debunking the myth of louis being completely past it ...

Back then they scored the matches by rounds not points, so a knockdown would only win him the round,

Here's the scoring of the Charles/Johnson bout:

• Referee Buck McTiernan - 6-3-1 Johnson
• Judge Joe Capristo - 5-4-1 Charles
• Judge Lou Tress - 7-3 Johnson
• Unofficial AP scorecard - 5-3-2 Johnson

 

Ezzard Charles vs Harold Johnson was a close fight that I've seen people score either way, never by wide margins. Would the Charles of 1947 truly go to a close decision with the Harold Johnson of 1953?

 

Marciano is so wide open and ponderous. It's surprising to see a heavyweight who is so small be so ponderous.

 

If Charles was never a dancer, than the question of his supposed decrease in mobility is drifting into tedious irrelvance..its what you would call a "stretch." Now a noticable slide in defense however as you suggest would be more telling. However I would certainly say Walcot and Louis hit Charles more frequently than Wallace, Satterfield, and Layne combined in 53-54. We both know this is because of the considerable difference in punching talent in his opponents moreso than varying defense on Charles' part.


Now, the Satterfield fight you described as Charles being "more of a slugger who took a beating before landing a knockout blow." Sorry, but I don't see it. Maybe could describe "Layne/Satterfield" that way. I see one of the best and most dangerous starters in heavyweight history going for broke while Charles slips and deflects most of his attack, waiting for an opening and finding one fairly easily. Of course, Satterfield snuck in a few punches...he's going to. Credit to the crafty Charles for avoiding most of them and not letting him string anything together. He looks like a boxer too me in this and the first Marciano fight.

You also ask if 47 Charles would lose a disputed decision to a fellow all time great in Harold Johnson. Well he did lose a disputed decision to Elmer Ray in a close fight where Ring thought he was the more effective fighter but the judges didn't see it that way. Save the third Walcott meeting and the Marciano fights, the same can be said for his most of his losses from 47-54. Maybe if Johnson and Valdez gave Charles' rematches the judges would see it different...Valdez' people flat out refused after scoring the upset in the big Cuban's quasi hometown.

 

BS. Louis at 37 was dangerous, but didn't have his speed and power anymore.

 

How good was Jimmy Bivins when Joe Louis beat him?

 

Louis was a shell of a shell. Just from the film, his right hand was completely gone, his timing like 50 year old. He was only Joe Louis in name.

 

To COMPARE the Joe Louis at 37 years of age to the PRIME trip hammer puncher of the Max Baer/Schmeling #2 fight is preposterous. The Louis of the Max Baer fight would decimate the 37 year old shell of Louis who fought Marciano in 1951.
Marciano who I saw almost kill Carmine Vingo in 1951 ,would have lost to the young prime Joe Louis most assuredly...Louis at his best hit so fast, so accurate, so powerfully that Marciano would be tko'd IMO...Marciano, lest we forget missed half his punches, and Louis would get there first and ANYONE Louis hurts he kos...Speed always wins against two punchers...
And the Joe Louis of his prime ,gets to and batters any version of Clay/Ali
and tko's Ali, BOTH in their prime...The rope-a-dope would never work on
Joe Louis who never missed his punches,and made every punch count IMO...

 

This.

Prime Louis destroys Marciano. Prime Louis destroys just about every heavyweight on their best day.

 

This should straighten out the myth of Joe Louis' age:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Tpg4tkjz3N8&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Tpg4tkjz3N8

 

*deleted*

 

I think it is possible to give Marciano credit for the fight, without detracting from Louis.

Louis was the greatest heavyweight of all time in his prime.

At this stage he was totally past it, but it would still have taken an exceptional fighter to beat him.

Its not an either or thing.

 

Joe Louis may no longer have been the pre war phenomenon he had been when he fought Rocky but was actually still a genuine, outstanding contender in his own right at that time. Louis was not some has been dug up for some golden boy to beat on. Louis was about 75% of his postwar self against Marciano. Louis was not coming out of retirement he was still winning fights, active, rated, even favoured to beat Marciano. It was nothing like Ali and Holmes coming out of retirement to take a beating.

Sure, if he was younger Joe would have made easier work of the men he beat after charles but the fact is even that form by another fighter (not called joe louis) would have justified the higher rating and been the bookies choice against new kid like Marciano.

 

It was an absolutely horrible era. What if Henry Maske was the best contender in 2002 and Lewis was given great credit for fighting him? That's Marciano.