Rocky Marciano v George Foreman

Charles lost 4 fights between losing the title to Walcott by knockout and challenging Rocky - not 8!

Walcott (disputed) Layne (disputed), Johnson (disputed) and Valdes (close). These were elite/great fighters.

Do you deny Walcott, Layne, Johnson and Valdes were better guys than Maxim, Beshore and Barone whom Charles did not particularly excite folks with as a champion?

In all likelihood on that form, Layne, Johnson, Valdes and Walcott could take charles just as close during those championship days as they did in non title fights. Walcott actually did!!

 

So you agree with Holmes 2?

 

Don't be so closed minded.

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

Evolution isn’t a theory about upright walking ape creatures slowly becoming men after thousands of years?

 

Exactly.

 

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

 

Exactly what? What has Holmes got to do with this?

I agree with Holmes 2? In what way?

 

Nothing to do with sport within the same century then.

 

Because it was the points loss to Marciano that sent Charles over the cliff. He was never the same. Don Turner says so too.

yes, when Rocky knocked out Charles I don’t think Charles was the same Ezzard Charles. He was a shot fighter during that fight. Previously he was near prime.

Johnson, Walcott and Layne decisions could ALL easily have been awarded to Charles. EASILY. Charles had previously twice beat Walcott. He’d previously knocked out Layne (and would beat him again). Valdes decision looks like a hard fought legit loss but one where he made mistakes in coming in too heavy and starting too fast. It’s like Ray Robinson being outpointed by Randy Turpin.

in my opinion Charles was already on the wrong side of that cliff before both fights. Getting Rocky again then Holman immediately after the 15 round war with Rocky was particularly awful matchmaking. Frazier at least got Daniels and Stander after the war with Ali.

yes the losses Charles suffered past his prime started with the rematch with Rocky and the Holman fight.

the wrong accent? That’s a matter of opinion.

your answer is no. It’s not factual that Layne would never win five rounds against a younger Charles when Maxim might have, Ray might have, Moore might have. Don’t forget Layne won 5 rounds against Walcott and he was practically Charles’ equal.

well Lynne beat Walcott. and over that period Charles had fights with Barone and Beshore that were not well received. How can we rule out below par efforts like that being enough to prevent Layne winning 5 rounds?

have you read the Barone and Beshore reports? Was Layne really so far away from Maxim?

perhaps not Valdes. I’m happy to concede The Valdes result as a fight Charles should have won. It’s one fight.

The very carnation that did fight Valdes would almost certainly reverse that result in a rematch. Look what Charles later did to Satterfeild who after that beating utterly slaughtered Valdes.

saying it like that makes it look like genuinely terrible posting to all those unfamiliar with the timeline and fighters from the period involving Charles. But as I have presented, you are pinning Charles decline on 3 fights (against elite men) that could have went either way, one off night among many strong performances against leading men like Satterfeild, Layne again, Wallace, Cesar Brion and Maxim again that match and represent Charles’ championship run.

Frazier beating Quarry a second time is like Charles beating Bivins in 1952. Frazier not beating Ali a second time is like Charles not beating Walcott the last time. Difference being Charles could have been handed that verdict and he went on to many wins after it. Frazier went on to meet Ellis who had not won his last 5 fights.

who did Charles ever beat who was better than Harold Johnson?

Johnson was pretty great wasn’t he?

 

But he didn’t because he probably believes the dividing line is after the first Marciano fight.

it was a good turn around but Charles was operating at a lower level by then. With the same performance he’s not beating Satterfeild is he? He fought well because the opponent allowed. Holman lost to Pastrano too.

I would say Charles was within the last third of a real prime. A period where he could still produce greatness providing he is getting sufficient rest between fights.

I agree. This happened to Charles in the rematch with Rocky.

In any other circumstance I will agree with you on this. Providing there is no controversy over the narrow decisions. Or providing the guys winning these narrow decisions were of the un-heralded “no name” variety. 3 of the four losses after Walcott were controversial decisions and none of them were against no name unheralded types.

when did Charles beat guys exactly as good as Harold Johnson, Nino Valdes and Walcott and he’d win so clearly they could not be confused with a close fight?

I agree. But if the fighter is being robbed rather than actually losing, what then?

no. I’m struggling with “past prime” being passed off as a fighter being “shot” and it going unchallenged.

Frazier lost desire too. He was never in the same kind of physical shape. He had heart. He always had that. but Frazier looked podgy after the first Ali fight. He became a part time boxer. Singing in a band. He could only really get up for superfights and he was past it.

yes it dosnt matter that Charles lost narrow decisions if The fighters who were taking him that close were not the level of men that took him close before he was champion. But I think before Marciano they were that level. I believe it is possible an exchamp does not get the benefit of the doubt in his opponents home town.

yes it matters if Charles was losing. Before Marciano Charles was doing what Robinson was doing on tour. Fighting far too often. He’d already been champion. He was yesterday’s news. I don’t think there was mileage in giving close fights to ex champions.

yes of course. It was harder to beat prime Charles than past prime Charles. We just disagree where the past prime point was. You (and I am sure most people) believe Charles was past prime the moment he was knocked out by Walcott. This is something that is not applied with Lennox Lewis after he was knocked out by Rahman.

well yes. I’m glad we can agree. Robinson was still capable of great wins after that fight. The edge that was missing from Robinson, could still be replaced with better training or time off between fights. That’s why I don’t necessarily see these kinds of things as a turning point in a career.

No it’s not possible Charles entered his prime right before Marciano. That’s not even logical. It’s possible that fighting Marciano was the last time charles was capable of a great win.

we can say this if we had films that show he was losing to Layne. There are films of Charles beating up Layne the other times they fought. Without film one can be inclined to assume the one where Dempsey allowed too much mauling, (scoring 7 rounds even) where Charles did not get the decision was not any different than the times Charles beat Layne up on film. What I have seen of the Walcott and Johnson film I don’t think charles was necessarily losing. That leaves one other decision before fighting Marciano, the Valdes fight to match the pre championship HW loss to Ray. That’s why I don’t see this decline so clear cut.

yes the evidence that Frazier was unbeaten and younger is factual. But it is factual also that Frazier never won an important fight after beating Ali. You could say beating Quarry again was important because Jerry was on a good run but it flatters to deceive in the light of Quarrys near knockout weeks earlier where he looked shot beating an unknown kid.

but it could be a close fight and you know it. Johnson and Moore fought lots of times, I think Johnson even won once. They’re not so far apart. I’d happily pick Charles over Schmeling among Joe Louis opponents and they are not so far apart. Tommy Farr and Jersey Joe Walcott?

 

Such a closed mind.

 

Well you were agreeing with it previously so isn't that my question? You don't know what you are reading LOL