Cockell fight? Yes. Would Valdes have presented a serious challenge to Marciano? Probably Not. Valdes should have beaten Moore in that eliminator, he would have had his chance against Rocky.

Good post Brockton, it's incredible that Rocky's achievements are being devalued. When Marciano was World Champion (and even just before his reign) there was a wave of very good Light Heavies who moved up to invade the Heavyweight Division and they excelled against the bigger guys.

A lot of the top contenders at that time were guys who started off at Light Heavy, that's not Marciano's fault. He can only beat the guys who are in his weight division, and he did...

Valdes wasn't even the best heavyweight Moore beat to get a shot at Marciano . . .Bob Baker and Clarence Henry were well superior.

Valdes had decent overall skills but was overall not in Rocky's class. His biggest assets were his punching power and sheer stamina/work-rate for such a big man. His punches were often not crisp or pretty but he threw lots of them and he'd wear guys out. He managed to beat some good fighters, including a past his best but still dangerous Ezzard Charles, Mike DeJohn, and Hurricane Jackson (with the benefit of the 3 KD rule) but with the exception of Charles, always lost to the class of the division (Folley, Machen, Baker, Moore, Johnson).