Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2012, 02:44 PM   #61
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,251
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Ali didn't produce anything like his best in 1974.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-15-2012, 02:57 PM   #62
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Pre-Baroudi, 1948 Ezzard Charles would do better than the 1954 version.

Remember, Charles was, by '55 at the earliest, already stiffening due to ALS. I think it's a safe bet that his body was beginning to betray him by the time he faced Marciano, and how he fought Marciano speaks to that pretty clearly to me. His legs looked better to me against Walcott and Louis.

Ezzard wasn't an attrition fighter -he was perhaps the greatest boxer-puncher who ever lived. But he's in close with Marciano, instead of being a matador or at least drawing him out for counters ... why? I think it was because his hands were much slower due to age, and especially because his legs were stiffening due to age and probably ALS.

And YET, he still wobbles Marciano in the first round.

Does he beat Marciano...? I wouldn't go that far. I have a hard time seeing any light heavyweight in history beating that beast. I don't, for example, believe for a moment that Archie ever would have beaten Marciano... but Ezzard was better than Archie and if there is one exception among the 175 pounders who could beat Marciano, I'd go with Charles.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:00 PM   #63
MagnaNasakki
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,829
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Pre-Baroudi, 1948 Ezzard Charles would do better than the 1954 version.

Remember, Charles was, by '55 at the earliest, already stiffening due to ALS. I think it's a safe bet that his body was beginning to betray him by the time he faced Marciano, and how he fought Marciano speaks to that pretty clearly to me. His legs looked better to me against Walcott and Louis.

Ezzard wasn't an attrition fighter -he was perhaps the greatest boxer-puncher who ever lived. But he's in close with Marciano, instead of being a matador or at least drawing him out for counters ... why? I think it was because his hands were much slower due to age, and especially because his legs were stiffening due to age and probably ALS.

And YET, he still wobbles Marciano in the first round.

Does he beat Marciano...? I wouldn't go that far. I have a hard time seeing any light heavyweight in history beating that beast. I don't, for example, believe for a moment that Archie ever would have beaten Marciano... but Ezzard was better than Archie and if there is one exception among the 175 pounders who could beat Marciano, I'd go with Charles.
This is pretty much how I feel. I think Ezzard would do amazing, and probably win 6-7 rounds, but I think he's too small to keep Marciano off of him the whole fight. Just like in their actual battles, Rocky would break through, and Ezzard wouldn't be able to get him back off. I just think it'd happen a good bit later in a peak for peak matchup.
MagnaNasakki is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:06 PM   #64
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempsey1238 View Post
But you can listen blow by blow of the first first fight radio broadcast.

Gives you a pretty good ideal how things went down.

Charles rule the first 4 rounds, were Rocky put the gas on the pedel in round 5 and didnt slow down at all it seems.

Charles may have won 1 or 2 later rounds, but Marciano out work Charles.
Yeah, Charles definitely can win the fight. But Marciano probably would out-work him with activity, regardless. Might be over-simplistic to say, though.
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:11 PM   #65
Danmann
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,108
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Charles was still in prime, marciano ruined him those two bouts, especially fights being so close together. People on here do this a lot, try to diminish Marciano achievements by saying Charles was old. He wasn't, he was as good as ever, especially as a heavyweight.
Danmann is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:19 PM   #66
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

I tend to think Charles ALS became evident post-Marciano. Those grueling fights, and basically beatings took everything out of Charles at that stage and was never the same again (And he was already past his best).

I also don't think Charles wobbled Marciano in Round 1 (Or was it round 4?). I tend to think Dunphy was overstating it. Interesting to note, Charles after the first fight thought he won and said that Walcott was a better puncher. Marciano afterwards also said, "He didn't sting me the way Walcott had." Both seemed less impressed with each other as a puncher than media impressions had cast.
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:29 PM   #67
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PetethePrince View Post
I tend to think Charles ALS became evident post-Marciano. Those grueling fights, and basically beatings took everything out of Charles at that stage and was never the same again (And he was already past his best).

I also don't think Charles wobbled Marciano in Round 1 (Or was it round 4?). I tend to think Dunphy was overstating it. Interesting to note, Charles after the first fight thought he won and said that Walcott was a better puncher. Marciano afterwards also said, "He didn't sting me the way Walcott had." Both seemed less impressed with each other as a puncher than media impressions had cast.
I don't know man, possibly. I watched in on mute and Marciano's leg looked like gemelli for just a second, and he took some good shots in the previous seconds.

~ 2:50
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeGFJI_ctVE[/ame]
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 04:51 PM   #68
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Pre-Baroudi, 1948 Ezzard Charles would do better than the 1954 version.

Remember, Charles was, by '55 at the earliest, already stiffening due to ALS. I think it's a safe bet that his body was beginning to betray him by the time he faced Marciano, and how he fought Marciano speaks to that pretty clearly to me. His legs looked better to me against Walcott and Louis.

Ezzard wasn't an attrition fighter -he was perhaps the greatest boxer-puncher who ever lived. But he's in close with Marciano, instead of being a matador or at least drawing him out for counters ... why? I think it was because his hands were much slower due to age, and especially because his legs were stiffening due to age and probably ALS.

And YET, he still wobbles Marciano in the first round.

Does he beat Marciano...? I wouldn't go that far. I have a hard time seeing any light heavyweight in history beating that beast. I don't, for example, believe for a moment that Archie ever would have beaten Marciano... but Ezzard was better than Archie and if there is one exception among the 175 pounders who could beat Marciano, I'd go with Charles.

Charles was a light heavyweight for about 18 months after the war and was already fighting heavyweights. Before the war charles was never older than 21 years old and less than 169lb that is under the LH limit. charles was as much a heavyweight as jack dempsey, gene tunny, max schmeling, floyd patterson, and leon spinks. ezzard was less the "manufactured" heavyweigt than evander holyfeild, micheal moorer and chris byrd all were since he made 190lb training the old fashioned way.

There really isnít any mileage in Charles being a weary burned out old man when he fought marciano. fighters with ALS do not knock out world rated fighters in the manner ezzard dispatched walace and satterfeild. those wins were as worthy of a title chalenge as anything he ever produced at heavyweight. Those wins were a lot better than earlier wins against barone, beshore and lee oma.

what ruined Charles's health was the crazy schedule after the marciano fights.
in 1955 Charles fought 11 times. altogether he fought 3 times in December, 2 times in April and august each. unsurprisingly Charles only won 6 times out of the 11. he fought 8 rated heavyweights that year and did not knock out any of them.... they were back to back bruising fights after 22 tough rounds within 3 months against marciano. this was when he faded.

Remember when ezzard was groomed for greatness charles fought just 12 rated heavyweights spread over the first four years after the war compared to 8 in one year when he didnít have it no more. Its bad match making however you look at it.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 05:25 PM   #69
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
Charles was a light heavyweight for about 18 months after the war and was already fighting heavyweights. Before the war charles was never older than 21 years old and less than 169lb that is under the LH limit. charles was as much a heavyweight as jack dempsey, gene tunny, max schmeling, floyd patterson, and leon spinks. ezzard was less the "manufactured" heavyweigt than evander holyfeild, micheal moorer and chris byrd all were since he made 190lb training the old fashioned way.
Ezzard Charles was as much a heavyweight as Billy Conn.

Ezzard Charles was a light heavyweight during his prime

He fought heavyweights for the same reason that light heavyweights since before Tommy Burns fought heavyweights --it's where the money is. Charles had added motivation as well -Lesnevich wasn't going near him.

Leon Spinks was never less than 190 lbs and that only once to challenge for a CW belt. Schmeling was 188 when he was 25/26 years old. Charles was around 173. Big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
There really isnít any mileage in Charles being a weary burned out old man when he fought marciano. fighters with ALS do not knock out world rated fighters in the manner ezzard dispatched walace and satterfeild. those wins were as worthy of a title chalenge as anything he ever produced at heavyweight. Those wins were a lot better than earlier wins against barone, beshore and lee oma.
ALS isn't the flu, man. It takes time to even be detected, and it is damn near a fact that he was showing symptoms by 1955. Ray Arcel observed these symptoms first-hand and commented on his getting tired more easily, his coordination deteriorating.

The fact that Charles was handling heavyweights doesn't make him a natural heavyweight anymore than Duran's handling middleweights makes him a natural middleweight -what it is is proof-positive of his greatness. Would you argue that Mickey Walker was a heavyweight? He was a top-rated contender in 1931 but was he a heavyweight, really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
what ruined Charles's health was the crazy schedule after the marciano fights.
in 1955 Charles fought 11 times. altogether he fought 3 times in December, 2 times in April and august each. unsurprisingly Charles only won 6 times out of the 11. he fought 8 rated heavyweights that year and did not knock out any of them.... they were back to back bruising fights after 22 tough rounds within 3 months against marciano. this was when he faded.
Charles's best work was against guys much better than Oma and Barone and perhaps at least as good as Marciano: Bivins, Marshall, Burley, Moore, Overlin, Yarosz.

Marciano sapped whatever he had left, sure, but I am not convinced that ALS wasn't already taking things out of him as well, which made it easier for Marciano. I watch his legs in '54 and before and see a difference.

Maybe it was just age, but I'm not so sure.

All I know is that any talk that Ezzard was in "his prime" when he faced Marciano is KOOKY-TALK!
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 05:45 PM   #70
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,756
vCash: 330
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Choklab surely isn't denying charles as a great prime lightheavyweight is he?

From about 46-49 he was the best lhw on his planet. I'd say between the moore victory in 46 and the bivins victory at lhw in 49 he was easily the top lhw and I don't think a case against it can reasonably be made.

He beat the following in this period Moore, Marshall, Smith, Smith, Moore, Marshall, Fitzpatrick, Moore, Baroudi, Bivins. All can be considered lhw fights and none can reasonably be considered hw fights.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 06:56 PM   #71
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Ezzard Charles was as much a heavyweight as Billy Conn.
ballhang!! how many heavyweight fights did conn have? conn was a great lightheavyweight - he fought joe Louis under the 175lb limit. charles not so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Ezzard Charles was a light heavyweight during his prime
charles was a lighheavyweight at the start of his prime. Like micheal moorer there was a bigger body of work over 180lb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Lesnevich wasn't going near him. !
Charles had a disastrous year in 1943 and was knocked down 16 times in the only 2 fights he had, he was then absent from the LH ratings until 1946 and was always rated behind Billy fox that year who got a shot ahead of him.

1947 was the only year Charles was number one contender to lesnevich- he could have got a shot there but the champion selected his number 4 challenger instead. Of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the light heavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. I don’t think it scandalous that a part time light heavy didn’t face the champion the one year he was #1 contender.

Back then a light heavy was regarded as a small heavyweight. If a small heavyweight was good enough he was big enough and the real heavyweight title was the goal.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
ALS isn't the flu, man. It takes time to even be detected, and it is damn near a fact that he was showing symptoms by 1955. Ray Arcel observed these symptoms first-hand and commented on his getting tired more easily, his coordination deteriorating. !
show me the symtoms in the wallace and satterfeild fights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
The fact that Charles was handling heavyweights doesn't make him a natural heavyweight anymore than Duran's handling middleweights makes him a natural middleweight -what it is is proof-positive of his greatness. Would you argue that Mickey Walker was a heavyweight? He was a top-rated contender in 1931 but was he a heavyweight, really? !
No walker was not a heavyweight. He was what he was a fat middle. charles was as big as patterson. was patterson a lightheavyweight? patterson was a #1 rated lightheavy as long as charles was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Charles's best work was against guys much better than Oma and Barone and perhaps at least as good as Marciano: Bivins, Marshall, Burley, Moore, Overlin, Yarosz. !
Bivins, marshal, moore overlin and yarosz at least as good as marciano??? charles had many excelent wins but the fact remains he was no more dominant at heavyweight from 47-51 as he was from 51-54. both spells he had close disputed fights. in the later period as an ex champion he lost fights the press thought he won and the earlier period (as the prospect) Ez won fights some of the press thought he lost. the point is Chales was as capable of his best work in both spells and film proves this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Marciano sapped whatever he had left, sure, but I am not convinced that ALS wasn't already taking things out of him as well, which made it easier for Marciano. I watch his legs in '54 and before and see a difference.
well I disagree, no offence but I cannot see it at all. charles was a great fighter leading up to and during the first marciano fight, he was only two years older and was also beating up the new generation of contender - theres not much else charles could have done to earn a shot.

Between 1949 and 1951, Charles had 15 fights and scored 8 knockouts. Two of these came beyond the 10th round. He stopped Freddie Beshore in 14 and Rex Layne in 11. Between 1952 and the Marciano fight he had 15 fights and scored 7 knockouts. All the '52 to '54 knockouts were by the 10th round or earlier, and he might well have stopped Layne in 1953 rather than in 1951 if the lengths of the two fights were reversed. He had Layne down several times late in the 1953 fight.

Marciano and Charles had seven common opponents--Layne, Beshore, Louis, Reynolds, Matthews, Walcott, and Moore--Marciano went 8-0 with 8 ko's against them. Charles went 10-4 with 4 ko's. Marciano was just a better heavyweight than anyone Charles had previously fought.

Last edited by choklab; 03-15-2012 at 08:10 PM.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 07:02 PM   #72
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Choklab surely isn't denying charles as a great prime lightheavyweight is he?

From about 46-49 he was the best lhw on his planet. I'd say between the moore victory in 46 and the bivins victory at lhw in 49 he was easily the top lhw and I don't think a case against it can reasonably be made.

He beat the following in this period Moore, Marshall, Smith, Smith, Moore, Marshall, Fitzpatrick, Moore, Baroudi, Bivins. All can be considered lhw fights and none can reasonably be considered hw fights.

ezzard was indeed a great light heavyweight albeit a heavyweight who could make lightheavyweight in just the same way as Moore and maxim were.

Have you researched the layne, valdes and johnson loses or the disputed 1947 fights with Moore and ray and the 1949 maxim fight yet?

Last edited by choklab; 03-15-2012 at 07:39 PM.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 07:33 PM   #73
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Pre-Baroudi, 1948 Ezzard Charles would do better than the 1954 version.

Remember, Charles was, by '55 at the earliest, already stiffening due to ALS. I think it's a safe bet that his body was beginning to betray him by the time he faced Marciano, and how he fought Marciano speaks to that pretty clearly to me. His legs looked better to me against Walcott and Louis.

Ezzard wasn't an attrition fighter -he was perhaps the greatest boxer-puncher who ever lived. But he's in close with Marciano, instead of being a matador or at least drawing him out for counters ... why? I think it was because his hands were much slower due to age, and especially because his legs were stiffening due to age and probably ALS.

And YET, he still wobbles Marciano in the first round.

Does he beat Marciano...? I wouldn't go that far. I have a hard time seeing any light heavyweight in history beating that beast. I don't, for example, believe for a moment that Archie ever would have beaten Marciano... but Ezzard was better than Archie and if there is one exception among the 175 pounders who could beat Marciano, I'd go with Charles.
I'm not sold on that, that version would be considerably weaker, less weight in his shots, less resistance, less muscle. Do you have a source that he was struggling with ALS this early?
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 07:58 PM   #74
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher View Post
I'm not sold on that, that version would be considerably weaker, less weight in his shots, less resistance, less muscle. Do you have a source that he was struggling with ALS this early?

exactly. there is no evidence of any ALS symptoms in the sensational wins against Satterfield and Wallace.

damage to charles's health began during the year he fought 11 times within 12 months against 8 rated contenders back to back after being pounded by marciano. If joe frazier fought 11 times in the 12 months after losing to george foreman against 8 rated 1970s fighters I doubt he would have fared much better than poor charles did in 1955.

Last edited by choklab; 03-15-2012 at 08:13 PM.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 09:04 PM   #75
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
ballhang!! how many heavyweight fights did conn have? conn was a great lightheavyweight - he fought joe Louis under the 175lb limit. charles not so.
...Conn fought and defeated about 9 heavyweights before he even faced Louis.

Conn and Charles were both great light heavyweights, they were about the same size and both could and did handle HWs.

Charles hit 30 and would come in at about 182. That makes him a heavy in your book?

Guess what Conn was weighing when he was approaching 30 --182. See how consistent this is getting?

A man is done growing by 26, not 30. By 30, metabolism is slowing and fat is accumulating more easily. When Charles was 26 he was ....~173. A LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT. He would get up to 182 when he was younger for the purpose of fighting heavies, but when he was in there against someone better than a Clarence Jones, he'd make 173. What that should tell you is that at his best he was a LHW. It should also tell you that he was so off-the-charts great, he could whip heavies.

Hell, that seems to be a consistent hobby for off-the-charts MW and LHW greats --picking on heavies. Greb. Walker. Burley. Moore. Charles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
charles was a lighheavyweight at the start of his prime. Like micheal moorer there was a bigger body of work over 180lb.
Again, Charles is better considered a light heavyweight during his prime. He was able to carry extra pounds to compete with and beat HWs, but why he did is clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
Charles had a disastrous year in 1943 and was knocked down 16 times in the only 2 fights he had, he was then absent from the LH ratings until 1946 and was always rated behind Billy fox that year who got a shot ahead of him.
You gotta look a little closer, man. Bivins and Marshall were monsters. And Charles was in the army soon after Marshall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
1947 was the only year Charles was number one contender to lesnevich- he could have got a shot there but the champion selected his number 4 challenger instead. Of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the light heavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. I donít think it scandalous that a part time light heavy didnít face the champion the one year he was #1 contender.

Back then a light heavy was regarded as a small heavyweight. If a small heavyweight was good enough he was big enough and the real heavyweight title was the goal.
The whole world knew that Lesnevich wasn't going near Charles. Or Moore. Or Marshall. Or Lytell. That's pretty much established.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
show me the symtoms in the wallace and satterfeild fights.
If you think that Charles was still in his prime against them, I don't know what to tell you. I think that is a dizzy position.

Go watch it again. Satterfield was nailing him in the final minute of the first round and Ezzard's legs weren't getting him out of the way. Same thing in round 2. Luckily, Satterfield's chin didn't get out of the way of that left hook. I can show you some sweet KOs by a 30 something Duran against middleweights.

He's 32. Are you telling us he's in his prime at 32?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
No walker was not a heavyweight. He was what he was a fat middle. charles was as big as patterson. was patterson a lightheavyweight? patterson was a rated lightheavy as long as charles was.
Let's say for the point of argument that Patterson's frame was light heavy. Why do you think he'd want to fight heavies anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
Bivins, marshal, moore overlin and yarosz at least as good as marciano??? charles had many excelent wins but the fact remains he was no more dominant at heavyweight from 47-51 as he was from 51-54. both spells he had close disputed fights. in the later period as an ex champion he lost fights the press thought he wonm and the earlier period as the prospect he won fights some of the press thought he lost. the point is he was as capable of his best work in both spells and film proves this.
You have to look more closely at factors beside the W-L record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
well I disagree, no offence but I cannot see it at all. charles was a great fighter leading up to and during the first marciano fight, he was 2 years younger and was beating up the new generation of contender - theres not much else he could have done to earn a shot.
And it's all because Ezzard Charles happened to be one of the greatest fighters who ever lived.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013