Rocky Marciano v George Foreman

Evolution?

 

Who? Past-it Louis? Since you mentioned 14 fighters of your "50s heavyweight era" before, and i can´t find anybody from here in there, i guess this must be a bunch of real professionals, hm?

12/14 (85%) of the fighters in your list (Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis, Patterson, Ingo. Then you have Baker, Henry, Valdes, Satterfeild, Jackson, Layne, Machen, folley) COULD EASILY MAKE 195 POUNDS, most of them were even lower!
Just NOTHING suggests that this era has something to do with a HEAVYWEIGHT division consisting lean 215+lb fighters. Forget about worldclass punchers in the calibre of Foremen.
If you want to check the outcome of Rocky "the Cruiserking" Marciano vs fighters beating 220lb regularly, check post #3 and #5 here:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/rocky-marciano-vs-the-future-champions.581790/

 

Evolution is where upright walking ape like creatures eventually become men over thousands of years.

 

Well that hardly explains that you have viewed film of 1950s heavyweights Valdes, Baker, Holman, Sys, Baksi, young Jack Johnson, Neuhaus, Hoff. So a whole hearted F.U. Right back at you until you can prove you have an informed view of such fighters.

 

Would you say Ali was 'slipping' when he fought Foreman? He was 32 and had lost twice when I'm sure many would agree he formally would of won

 

where is Charles slipping? Without getting knocked out, Johnson and Walcott are the only film we have of Charles losing before facing Marciano. I don’t think Charles looks any worse in competitive fights being outpointed by Walcott and Johnson than he did outpointing maxim as champion. He looked better against Louis for sure but not necessarily maxim.

I never saw the film of the nick Barone or Freddie beshore title fights but apparently Ezzard really sucked in those fights. That’s what I was talking about when I said the “theme” of Charles career where he had dud or close fights from time to time between great wins throughout his career.

After the war but before becoming champion the Fitzpatrick fight was controversial. One of the Archie Moore fights were controversial. One of the pre championship Maxim fights were controversial. The Ray fight was officially a loss. Ezzard fought that often. It happens.

Without watching these fights are we to assume these were not dissimilar to being edged out by Walcott (4th fight) or losing by a shade on points to Layne and Valdes? Why the recovery of form against Satterfeild and Wallace?

Where was the raise in form from Joe Frazier any time after beating Ali?

so far as the record shows yes Charles did not lose fights apart from Ray before losing his title. Hands up. It’s wrong to say losing was a theme. I don’t think having fights that could have went either way -that he won on one side of the title are so far away from fights that could have went either way after he lost the title. And I don’t think it unreasonable to say so. Layne did not beat Charles according to many people.

it’s less convincing on paper sure it is. The record shows Frazier was both younger and unbeaten. But going by the fights Frazier had from 71’ there is a drop off in form. I think it’s more visible than it is with an older Charles.

I embrace the first because it suits my agenda... that’s crazy. Frazier looked more shot against Stander than Charles did beating Satterfeild. It’s as simple as that.

So you saw it, good. Charles was knocked flat. But until that moment it was a strategic chess match. The result when viewed really shows no serious decline until that point. It’s not like Charles was schooled, rag dolled and beat up is it?

 

I agree, although I would say significantly rather than dramatically, however he was still good enough to compete and win at the highest level as was Charles. Obviously Ezz didn't win the title back but going the full 15 with a peak ATG losing a close decision surly indicated he couldn't of slipped too much.

 

Until he was caught Charles looked fine. It was just one punch. Duran got caught by Hearns. It happens. Good fighters that have not faded can get iced with one punch. Machen got iced by Ingo. Still a good fighter. There’s lots of examples of good fighters getting iced mid prime. Lennox Lewis.

But seeing Joe Labour with Stander, yes and winning, can show a decline that is more noticeable than a fighter competing at a higher level against a better opponent that was a chess match right up until an unexpected knockout loss. Yes. Why not?

Walcott was better than Stander and a faded Quarry who was almost knocked out weeks earlier.

 

Well let's look at this in detail:

*Charles lost a SD to Elmer Rey in 47. The AP had it 5-4-1 Charles
*Charles beat Maxim MD in 49 (can't find much info on this one but a rematch happened)
*Charles beat Walcott UD in 51. (unpopular decision but UP had Charles up 8-5-2)
*Charles was KOed by Walcott in 51.
*Charles lost a UD to Walcott in 52. The AP had it 7-6-2 Charles.
*Charles lost a UD to Layne in 52. Salt Lake Tribune - 6-3-1 Charles "In a blatantly obvious hometown decision, Referee Jack Dempsey scored 2 rounds for Layne, 1 round for Charles with 7 rounds even. Most objective observers felt Charles had won. During the fight Layne butted Charles repeatedly without caution from the referee"
*Charles lost a UD to Valdez in 53. Unofficial UP scorecard - 5-3-2 Valdes
*Charles lost a SD to Johnson in 53. The AP had it 5-3-2 Johnson

My take away:

-Charles had off nights against Rey and Maxim in his prime that he set right in rematches.

-The Charles/Walcott series was all about tactical adjustments rather than declines.

-Charles seemed to get raw deals in Walcott IV and Layne II.

-Charles had off nights against Valdez and Johnson but rebounded with great performances.

At 32 he was no doubt on the slide against Marciano in that he was having more off nights, but he gave one of his career best performances in the first bout as noted by contemporary writers, but dropped the ball huge in the rematch, hence he had became erratic. Even after the Rocky KO loss, he still had a couple good nights left in him before falling off the horse completely, Holmes 2 is a pretty under looked last hooray.

 

Absolutely perfect and totally logical. It’s a better explained post than I was trying to convey.