How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

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.

It's a good fight.

It's also patently clear that his foot and handspeed isn't what it once was.

Watch him against marshall.

Prime for prime, I think rocky does beat charles, but it's a more competitive fight imo.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

It's a good fight.

It's also patently clear that his foot and handspeed isn't what it once was.

Watch him against marshall.

Prime for prime, I think rocky does beat charles, but it's a more competitive fight imo.

yes the first fight WAS competative. going by film of charles as a heavyweight I also dont think he could ever have done better against marciano than he did first time around. second time around charles had left too much in the ring last time and was less competative, charles was not the same fighter as he was first time.

I have watched the marshal fight a long time ago. charles looked faster and smaller much in the way holyfeild was smaller and faster before he was a heavyweight. Being smaller did not equall to being better for charles than it was for holyfeild IMO. Younger fighters do have more energy but much is wasted and youth speed is not as well chambered as with more seasoned fighters. Granted, charles was more nimble but he wasnt setting so many traps and in my view looked a lot less potent.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

yes the first fight WAS competative. going by film of charles as a heavyweight I also dont think he could ever have done better against marciano than he did first time around. second time around charles had left too much in the ring last time and was less competative, charles was not the same fighter as he was first time.

I have watched the marshal fight a long time ago. charles looked faster and smaller much in the way holyfeild was smaller and faster before he was a heavyweight. Being smaller did not equall to being better for charles than it was for holyfeild IMO. Younger fighters do have more energy but much is wasted and youth speed is not as well chambered as with more seasoned fighters. Granted, charles was more nimble but he wasnt setting so many traps and in my view looked a lot less potent.

For a man of that frame to ever beat rocky he needs as much hand and foot speed as possible to allow him keep outside for long enough to win 7 rounds.

The more flatfooted he is, the better chance rocky has of cornering and unloading.

It's not rocket science, most guys would be most competitive when prime. Charles is no different.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

For a man of that frame to ever beat rocky he needs as much hand and foot speed as possible to allow him keep outside for long enough to win 7 rounds.

The more flatfooted he is, the better chance rocky has of cornering and unloading.

It's not rocket science, most guys would be most competitive when prime. Charles is no different.

charles did his best, rocky just drew charles into his kind of fight. marciano always made you meet him - even against good movers. sure, charles moved more against marshal but his style had evolved into a more effective box fighter by 53'. He began to knock more heavyweights out by beating them to the draw and sitting down more on his punch. charles had developed a better punch than in the marshal days and could time pretty much time anyone by the time he met marciano. charles wasnt called the cincinati cobra for nothing.

[ripcity]

I think Charles can box circles around Marciano, but can he do it for 15 rounds?
As long as Marciano is on two feet he's very dangerous.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

charles did his best, rocky just drew charles into his kind of fight. marciano always made you meet him - even against good movers. sure, charles moved more against marshal but his style had evolved into a more effective box fighter by 53'. He began to knock more heavyweights out by beating them to the draw and sitting down more on his punch. charles had developed a better punch than in the marshal days and could time pretty much time anyone by the time he met marciano. charles wasnt called the cincinati cobra for nothing.

If probably did try his best. I just think he could have done better had he been prime.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Dempsey1238

I heard the raido broadcast of Marciano Charles I, it sounded like Marciano won a close but clear points win imo.

Parts of the first fight are on film, and its a war! Charles at times stung Rocky, but Rocky's greater power and activity won the day.

As long as the match is 15 rounds, I would favor Rocky to beat a prime Charles.

[marcianoredempt]

Charles v Marciano at any stage is going to be a win for Rocky, the fact that earlier in his career Charles was more potent and came forward looking for the victory would have played into Marciano's hand, someone once asked Marciano's trainer Charley Goldman how he thought a fight between Marciano and a prime Louis would have gone and Goldman's reply is relevant to this question, he said that Rocky would have beaten Joe earlier because Louis would have been coming forward looking to knock Rocky out rather than trying to box on the defensive and score points, same scenario plays out V. Charles, v. Walcott, etc...(in my humble opinion) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].

[choklab]

#1 rated contender Charles was the best heavyweight in the world outside of marciano when he chalenged for the title in 1954.

people will argue charles was faster when he was younger but he was knocking out less rated heavyweights back then. its like saying micheal moorer was better as a lightheavyweight because he was faster and never would have lost to foreman. or saying Holyfeild against ricky parkey was faster and moved more and therefore better than when he fought bert cooper etc.

The rated heavyweights charles was beating before chalenging marciano he was knocking down and knocking out. wallace, satterfeild, layne were counted out and tommy harrison was decked hard then pulled out by hs corner. These were all rated when charles sorted them out.

as a champion charles did not knockout old joe louis, wallcott or joey maxim. beshore was stopped with a thick ear. oma was stopped on his feet. lesnavich retired on his stool. sure barone and valentino were knocked out but who were they?

At 32 charles as an ex champion was not getting the nod in close fights against fighters in their home towns. The cuban valdes in miami, morman layne in utah and philidelphian harold johnson in philadelphia. These losses were eclipsed with bigger wins and did not mean much in light of how disputed OR close they all were.

when he fought marciano IMO I think charles was still as great as he had ever been at heavyweight.

[lufcrazy]

Just as I thought you were seeing sense you repeat this old shit. If you want my responses just look to how I responded last time you posted something along those lines.

[McGrain]

Obviously you're wasting your breath talking to choklab about this. That anyone can be so married to an opinion over a fighter's form in a fight they've never ever seen tells its own story.

Charles looks worse against Johnson than he does against Valentino.

He looses to Johnson, a fighter he is clearly better than at his very best just before he takes on Rocky.

Walcott went from being worse to better years before Charles met Rocky.

Pretty obvious conclusion really.

You need footage to have an opinion as strong as his, and even if he did, how could you trust his eyes after this?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Obviously you're wasting your breath talking to choklab about this. That anyone can be so married to an opinion over a fighter's form in a fight they've never ever seen tells its own story.

Charles looks worse against Johnson than he does against Valentino.

He looses to Johnson, a fighter he is clearly better than at his very best just before he takes on Rocky.

Walcott went from being worse to better years before Charles met Rocky.

Pretty obvious conclusion really.

You need footage to have an opinion as strong as his, and even if he did, how could you trust his eyes after this?

I don't think he actually watches boxing. As he ever produced a scorecard or analysis of a fight? I don't think he has.

It genuinely makes me cringe the way he compares wallace and satterfield to walcott and louis though.

He must be trolling, as you say, he hasn't even seen this fight. Looking great against Wallace is proof of form, but looking geat against valentino is irrelevant because he's noone

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I don't think he actually watches boxing. As he ever produced a scorecard or analysis of a fight? I don't think he has.

It genuinely makes me cringe the way he compares wallace and satterfield to walcott and louis though.

He must be trolling, as you say, he hasn't even seen this fight. Looking great against Wallace is proof of form, but looking geat against valentino is irrelevant because he's noone

For the benefit of luf and mcgrain I have reviewed the Charles v Johnson fight.

It was a good fight. Charles was against a master boxer not looking to get involved in a slugfest and use his boxing. Chares was the hunter during a lot of the fight but many exchanges were even and both were expert at preventing the other from entirely getting the upper hand. Johnson doubled up his jab well at times and landed nice counters. when Charles was looking to set traps Harold wasn’t buying it. However there were as many times where I felt Johnson was on the outside and at risk from Charles better punching and it was Charles not Johnson who looked most likely to have the edge if there was one. Johnson was working off Charles whilst Charles took the lead. both were stunned a equal number of times but Charles made more impression. you could even count a knockdown for Charles if you wanted to be fussy.

I scored round one for Johnson. round two for Johnson round 3 for Charles, round 4 for Charles, round five for Johnson, round 6 for Charles, round 7 decisively for Charles, round 8 for Johnson, round 9 for Charles and round 10 also for Charles.

I still think a draw would be fair, perhaps it was close enough for all three verdicts to be fair. It is a classic disputed fight.

Charles was against a better fighter here than valentino. If Charles were faster or sharper he would still be measured against a sharp and fast fighter so I doubt he could shine anymore with even his championship form. I think Charles looked sharper against Wallace but then Wallace was slower than a 178lb Johnson. its negligible.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

For the benefit of luf and mcgrain I have reviewed the Charles v Johnson fight.

It was a good fight. Charles was against a master boxer not looking to get involved in a slugfest and use his boxing. Chares was the hunter during a lot of the fight but many exchanges were even and both were expert at preventing the other from entirely getting the upper hand. Johnson doubled up his jab well at times and landed nice counters. when Charles was looking to set traps Harold wasn’t buying it. However there were as many times where I felt Johnson was on the outside and at risk from Charles better punching and it was Charles not Johnson who looked most likely to have the edge if there was one. Johnson was working off Charles whilst Charles took the lead. both were stunned a equal number of times but Charles made more impression. you could even count a knockdown for Charles if you wanted to be fussy.

I scored round one for Johnson. round two for Johnson round 3 for Charles, round 4 for Charles, round five for Johnson, round 6 for Charles, round 7 decisively for Charles, round 8 for Johnson, round 9 for Charles and round 10 also for Charles.

I still think a draw would be fair, perhaps it was close enough for all three verdicts to be fair. It is a classic disputed fight.

Charles was against a better fighter here than valentino. If Charles were faster or sharper he would still be measured against a sharp and fast fighter so I doubt he could shine anymore with even his championship form. I think Charles looked sharper against Wallace but then Wallace was slower than a 178lb Johnson. its negligible.

Unless someone disregards jabs as scoring punches I struggle to see charles winning but I appreciate a minority do score for him as the sport is subjective.

However I am even more strong in my opinion that prime for prime charles beats johnson. He wouldn't get outjabbed in his prime and he'd be much busier, much quicker and much sharper.

I think i'm going to just accept that I view charles in a better light than you do.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Unless someone disregards jabs as scoring punches I struggle to see charles winning but I appreciate a minority do score for him as the sport is subjective.

However I am even more strong in my opinion that prime for prime charles beats johnson. He wouldn't get outjabbed in his prime and he'd be much busier, much quicker and much sharper.

I think i'm going to just accept that I view charles in a better light than you do.

I think the exact same charles with three months rather than three weeks to get ready for harold johnson could have been much busier, much quicker and much sharper. harold would always be tricky for charles boxing as well as he did that time. Charles was on a 11 fight in 12 month schedule at that time. sometimes it kept him sharp, sometimes against better fighters he wouldnt appear as good but that could be down to the style and ability of the opponent. styles make fights. johnson was no slouch against heavyweights, he knew how to box them and was still good enough to beat eddie machen in 1961.