How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

[he grant]

Originally Posted by Hookie

From 1946 - the two fights vs. Rocky Marciano (1955)... Ezzard Charles only lost to Elmer Ray ('47), Jersey Joe Walcott ('51 and '52), Rex Layne, Nino Valdes ('53), and Harold Johnson ('53). A case can be made that the KO loss to Walcott should have been the only loss during this time period. He went 1-1 (1) vs. Ray, 2-2 vs. Walcott, and 2-1 (1) vs. Layne... 5-4 (2) vs. these men lifetime but a serious case can be made for 8-1 (2).

Charles went 39-1 from 1946 - the first loss to Walcott in 1951. He had already beat Walcott twice. The only loss during this time was a split-decision to Elmer Ray that could have went either way. He stopped Ray in 9 rounds in the rematch.

After the 39-1 stretch he went 14-5 leading up to the two losses vs. Marciano. He went 0-2 vs. Marciano then 10-13 leading up to his retirement. In my honest opinion Charles was slipping after he lost the HW Title but he was still very good for a few years after.

Pretty much how it was ...

[choklab]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I don't think that the notion that Charles was at his prime for Marciano is sensible.

I think ezzard in 1951-1953 was still capable of producing his best work for selected fights in the way ali was still capable of his best for selected fights around 1974. ezzard charles was exactly the same age against marciano as ALI was for george foreman. charles was sensational against walace and satterfeild as ali was great beating norton and frazier in return fights.

[McGrain]

Ali didn't produce anything like his best in 1974.

[Stonehands89]

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.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by Dempsey1238

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.

[Danmann]

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.

[PetethePrince]

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.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

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]

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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 isn’t 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 didn’t have it no more. Its bad match making however you look at it.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by choklab

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.

Originally Posted by choklab

There really isn’t 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?

Originally Posted by choklab

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!

[lufcrazy]

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.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

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?

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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?