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 03-18-2012, 02:12 PM   #106
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

I scored the Johnson fight for Charles by a few rounds.

It was a close fight, but I though Charles egde it.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-18-2012, 02:12 PM   #107
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
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.
charles did not have a muscle wasting illness at 32. charles was one year older than marciano was when he beat moore.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 03:12 PM   #108
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
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.
so are you saying because a shot fighter can look better later does this mean in reality Charles was slipping once he first began to have close fights? Fitzpatrick, maxim, ray, Walcott etc? I think in Charles’s case he fought so often he ALWAYS put out a luke warm performance every so often. By choosing to select one period over another when each period was mixed with better wins against top fighters that eclipsed the luke warm ones is a little mischievous and over simplistic. In my view it is obvious to select the time where he was struggling consistently at a poorer level as the time when a boxer was done as a fighter. With charles, 1955 onward in my view.
 
I think all those wins you talked about are examples of modern day veteran fighters who have access to a lot more training improvements.. and not so relevant to this discussion. Walcott and Moore were excellent veteran fighters but it is easier to asses how they were able to prolong their careers due to their slick efficient boxing styles. Both treaded water until oppertunity alowed the right match making came along. Both would also pass a drugs test. Mosley and Hopkins always had the opportunity but certain programmes together with their experience have given them some surprising good fortune just not possible 50 years ago.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 03:24 PM   #109
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,740
vCash: 330
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
so are you saying because a shot fighter can look better later does this mean in reality Charles was slipping once he first began to have close fights? Fitzpatrick, maxim, ray, Walcott etc? I think in Charlesís case he fought so often he ALWAYS put out a luke warm performance every so often. By choosing to select one period over another when each period was mixed with better wins against top fighters that eclipsed the luke warm ones is a little mischievous and over simplistic. In my view it is obvious to select the time where he was struggling consistently at a poorer level as the time when a boxer was done as a fighter. With charles, 1955 onward in my view.
 
I think all those wins you talked about are examples of modern day veteran fighters who have access to a lot more training improvements.. and not so relevant to this discussion. Walcott and Moore were excellent veteran fighters but it is easier to asses how they were able to prolong their careers due to their slick efficient boxing styles. Both treaded water until oppertunity alowed the right match making came along. Both would also pass a drugs test. Mosley and Hopkins always had the opportunity but certain programmes together with their experience have given them some surprising good fortune just not possible 50 years ago.
no. that's not what i'm saying at all.

You said a declining fighter can not string together good results. I showed you a handful of examples from the top of my head where this si the case.

Charles is just nowhere hear as consistent after the series with jersey as he was leading up to the final fight.

Maybe you just don't rate Charles as highly as I do, I dunno, but I'd certainly pick him in his prime to defeat both Johnson and Valdes, plus he did defeat Walcott already.

Whether he'd ever have beaten rocky is a different question but I think he'd have had more chance had he been in his prime.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 03:50 PM   #110
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
no. that's not what i'm saying at all.

You said a declining fighter can not string together good results. I showed you a handful of examples from the top of my head where this si the case.

Charles is just nowhere hear as consistent after the series with jersey as he was leading up to the final fight.

Maybe you just don't rate Charles as highly as I do, I dunno, but I'd certainly pick him in his prime to defeat both Johnson and Valdes, plus he did defeat Walcott already.

Whether he'd ever have beaten rocky is a different question but I think he'd have had more chance had he been in his prime.
but if he did already beat johnson like many people do think he did what then? ray arcel stated that charles was still the best heavyweight in the world after he beat rex layne, he knew a thing or to, was he that far out? wouldnt you pick a fit charles under 200lb having trained for a longer fight of 54' vintage to beat valdes in a rematch? I know I would seeing as valdes could do nothing against satterfeild and gillium. how about the charles of the ray, maxim, barone fights against johnson and layne?
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 04:26 PM   #111
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,740
vCash: 330
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
but if he did already beat johnson like many people do think he did what then? ray arcel stated that charles was still the best heavyweight in the world after he beat rex layne, he knew a thing or to, was he that far out? wouldnt you pick a fit charles under 200lb having trained for a longer fight of 54' vintage to beat valdes in a rematch? I know I would seeing as valdes could do nothing against satterfeild and gillium. how about the charles of the ray, maxim, barone fights against johnson and layne?
I'm not arsed what many think.

I've watched the fight myself and Charles was handily outjabbed for the majority of the ten rounds.

I'd pick a prime charles over Johnson and a prime Charles over Valdes. I'd also pick a prime Charles over Walcott.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 05:46 PM   #112
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I'm not arsed what many think.

I've watched the fight myself and Charles was handily outjabbed for the majority of the ten rounds.

I'd pick a prime charles over Johnson and a prime Charles over Valdes. I'd also pick a prime Charles over Walcott.


I am not going to criticize your take on the Johnson fight because you are entitled to your opinion. What I will say is Johnson was an excellent fighter an ATG, also in his prime, so I donít think any fighter who was slipping or suffering from a muscle wasting illness could ever take johnson to a SD. Its ludicrous to think an ATG in his prime cannot beat a once great fighter beyond dispute who is slipping, suffering from a muscle wasting illness. Otherwise its like ray robinson having a close fight with henry Armstrong.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 06:18 PM   #113
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,740
vCash: 330
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
I am not going to criticize your take on the Johnson fight because you are entitled to your opinion. What I will say is Johnson was an excellent fighter an ATG, also in his prime, so I donít think any fighter who was slipping or suffering from a muscle wasting illness could ever take johnson to a SD. Its ludicrous to think an ATG in his prime cannot beat a once great fighter beyond dispute who is slipping, suffering from a muscle wasting illness. Otherwise its like ray robinson having a close fight with henry Armstrong.
Erm, johnson did beat charles. Just as robinson beat armstrong.

And again you're making very silly claims. De la hoya v whittaker for example. Carbajal v arce is even more extreme.

I clearly rate charles higher than you. We seem to be going round in circles.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 06:24 PM   #114
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
charles did not have a muscle wasting illness at 32. charles was one year older than marciano was when he beat moore.
Here you are calling Ezzard a liar. That ain't right.

Wilfred Benitez was alot younger than both when he was slipping. See how silly this can get?
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 04:11 AM   #115
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Here you are calling Ezzard a liar. That ain't right.
I find it hard to imagine ray arcel himself would make as bold a statement as "ezzard charles is still the best heavyweight in the world" after beating rex layne if charles was slipping. I mean would you put your rep on the line and say that knowing charles was slipping?
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 04:25 AM   #116
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Erm, johnson did beat charles. Just as robinson beat armstrong.

robinson beat armstrong beyond dispute because armstrong was slipping. johnson did not beat charles beyond dispute. it was disputed.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 07:12 AM   #117
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,740
vCash: 330
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
robinson beat armstrong beyond dispute because armstrong was slipping. johnson did not beat charles beyond dispute. it was disputed.
You're being very weird.

The fact he could perform at that level past his prime is a testament to his ability.

I think johnson beat charles. You probably haven't even watched it.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 12:28 PM   #118
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
I find it hard to imagine ray arcel himself would make as bold a statement as "ezzard charles is still the best heavyweight in the world" after beating rex layne if charles was slipping. I mean would you put your rep on the line and say that knowing charles was slipping?
Huh? First of all, Arcel knew that great fighters slipping can still beat most guys out there. There's a hundred examples of that. Secondly, Arcel was in Ezzard's corner and would absolutely puff him up to get him a title shot ASAP and all that money that comes with it, then put him to pasture with a pension of sorts.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 12:42 PM   #119
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,182
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
You're being very weird.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 01:42 PM   #120
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I think johnson beat charles. You probably haven't even watched it.
I watched the whole fight and had charles one round up but would not argue if called a draw or if anyone thought johnson nicked it. very tight fight of pure boxing with neither getting a true upperhand. a bit like pastrano v johnson.
choklab 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 09:34 PM.


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