If Lastarza Had Won The First Marciano Fight?

[Willie Pep 229]

Valdes lost four straight fights between November 1952 and May 1953. How the he'll did he get a #1 ranking? In 1952 he is not even in the top ten.

Yes he beat Charles but lost to every big name he met; lost to Moore twice.

His ranking looks questionable. His performances inconsistent and he is a foreigner.

NO DUCK on Marciano's part. The Fight wasn't there except in Nat's mind, likely not the public.

That Ring Ranking is questionable and doesn't alone get him to a title shot.

Do I smell Franki Carbo and Blinky Palermo and the IBC buying off that obnoxious old man Fleischer yet again?

[QueensburyRules]

I do think the 0 does him give him an air... But I also believe that Marciano had some special qualities. Looked at from a pure technical perspective the best analogy for marciano would be an "Idiot Savante." Some of us here have empathy lol. I have reading comprehension and other verbal reasoning skills that are objectively off the charts... yet? for years I could not line up columns to do basic math... I look at Marciano in similar fashion in that all he did was a way to highlight his abilities... And he was wildly successful doing so. That big 0 gave him the special sauce, the icing, the cherry.... errr you get the idea.

To be fair to Marciano he really does not appear prima facea to have gotten more breaks than other fighters... All great fighters got a few in their direction lol...

- - Quite by accident, there is something poetic in a 49-0, 43 KO record that my now elderly neighbor who never followed boxing to any degree could recite at will.

It did in a number of fighters chasing it as well as the one who nominally exceeded it with 40% of his career padded at the tail end at the MGM l'il floydy.

In short, the icon of Rocky never fades, it just adds yearly gravitas.

[Anthony342]

Well Valdes was the number 1 contender in1953 and 1954 ,Marciano didn't fight him ,he defended against the guy Valdes had beaten, Charles,twice.

Well by looking at his record, I'm guessing that was because he lost to every other big name he fought, so Marciano's manager probably felt it wasn't a big fight, it wasn't marketable and there wasn't near as much money in it with Valdes losing to Archie Moore and Harold Johnson, one former and one future light heavyweight champion.

[Ivich]

Well by looking at his record, I'm guessing that was because he lost to every other big name he fought, so Marciano's manager probably felt it wasn't a big fight, it wasn't marketable and there wasn't near as much money in it with Valdes losing to Archie Moore and Harold Johnson, one former and one future light heavyweight champion.

No he didnt. From July53 until May55 when Moore took his number1 challenger spot Valdes went 11 wins without defeat.Among those he beat were Charles who got the title shot instead of him,Sys,Agramonte,and Jackson ,Valdes lost to Moore after Marciano had defended against Charles. Charles record in his last 4 fights going into the Marciano fight was won2 lost 2.Lastarzas in his last 3 was won2 lost 1, to a journeyman lhvy.

[Willie Pep 229]

Moore defeated Valdes in 1953 (UD) a year before Marciano defended against Charles.

He also lost to Harold Johson in 1952.

He does in fact beat Charles before Charles gets his shot at Marciano.

So I can see an argument that it shouldn't have been Charles in 1954. But at the same time Valdes doesn't, at that time, look to be the deserving fighter either.

If you take the 1952-1953 season it is Moore who should have gotten the shot. Not Charles, not Valdes.

[Ivich]

Moore defeated Valdes in 1953 (UD) a year before Marciano defended against Charles.

He also lost to Harold Johson in 1952.

He does in fact beat Charles before Charles gets his shot at Marciano.

So I can see an argument that it shouldn't have been Charles in 1954. But at the same time Valdes doesn't, at that time, look to be the deserving fighter either.

If you take the 1952-1953 season it is Moore who should have gotten the shot. Not Charles, not Valdes.

At the end of 53 and 54 Valdes was the number 1 contender, as such for me he deserved a shot.

[The Old LefHook]

It is true the 0 inflated his legacy, but he didn't steal it.

[Willie Pep 229]

At the end of 53 and 54 Valdes was the number 1 contender, as such for me he deserved a shot.

Na! I don't trust Fleischer's rankings. Too high in the rankings too quickly with too many loses. Only to disappear almost as fast.

1952 - Not ranked
1953 - #1
1954 - #1
1955 - #5
1956 - not ranked

Between November 1952 through July 1956 he posted a record of 12-8-0, with wins over only Charles, Jackson, and ****well. With loses to Moore (2); Johnson; Satterfield; Machon (2).

Those #1 rankings don't smell right to me. Should have been ranked in the middle of the pack.

The IBC, besides taking a small piece from everyone: fighters, managers, venues, promoters, and broadcasters, from every card, had a side business of bringing in Latino fighters, first setting them up with quick high rankings and title shots, then robbing them when their popularity faded. Kid Gavlin (sp) was one of the more popular ones they used and abused.

I think Valdes' rise to number one was premature and questionable.

P.S. Charles likely got the first shot because he was a former (NBA) HW Champion with a victory over Louis. That will put asses in the seats.

Doubtful Valdes could do the same.

Just MO nothing more.

[Anthony342]

No he didnt. From July53 until May55 when Moore took his number1 challenger spot Valdes went 11 wins without defeat.Among those he beat were Charles who got the title shot instead of him,Sys,Agramonte,and Jackson ,Valdes lost to Moore after Marciano had defended against Charles. Charles record in his last 4 fights going into the Marciano fight was won2 lost 2.Lastarzas in his last 3 was won2 lost 1, to a journeyman lhvy.

Yes he did. That's why I said every OTHER big name he fought meaning other than Charles. Again, I can see the argument for Valdes being more deserving before that, but he didn't beat anyone noteworthy other than Charles before then losing to Moore and Satterfield in 55. Rocky had a hard on for avenging his near defeat to Lastarza and Charles was the bigger name, bigger money fight. Kinda like why Roy Jones still got the rematch with Hopkins even after losing to Danny Green. Bigger name, bigger money fight and it's what people wanted to see. You would think Rocky would have wanted to fight Valdes though. He must have known about him or at least management should have.

[Ivich]

Yes he did. That's why I said every OTHER big name he fought meaning other than Charles. Again, I can see the argument for Valdes being more deserving before that, but he didn't beat anyone noteworthy other than Charles before then losing to Moore and Satterfield in 55. Rocky had a hard on for avenging his near defeat to Lastarza and Charles was the bigger name, bigger money fight. Kinda like why Roy Jones still got the rematch with Hopkins even after losing to Danny Green. Bigger name, bigger money fight and it's what people wanted to see. You would think Rocky would have wanted to fight Valdes though. He must have known about him or at least management should have.

London
McMurtry
DeJohn x2
Carter
Summerlin
Bethea
Holman
Erskine
Richardson
****ell
Jackson
Sys
Neuhaus
Agramonte
Lost to him
His manager Weill knew all about him and ,imo wanted no part of him.
Pity for Rocky really as I think he would have beaten Valdes and in doing so shown he could beat a big class guy who could punch.