How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

..


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?!

.

I am telling you charles was not suffering from a muscle wasting ilness at 32. I am telling you that at age 29 charles was not as good against barone and beshore as he was against wallace, satterfeild and marciano at 32. I am asking you was marciano at age 31 past his prime in 1955?

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by choklab

I am telling you charles was not suffering from a muscle wasting ilness at 32.

You speak with the authority of someone who doesn't know. As for me, I'll take Ezzard's opinion over yours.

Originally Posted by choklab

I am telling you that at age 29 charles was not as good against barone and beshore as he was against wallace, satterfeild and marciano at 32.

Get off the stats, and then you'll realize that this isn't something you can "tell" anyone. This is about weight of opinion and nothing else. And if you think that Ezzard was still in his prime at 32, your opinion in my opinion weighs as much as that toe nail I just clipped.

Originally Posted by choklab

I am asking you was marciano at age 31 past his prime in 1955?

In my opinion, certainly.

[techks]

Love Charles but I still favor Marciano. Not counting out Charles to pick up a W though.....

[sugarkills]

Rocky beats any version of Charles...

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Get off the stats, and then you'll realize that this isn't something you can "tell" anyone. This is about weight of opinion and nothing else. .

It is not just my opinion that charles (even as champion) was not always as impresive against fighters inferior to satterfeild and wallace. there is hard evidence to prove this. It is not just based on stats. The news reports of the barone and beshore fights bare this out. A downward spiral in form did not begin when charles lost the title, since many feel he ought to have won it back. the downward spiral began after the maciano fights when he faced 8 contenders in 11 hard fights squeezed into 12 months.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

It is not just my opinion that charles (even as champion) was not always as impresive against fighters inferior to satterfeild and wallace. there is hard evidence to prove this. It is not just based on stats. The news reports of the barone and beshore fights bare this out. A downward spiral in form did not begin when charles lost the title, since many feel he ought to have won it back. the downward spiral began after the maciano fights when he faced 8 contenders in 11 hard fights squeezed into 12 months.

Have you seen him vs Lloyd Marshall?

[lufcrazy]

Ok so I've done some digging around rgearding Charles's fights after the jersey ko loss.

The 4th with Walcott sounds like a dead even fight, but there seems to have been a sense that Charles needed a knockdown atleast going into the final round. Charles himself didn't appeal the decision did he not?

Watched the Johnson fight and it's a Johnson victory for me. beautiful jab clinic going on there.

The Valdes fight is a clear cut loss.

The Layne fight does seem to be a robbery.

So after jersey knocks him out. He loses a very close fight to Walcott, gets robbed by Layne, loses to Valdes and loses to johnson. He then steps up ic class and loses twice to Rocky.

I'm sorry but I don't see how he can still be regarded as a prime fighter going into that fight.

I'm not denying he fought a valiant effort and I'm not saying he wasn't a deserving contender, but he'd definitely slipped.

One robbery loss to Layne doesn't change his losses to guys he would have beat in his prime (Johnson and Valdes) plus losses to a guy he did beat in his prime (Walcott) and then his two losses to the champ (Rocky).

No way on Earth can it be argued that Charles was just as consistent after Walcott edged him in the 4th fight.

I still believe, the only man to beat a prime Charles is Jersey Walcott. Once by stoppage, once by a very close decision.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by choklab

It is not just my opinion that charles (even as champion) was not always as impresive against fighters inferior to satterfeild and wallace. there is hard evidence to prove this. It is not just based on stats. The news reports of the barone and beshore fights bare this out. A downward spiral in form did not begin when charles lost the title, since many feel he ought to have won it back. the downward spiral began after the maciano fights when he faced 8 contenders in 11 hard fights squeezed into 12 months.

A news report is not necessarily "hard evidence" aside from the stats it offers.

Ezzard was not in his prime at 32. Common sense and the man's own opinion slam that idea. He was slipping by then.

I don't know of any Marciano fanatics who would go there to build up the Rock's championship record. Are you a Marciano fanatic?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Ok so I've done some digging around rgearding Charles's fights after the jersey ko loss...

Good summary Luff.

The only thing I'd add is that this wasn't Ezzard's prime weight. That is, he was almost invincible fighting other 175lb fighters, whereas there are a few guys you are going to pick over him between 175 and 200.

Actually, that's at thread right there. If there wasn't so much Charles flowating around already this week.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Good summary Luff.

The only thing I'd add is that this wasn't Ezzard's prime weight. That is, he was almost invincible fighting other 175lb fighters, whereas there are a few guys you are going to pick over him between 175 and 200.

Actually, that's at thread right there. If there wasn't so much Charles flowating around already this week.

Definitely. I'm convinced he could easily have stayed at LHW right up until the mid 50's had he so desired.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Ok so I've done some digging around rgearding Charles's fights after the jersey ko loss.

The 4th with Walcott sounds like a dead even fight, but there seems to have been a sense that Charles needed a knockdown atleast going into the final round. Charles himself didn't appeal the decision did he not?

Watched the Johnson fight and it's a Johnson victory for me. beautiful jab clinic going on there.

The Valdes fight is a clear cut loss.

The Layne fight does seem to be a robbery.

So after jersey knocks him out. He loses a very close fight to Walcott, gets robbed by Layne, loses to Valdes and loses to johnson. He then steps up ic class and loses twice to Rocky.

I'm sorry but I don't see how he can still be regarded as a prime fighter going into that fight.

I'm not denying he fought a valiant effort and I'm not saying he wasn't a deserving contender, but he'd definitely slipped.

One robbery loss to Layne doesn't change his losses to guys he would have beat in his prime (Johnson and Valdes) plus losses to a guy he did beat in his prime (Walcott) and then his two losses to the champ (Rocky).

No way on Earth can it be argued that Charles was just as consistent after Walcott edged him in the 4th fight.

I still believe, the only man to beat a prime Charles is Jersey Walcott. Once by stoppage, once by a very close decision.

Thats fair enough I just dont think Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. charles had three close decisions that could have went either way before he was champion. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed.

One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson who got the nod in close fights against charles, were the equals of, or better than Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

The valdes loss would have easily been avenged had nino ever rematched ezzard since charles knocked out gilium, satterfeild and wallace who all slayed valdes or knocked out fighters who beat valdes.

charles looked great against world level fighters in recent fights before facing marciano. If he was slowing down how did he improve after tha valdes fight?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

Thats fair enough I just dont think Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. charles had three close decisions that could have went either way before he was champion. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed.

One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson who got the nod in close fights against charles, were the equals of, or better than Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

The valdes loss would have easily been avenged had nino ever rematched ezzard since charles knocked out gilium, satterfeild and wallace who all slayed valdes or knocked out fighters who beat valdes.

charles looked great against world level fighters in recent fights before facing marciano. If he was slowing down how did he improve after tha valdes fight?

He beat Walcott when in his prime. Moore beat Johnson a hell of a lot of times during their careers.

Listen, the results at face value indicate a drop in quality. After looking deeper, I'm satisfied the quality was dropped.

You say the Valdes loss would easily have been avenged? that means nothing since it never happened.

He didn't look great, the best guys he faced after losing to Walcott where Johnson, Valdes and Rocky, all who beat him.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Ok so I've done some digging around rgearding Charles's fights after the jersey ko loss.

The 4th with Walcott sounds like a dead even fight, but there seems to have been a sense that Charles needed a knockdown atleast going into the final round. Charles himself didn't appeal the decision did he not?

Watched the Johnson fight and it's a Johnson victory for me. beautiful jab clinic going on there.

The Valdes fight is a clear cut loss.

The Layne fight does seem to be a robbery.

So after jersey knocks him out. He loses a very close fight to Walcott, gets robbed by Layne, loses to Valdes and loses to johnson. He then steps up ic class and loses twice to Rocky.

I'm sorry but I don't see how he can still be regarded as a prime fighter going into that fight.

I'm not denying he fought a valiant effort and I'm not saying he wasn't a deserving contender, but he'd definitely slipped.

One robbery loss to Layne doesn't change his losses to guys he would have beat in his prime (Johnson and Valdes) plus losses to a guy he did beat in his prime (Walcott) and then his two losses to the champ (Rocky).

No way on Earth can it be argued that Charles was just as consistent after Walcott edged him in the 4th fight.

I still believe, the only man to beat a prime Charles is Jersey Walcott. Once by stoppage, once by a very close decision.

there is nothing wrong with what you are saying, I understand it I just feel
Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. after the moore ray and maxim fights and disapointing bouts with barone and beshore Charles returned to form just as he later did after a blip with valdes. declining fighters might get lucky but usualy dont return to championship form for a string of solid wins like charles did prior to marciano.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

the best guys he faced after losing to Walcott where Johnson, Valdes and Rocky, all who beat him.

but you said yourself the walcott fight looks dead even. The johnson fight is close, I would say even. You have not added satterfeild who beat big cat williams, you have not added layne who beat walcott and walcott, johnson satterfeild, layne were at least a match for maxim, ray and moore. valdes just was not good enough to beat charles twice. he got lucky because charles latter proved he was much better.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

there is nothing wrong with what you are saying, I understand it I just feel
Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. after the moore ray and maxim fights and disapointing bouts with barone and beshore Charles returned to form just as he later did after a blip with valdes. declining fighters might get lucky but usualy dont return to championship form for a string of solid wins like charles did prior to marciano.

Roy Jones Jr looked majestic against omar sheika and jeff lacy. He was still shot to shit.

Tyson looked majestic against seldon and Bruno, he was still past prime.

Holyfield looked very good against Tyson and Moorer, but again he was past his own prime.

Shit like this happens all the time. The reason the guys are so great is because even when past their best, they can turn the clock back and pull out a great performance.

Just recentl we saw Mosley crack the uncrackable chin of margarito, we've seen Hopkins twice outclass Pascal, this is nothing new at all.