These men's records are available on BoxRec or other websites. If you disagree with these men's rankings then you should take that up with ring magazine's writers at the time.
Charles and Walcott were beautiful boxers. Very very stylish. They did more things better than the bigger fighters could. The countering ability. The way they could fire from the stance without pulling back. Subtle moves that rely more on skill than brawn. Arm pull turns. Setting traps. Just lots of tricks you don’t see anymore. And that is why I said, for boxing skill, wouldn’t you think these two would have exploited Marcianos technical flaws, just in a technical sense, to a greater extent? That was the question though. The question was if the best two aesthetic boxers couldn’t exploit these flaws why would slower lumbering versions who happened to be that but bigger be able to outskill marciano even more in a boxing sense? Why would they outbox Marciano any better than Charles and Walcott? If you want to debate the prime big man thing that is a separate question. The issue was the things Marciano did bad and what a better fighter could do about it. Well Charles and Wallcot were about the best two pure boxers and yet Marciano still found a way to victory.
That’s right I forgot that. Alis religious conversion was so unpopular that after the disaster of the Liston rematch and unsatisfactory Patterson bout they decided they had to take the championship on the road until the heat died down. First stop Canada then Europe. Chuvalo was the local stand in to save the show. It was not supposed to be him at all. What an unsatisfactory early reign that was... phantom punch, Liston and Patterson both disappointing...Had Ali not eventually got Terrell and dazzled against Williams before the forced exile the first reign would have kind of sucked quite bad.
You are aware Chuvalo knocked Quarry's block off in December of 1969. The same Quarry who was highly rated in the 70s with wins over Shavers, Lyle, and Foster. The top 10 rating was well earned when he faced Foreman in 1970. So Chuvalo a faded 50s fighter with a loss to Bob Baker (an Archie Moore KO victim) earned a top 10 rating in 1970 by knocking out Jerry Quarry. I'm speaking in facts, not conspiracy theories and IMO bullcrap. Quarry also lost to a washed up Machen...another 50s fighter. Jerry Quarry a top 5 regular in the early 70s, the so called golden era. Patterson beat Bonavena of course...another regular top rated contender of the golden era. Since you don't care about ratings, who are these superior 70s fighters if not the RING top 5 regulars? Something challenging about the 70s, the era was dominated by a past prime "no legs" Ali. Marciano cleared out the fighters from the previous era. Foreman, Norton, and Frazier dropped the ball. To a lesser extent so did Shavers and Lyle.
Very early? They dominated the first half of it. Charles was a major player from 50 to 54. Maxim was hanging around, even beat a young Patterson. Moore dominated the LHW division and challenged for the HW title twice. Harold Johnson would be a major player until the 60s. Are we just talking heavies? Sugar Ray even came back at MW.
Everybody can have different opinion, but keep in mind that you are the only one who questions Charles abilities. That should tell you a lot. I guess that Archie Moore doesn't impress you either?
Your simplistic points do not take into account the age and wear and tear on Walcott and Charles,which of course is an entirely deliberate and patently obvious ploy on your part. Marciano was behind on all cards against Walcott and pulled the fight out of the fire when the 38 years old Walcott tired. Charles did not box with Marciano, he tried to meet him head onafter the first 4 rounds, silly tactics against a younger ,stronger,harder hitting, and fresher man. Boxing skill relies on a boxers capacity to employ that skill, it relies on legs sprightly enough to avoid onslaughts with clever footwork,it relies on reflexes that anticipate and render harmless, punches that would otherwise land,it relies on stamina which is natural to a younger fresher boxer but not a given to older men who have had their share of ring wars. Walcott had been fighting since1930 he fought Marciano in1952 &1953 in his 70th and 71st fights Charles had begun boxing in1940,he fought Marciano in 1954, in his 96th and 97th fights. Age also decreases the bodies ability to absorb punches and retain the ambition,the will to win. Over the centuries in boxing we have seen age give way to youth countless times, it is the very essence of the sport from the beginning of pugilism. Skill being thwarted by youth ? Corbettt v Jeffries x2. Johnson v Willard. Fitzsimmons v Jeffries. Driscoll v Ledoux. Leonard v McClarnin. Loughran v Risko Louis v Marciano. Charles v Holman. Charles v Jackson x2. Ali v Spinks. Jones Jnr v Green. Jones Jnr v Tarver. McCallum v Tiozzo. Hopkins v Dawson. Hopkins v Smith. I could give a hundred further examples of " Youth Being Served" Suffice to say we may have seen different results had both Walcott and Charles been younger, less shop worn versions of themselves.
Here is the note accompanying Matt McGrain's Lastarza v Cokkell footage which he uploaded to You Tube. Cockell turns in perhaps the best performance of his career against a past-prime LaStarza in a superbly hustled showing.
Kind of unfair to Charles to say he didn’t box Marciano. He boxed with a great intent actually. He was the first to really punish Marciano’s body (that’s why he fought him on the inside head on). Marciano stated that was his hardest fight. I also can’t stand the “shop worn” comments. He was 32 not 40 and looked fine in the ring. Not at his absolute prime but looked good and not far from it.
He punched with Marciano and fighting him head on on the inside from the 5th round on was a stupid strategy.Charles was past his prime he had won 2 of his last 4 fights and with 96 fights on his clock he was definitely shop worn!
Oh well if Matt migraine says it then that seals it... Look, Lastarza dosnt need to be absolute prime for that to be a good win for Cokkell. Lastarza just needs to be good and deserving of a high ranking when Don beat him....and he was! Ali beat Frazier in a rematch against a past prime Frazier to earn a crack at Foreman. It’s still a good win. George Foreman beat a past prime Chuvalo to earn a number one ranking. Liston beat a past prime Roy Harris to earn a high ranking. I can go on and on the further back in time I go but after 1970s challengers didn’t always need to beat rated fighters to climb the ranks. And that makes everyone who didn’t beat rated fighters a less deserving challenger than Don Cokkell. Cokkell beat two top ten rated contenders. This made him a legit #2 with Ring magazine. Get over it.
Yeah, in regards to Wallcot let’s also scratch off Archie Moore, Bernard Hopkins, George Foreman, Joe Brown and Manny Pacquiao from the record books for being too old and having too much wear and tear to be considered boxing masters when they won title fights at late stages of their careers. In regard to Charles. He wasn’t that old. He spectacularly blew away Bob Satterfeild in a title eliminator which means Ezzard became the logical challenger to Marciano just about as convincingly as anyone ever could. Charles Fought very often but was still at the stage of his career where most people thought he was 3-1 over Wallcot and had literally only been convincingly defeated once at heavyweight in over 50 fights up until then. Officially Charles was 55-7 up to fighting Marciano since returning from a 3 year absence during the war. That’s not as shopworn as you want it to be. Charles became inconsistent after Marciano. Before that there is a strong case (at the tail end of a long prime) charles began getting robbed against top fighters in their home town. Charles was legitimately still perhaps the best heavyweight in the world with his first fight with Rocky deciding who was the best really was.
It isn't just age its wear and tear mileage on their clocks Charles was having his 96 and 97th fights.FFS! Charles had been badly kod byWalcott and outpointed by him, in their previous 2 fights he was the winner. Matt McGrain is a very knowledgeable poster who never stoops to devious manipulation of stats to make his case, you compulsively do so. Bottom Line Lastarza was damaged goods as his subsequent record after Marciano ,makes abundantly clear! He had elbow problems which limited his punch output . Marciano had administered a severe and drawn out beating to him and he was never the same fighter afterwards! All the obfuscation and spin you attempt will not alter that fact one iota!
