How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Charles was 32 years of age when he fought Marciano and just came off 2 explosive KO victory's over Coley Wallace (who was fresh off a KO over Billy Gilliam)and Bob Satterfeild (who dominated Nino Valdes and KO'd Bob Baker and Big Cat Williams), It could be argued that he slipped but his only KO loss was in a series vs Walcott (who was one of the best single punch pin point power punchers ever), I think if we look at Charles fights vs these 2 men we can determine how much he slipped if any. We know one thing we can say about Marciano no one was the same after fighting him and even his most ardent haters would have to agree.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFq5aOYYJM[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s[/ame]

 

I think Marciano beats any version of Charles over 180lbs but I also think Charles would beat many of the heavyweight Champions and trouble all of them and that include Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Dempsey,Louis, Marciano, and I favor him beat Liston,Patterson,Sharkey,Carnera,Bowe,Willard, Tyson....I see Ezz as a pre-steriod Evander Holyfield with better skills and a sharper harder punch, he has a shot to beat Baer and Schmeling and beats Braddok and anyone pre-Dempsey including Johnson.

 

The begining of a decline is a fighter who drops a class level since he can no longer knock out fighters at his previous level. a fadded fighter past his prime is one step further. this is a guy who can barley "hold his own" on the fringes of his previous level and is humiliated if he steps up. ezzard charles was neither of these guys between losing the title and chalenging marciano.

to begin with initialy ezzard boxed for only three years then took two years out in the war. since he was out for almost as long as hed been active when he returned it was basicly a new career.

In a new four year career against albeit excelent oposition charles notched up a new 40-2 record by which time he had lost the title to walcott a guy hed previously beat twice, the other loss was also avenged. Charles was no shop worn fighter, he had only been back four years.
Between losing the title and facing Marciano charles was not more inconsistant than he had always been. against rated heavyweights he was only 12-2 by the time he lost his title. in the 36 months after he was 7-4 against rated contenders the guys he lost to were split to johnson (no disgrace), walcott (close), layne (close) who he later beat and valdes (close).

charles 2nd career was only 8 years long until his 1955 decline. he was knocking out world class guys throughout each of the 8 years, it wasnt until his 9th year after the hammering from marciano that he tipped over the top. The ludicrous tough matching and schedule in 1955 utterly ruined his health.

I cannot accept he was "past it" untill that 1955 point since many of the guys he beat in the 36 months after losing his title were as strong if not better than many of the heavyweights he fought earlier. no way was barone and beshore better than layne and satterfield for example. he only lost to johnson on a split yet harold was beter than erv sarlin and joe matisi who lasted the distance with charles prior to winning the title. fadded fighters dont beat beter contenders easier than weaker ones they struggled with earlier.
When charles fought Marciano he wasnt winning fights with flashes of greatness. he was knocking rated guys out till 54’ and had only been active for 8 years till that point. hardly a shop worn former champ on the downward slope..

 

It's hard to gage how far past his best Charles was, I think he may have been as he was very much an athletic boxer. Still Marciano may have still done the same, or may have lost the first narrowly and won the rematch

It's also probable Marciano was past his own peak by this stage

Second Jersey Joe loss is controversial, the Johnson loss is controversial. Not sure about the Layne/Valdes decisions mind you

 

This is neglagable.
in the 36 months after losing the title he was 7-4 against rated contenders the guys he lost to were split to johnson (no disgrace), walcott (close), layne (close) who he later beat and valdes (close).
charles wasnt shining against all the weakest guys during his peak. some of those guys were awful, he couldnt get up for them. its no disgrace. the charles who fought barone and beshore is the same guy who fought valdes and johnson.

the significance is charles wasnt putting out champion ship class performances all the time even then. prime charles perhaps fought far too often to guarantee that quality all the time.

these fights could have went either way and were very good contenders. many think charles won all those fights but the valdes one. against valdes charles was out of shape. one report said charles started too fast and shot his bolt after coming close to stopping nino early. nino mauled his way back in and used his weight to win by a shade in rounds only but was hurt in most rounds by a tired charles.

agreed. some of his best wins on film are the wallace, satterfeild, harrison fights.

I would say that was marciano. charles still fought like a great fighter the fist time at least.

 

I think i read that the layne fight was a bad decision. I am sure it was in the midwest as well. charles also knocked out layne.

 

Under modern scoring, Charles would have beat Johnson with the knockdown. Interesting to note.

 

what a bout the step up in talent charles was facing in Harrison, Layne, Wallace, Satterfield, Walcott x2, Layne x3, Johnson, Valdes and Rocky (x2)
compared to Baksi, Maxim, Walcott first 2 times, Lesnevich, Valentino, Beshore, old man Louis, Barone and lee Oma?

I think you will have to rethink this if your suport of charles slipping hinges on the layne and valdes fights.

charles either severly under estimated valdes or had a complete off night since he rebounded with much beter wins. gillium outpointed valdes and walace knocked out gillium. by knocking out big wallace charles did the next best thing to avenging his loss to valdes who he couldnt get to rematch. charles also beat gillium as well who was just as big as valdes who Billy also beat. losing to valdes isnt even a blot on charles's record when you weigh it all up. charles fought 6 rated contenders that year and spread himself a bit thin. I think the charles who turned up for wallace would have had much too much for the valdes who showed up for satterfield, moore, baker and even jackson.

charles had an extra round to knock out layne in pittsburgh that he did not have a year later when he lost to rex in utah as the away fighter in rex laynes hometown. jack dempsey, a midwest hero was the ref that night. Dempsey was the sole judge, he gave charles one round and scored 7 rounds even!

"The surprise of the decision, coming after 10 bruising rounds that were punctuated primarily by a powerful left hook used by the former heavyweight champion to punish Rowdy Rex, was indicated by the fact that virtually all ringsiders scoring the contest had Ezzard winning."

8 months later charles decked layne 3 times in sanfrancisco to win a decision. I cant help thinking all three fights were the same only one went into round 11 and layne was stopped and another was in rex laynes home town. usualy the fighter who is slipping loses over a 3 fight series.

 

So he beats a prime Tyson and has a shot at beating Max Baer ... :nut I honestly have come to believe that you don't believe what you post but simply do so to generate debate. There is no way to take such a post seriously ..

 

after reading some of your posts, I think most are agenda based so I don't really look at what you say but why you say it. As far as Tyson I said I think he could have beaten him which means he could also have lost to him but after watching Evander vs Tyson 1, and looking at Ezz vs Saterfield, I think its a possibility....Charles came into a few fights unmotivated ( he admittedly was not in top form for Valdes) but he tried badly for a rematch and Valdes would not give it. A lot of people feel he beat Johnson, I thought it was tight but felt he won.

 

It really has little to do with Ezzard Charles and everything to do with bolstering someone's resume. "He'd Beat A PRime Tyson!!!11"

Where as someone like Holmes wipes out double the number of rated opponents and is considered to have a an inferior resume.

Shits and Giggles.

 

No. Never.