Ezzard Charles KO 2 Bob Satterfield 1954

and this contiued in the spell between the last walcott fight and marciano fight. when he was hot he was hot.

 

I don't argue that 1948 wasn't his peak. But usually the term "prime" covers more than just the very peak of a fighter. We could also say that 1988 was Tyson's peak but most agree that 1986-1988 was his prime.

 

Except when he was at his best he pulled those fights out. By the 1950's he was losing fights that he should have been winning.

 

Satterfield had no defense, so there was no way he could last.

 

I'd say defense was the big difference here. Charles rolled with the punches after taking the initial bombs from Satterfield while Satterfield rolled into the punches and got flattened.

Charles admiring his work:

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Young Charles against Fitzpatrick:

This content is protected

 

in 1955 he was. Before 1955 Charles’s form is not dissimilar to his 1946-48 form where he fights so often the odd time he turns up stale and loses a close fight. with a proper camp and the stakes high he always delivered the goods right up till the rocky fights.

 

he beat johnson, valdes and big cat williams.

 

He seemed to always have a proper camp and was always in proper condition in the late 1940's. By the 1950's, he would often show up at a sluggish 190+ pounds and lose, indicating that he was past his peak.

 

Post rocky yes. before? Not so. never often.

again, a past peak fighters cannot knock out any fighter. 1953 charles was knocking out rated contenders.

 

He lost close but clear to Valdes, struggled with Layne in their rematch, looked off against Walcott in their 4th fight and was not able to beat Harold Johnson, an opponent that he likely would have beaten in his prime.

I don't know about that. Isn't the saying that the last thing a fighter loses is his power? I'm not saying that is true in all cases but despite diminishing speed and reflexes, Charles could still punch a bit.

Nobody is saying he was washed up. But he was noticeably slower and heavier. In his prime he would have been up there with Harold Johnson as far as handspeed goes. By the 1950's, Johnson was quicker.

 

Didnt Johnson - a great fighter- only edge ezz by SD? was fitzie fitzpatrick any better than nino Valdes? All these fights could have gone either way either side of Charles’s established prime. By the time Holman was beating him Charles WAS on the skids but that is AFTER and not BEFORE Marciano.
Charles looked off a lot of times. He was always good before marciano when he was up for it.

The saying is "a fighter is as good as his last fight". speed and reflexes is required for a timed KO. a faded puncher may bludgeon a less refined hope but he wont time and flatten any contenders with precision unless he still has it. Wallace and Satterfield were both rated and both were schooled by Charles and both were also knocked out.

he wasn’t that old, ezz found more power as he matured into the weight (knocking out Wallace and Satterfield proved that) and he had the confidence of big time experience. The knowledge that he had beat Walcott 2 out of 4 times and that (the great) Johnson had only edged him left him feeling far from the disillusioned wreck some might think he was. Charles looked upon Marciano as beatable, with Walcott gone he fancied his chances. He had mileage enough left on the clock to be champ again.
.

 

Was Harold Johnson as great a light heavyweight as Charles?

Fitzpatrick was KO'd in 5 rounds. Valdes beat Charles by a close but clear decision.

Wallace was also schooled an old Jimmy Bivins and knocked out. Satterfield was KO'd by Harold Johnson, Archie Moore, Marty Marshall, John Holman, Harold Carter, Clarence Henry, Rex Layne, Henry Hall, Sam Baroudi, Bob Foxworth, Jake LaMotta... That's an awfully long list.

I doubt Charles had more power than when he flattened Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Archie Moore, Pat Valentino and had Jersey Joe Walcott on the canvas.

Nobody is saying he was a wreck against Marciano, what people are saying is that it wasn't the peak effort that you're making it out to be.

 

Past peak fighters knock out other fighters all the damn time. Its damn common. The old, past it veteran who stops an upstart prospect-Its a big boxing storyline.

Good debate on both sides, tons of fair and good points, but saying a past it fighter somehow loses knockout ability is so not true its ridiculous.

 

I agree he wont lose that knock out abilty against a stationary target or an inferior oponent. however, even georege foreman stopped knocking people out in the end because the best fighters are harder to clip once the timing fades.

ezzard charles was about the age muhammad ali was against george foreman - still knocking out the best fighters.