Marciano v.s. Bruno ?

You can do what you like but when you want to get technical in favor of your own stance simply tell the truth.

I've got no horse in the race.

 

What I mean is not many scored it for Johnson did they? I didn’t.

I don’t know where we can gage this side of Marciano where it can be accurately decided Charles slipped because right through his career he had fights that could go either way.

In 1946 associated press only voted Charles won 5 of 10 rounds against Oakland Billy Smith. In 1947 Fritzie Fitzpatrick had Charles down and their first fight was disputed and very controversial. The 1947 Ray fight was disputed. The 15 round 1949 fight with Maxim- only a majority verdict was disputable too. One of the Moore fights was supposedly close for comfort. Again, 1947. These examples are before Charles becomes champion. Are we to decide Charles had slipped even before he won the title?

After becoming champion but before fighting Rocky Charles has the exact same pattern. Between stunning wins over Layne, Reynolds, Harrison, Wallace and satterfeild (that match anything that came before), there are the three verdicts (he did not get) that could have went either way. There was the Valdes blip that was eclipsed by stunning wins that came after that.

The first fight where Charles actually loses to a lower tier fighter is john Holman in 1955.

 

I object to you saying I don’t tell the truth. It is the truth that Charles was not technically a genuine LHW until he made that weight. It is the truth that 12 of 87 fights after the war were bouts where both he and the opponent were LHW limit.

You were the one pretending Charles “made LHW limit 24 times before the war”. He did not. That is a lie 24 times over because Charles NEVER weighed 176lb until after the war. Years later.

Splitting hairs I accept 169 technically is over middleweight. But 169 is not the LHW limit.

 

Right, he was never under 160 I dont think.

All those non title fights were loosely sanctioned then. Some guys floated around just over the limit. LaMotta was the same way.

I see no problem with refering to Charles from 40 to 43 as a MW. Its certainly not dishonest if thats where he was officially rated and campaigning.

 

Charles was certainly a LHW when he faced Maxim, Bivins, and Marshall. Even if a small one compared to Bivins and Maxim. Maxim was actually 183 in one of those fights so certainly in HW terrority.

Charles at 168 out weighed 165 Marshall. They were both rated LHW.

 

Charles was a middleweight before the war, that's true.
Lots of middleweights fight at 161 to 166 or so, until or unless they land a title fight. Prior to the idea of "super middleweights" this was even more true.

But considering his youthful age, it could certainly be argued that he was outgrowing the division already.

 

Yeah, no argument there. He was not only a MW but a highly rated one.

 

The mental contortions of Marcianistas never fail to entertain me. Bravo, everyone. Bravo Indeed!

 

I haven't even followed them, to be honest.

Why Ezzard Charles's early career body weight is being discussed on this thread, I don't actually know .....

 

I was just thinking the same, this thread has digressed just a tad!

 

It was because somebody was dismissing Charles as “just a lightheavyweight” which started a quest to establish when he became one and when he stopped being one.

Amusingly charles becomes a lightheavyweight when he beats LHWs... but he’s not allowed to be a HW once he beats guys heavier than 174lb. For that to happen apparently he has to be Over 174 himself...

 

Whatever it is, it's probably easier to get my head round that the "U.S. Army Requirements Height and Weight Chart" though ... but I can't even be bothered to go back the 3 or 4 pages it might take to decipher the origin ...

Suffice to say, for me, Marciano would smash Bruno's head in, and whether that's because of or despite of Ezzard Charles being a big-MW-small-LHW in 1943 I doubt it matters .....