Rocky Marciano v George Foreman

Okay John Thomas. I know what I am reading. Holmes2 was an example of a shot fighter with some wins left in him like Charles was AFTER Marciano. Shot.

 

And as I have near exhausted myself explaining... three of the four loses were as good as wins. They divided opinion. Draws at worst.

 

Yes I understand that. I agree in most cases.

I am happy to change my mind if film ever shows up that proves layne legitimately outscored Charles because film of Walcott and Johnson certainly don’t prove it. Those two were good enough to take “prime” Charles just as close.

The effort against Marciano shows Charles either had a terrible night against Valdes or that Valdes beat a really good fighter. But let’s see film of Valdes beating Charles up first.

Ex champs don’t get close decisions. They win close decisions on the way up.

The rematch against Rocky shows Charles was over the cliff -but not the first fight.

 

but Charles probably didn’t “let Layne in”. The two films either side of the decision Layne supposedly won over Charles show Layne taking an awful licking. Horrible beatings that should have been stopped. Reports of the fight Charles supposedly lost describe Dempsey allowing Layne to physically climb all over Ezzard, butt him and maul for long periods that did not allow Charles opportunity to box - and still most thought Charles won.

he slipped enough to get sparked in a fight that nothing happened until that moment? The Walcott fights were tactical cat and mouse games rather than slippage. Let’s see film of the Layne loss.

That’s subjective isn’t it? Fighters look faster when they are young. They can be just as effective by another route when their older. The combination of experience, seasoning, desire whilst being in good fighting shape being evident against the best opposition is where prime really starts.

all fighters look better than they actually are when they are matched to win. Against better opposition it’s harder to look as good. Imagine old timers like Larry Holmes facing Lennox Lewis? Or a young Tyson facing Tim Witherspoon before he was ready?

Match making. It’s no coincidence that fighters get matched to lose the older they get and matched to win the younger they are.

But you know all this.

 

I must admit the knowledge on you two ( mcgrain and chocklab) is incredible! I thought I knew boxing history but the in depth analysis you's have on fighters careers is something to behold. Obviously I don't agree with everything but each of you make impressive well researched point/facts and I enjoy reading the verbal sparring keep it up fellas!

 

He was outpointed by Rey in a close fight in his prime, and was in a close fight with Maxim.

I dont like the notion that Charles slipped during the Walcott series. That's painting with pretty broad strokes and ignoring the details.

Charles decision win in Walcott II was unpopular. Though the AP scored it on his favor.

Meanwhile, it seems Charles was thought to have deserved the decision in Walcott IV.

These are two smart fighters, they adjusted to each other over course of the series and Charles looked to be better in the end

Summarizing it as " Charles just got worse" and became "past prime" doesnt ring true and seems unfair to both men.

 

You don't think it was a typo?

 

I think Johnson was better than Marshal. That’s one thing.

I think Charles looked a better athlete against Marshal. He’s in a different weight class. It’s like Holyfeild from his cruiser days. Was he better against Tillman than he was against Bowe?

From the Marshall fight Charles movement is brisk, he seems pin point and really fast. The footage is better in the Johnson fight so it’s easier to pick fault.

Sure if you like, Charles looks better versus Marshall Aesthetically. But that fight does not tell us Charles of that fight necessarily beats Johnson more clearly or vice versa.

Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman but aesthetically he looked better against Cleveland Williams. Foreman was better than Cleveland Williams. And neither result tells us Ali from either fight beats Foreman more convincingly. It’s kind of how I view the comparison of Charles in the footage of Marshal and Johnson fights.

One fighter can look very different against two different men years apart and can still be enjoying somewhat of a prime.

 

This is where I am at.

 

Damn, the Rey fight was like 47, and you are talking about him declined by 51. So you feel Charles was only a prime great fighter for roughly 3 years?

The bottom line is the press scorecrards for Charles\Walcott II amd IV are near identical in favor of Charles, and both were disputed by those ringside, while the official judges favored the reigning Champion each time.

The 3rd fight is an outliner sandwiched between two close fights. If it was really a theoretical 1% slip that was the difference, why couldn't Walcott repeat with another dominating win? Are we going to theoretically assign a 2% slip to him....where does it end?

Like any other fight series I believe adjustments and the variance in performance on any given night were key to the results.

The fights that I see a slippage in Charles are Valdez, Johnson, Marciano II, and Holman II. He had off nights when he was young but not that many. And by slippage, I mean an increasing lack of consistency. His weight was starting to get a bit wonky, and he was entering his mid 30s on a grueling schedule. After Holman II we can conclude Charles was certainly declined with no hope of ever returning to form again.