Why do some people on here downplay Charles, Moore and Walcott

I can't find it either when I last looked.

 

Charles and Moore are two of the greatest LHW and P4P fighters of all time. His wins over them should not be held against him. But, to add some context...

Walcott was washed up by the time he fought Rocky but still had enough left in the tank to be very competitive. He was coming off a grueling trilogy with Charles the year prior where he took 2 of 3 for the win. He was 38 and 39 respectively and had 18 losses prior to his fights with Rocky.

Charles was 33 when he faced Rocky, going into his 97th and 98th contest, and had 10 losses going in which included losses to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes the year prior. After his fights with Rocky he never had a significant win over a competitive opponent and suffered a long losing streak to retirement. Certainly not the best version of Charles to face Rocky, but whatever he had left he spent it in those two fights with Rocky.

Moore was 41 in his 178th fight against Rocky. Still managed to drop him. Despite his advanced age and wear and tear, he still fought competitively after his loss to Rocky. Managing a pair of wins against the much younger Yvonne Durelle several years after, one of which he survived a few knockdowns to score a knockout of his own.

 

"Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 fights" is a cherry picked way of discrediting the win. It fails to mention that those 2 wins were over the #10 rated Wallace and #9 rated Satterfield instead of some nobodies, and that the losses were to the #1 HW contender Nino Valdes and a P4P ATG Harold Johnson in his prime, in a fight where Charles was an uncalled KD away from officially drawing with him.

It also fails to mention that between Walcott KO and Marciano, Charles went 14-4. Going 2-1 with the #6 and later #2 rated Rex Layne, while also beating the #10 rated Jimmy Bivins, the #7 rated Cesar Brion, the LHW champ Joey Maxim, the #10 rated LHW Tommy Harrison, and previously rated Heavyweights Joe Kahut and Wes Beacom. In other words he went 11-4 vs ranked men, avenging one of the 4 losses in a series he won 2-1, and the other losses were to the HW champ, the #1 HW contender and a prime P4P ATG. And there were more than a certain few who thought he edged Walcott in the 4th one.

Given those results, why am I supposed to believe he was broken before Marciano instead of by Marciano ? Charles wasn't prime, but he was still elite. End of.

Now regarding Moore. It's been officially proven he was born in 1916, so he was 38, not 41. And it wasn't just "a good run", it was his best run. He went 55-2-1 against a level of opposition he was previously struggling to keep a winning record against. He went 4-1 with Harold Johnson, 3-0 vs Joey Maxim, 2-0 vs Nino Valdes, 1-0 vs MW champ Bobo Olson, and beat several LHW contenders like Bert Lytell, Charley Doc Williams x2, Oakland Billy Smith, Jimmy Slade, Leonard Morrow, Henry Hall, Bob Satterfield, as well as multiple HW contenders other than Valdes, like Bob Baker x2 (who would very soon become the divisional #2), Clarence Henry and Bob Dunlap.

That run is worthy of a top 30 ATG career on its own. Then Moore went on to fight for 7 more years, going 36-3-2 (including a draw many argue he won vs the soon to be LHW champ, at 46) while still beating ranked Light heavyweights for the title, and ranked Heavyweights like the #4 rated Lavorante (again at 46).

Just assuming that 170 fights must mean wear and tear is lazy, as Moore was especially known for being ageless and had the actual results to back it up, so it again ignores actual context. As for Patterson, yeah he lost, so what ? Patterson had a far different style to Marciano's, and was super fast and explosive in ways Rocky wasn't (he was more of attrition monster), which is particularly worse for Moore as he actually looked his age that night. Look at the film and try and tell me that the Moore of that night resembles the Moore from the fights leading up to Marciano. He clearly doesn't. Again, a case of Marciano "breaking" a fighter.

 

People say this, but it's just not true. The fight was scored on rounds, not points, and two of three judges had Charles winning the 10th anyway, so a knockdown would have made no difference. The judge who scored the round for Johnson had him winning the fight 7-3, so would still have had him winning if he had counted the knockdown against him and taken that round away.

Even if the fight had been scored on points, a knockdown wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome.

https://ibb.co/skDDzht

 

Damn, I never knew that Archie Moore fought Bobo Olson. I'll have to remember that. I can't rank Roy Jones above Moore ATG

 

Is this a serious response?

 

Wallace was briefly rated at number 10 and then was never rated in the top 10 again. He also did nothing notable as a professional retiring with a modest 22-7 record.

Satterfield is a dangerous opponent but he's also a win/loss type fighter who was inconsistent and a glass cannon.

Yes he lost to number 1 contender Valdes and was well beaten in a sluggish performance from Charles.

Not all of those names you mentioned are as impressive as you're trying to portray like Wes Beacom 16-10.

Jimmy Bivins was also on his last knockings and right at the end of his career.

Regardless we're not discussing Ezzard Charles resume. I'm talking about the version of Charles that Marciano specifically fought in 1954 which is a considerable difference to the Charles of 1951.

Yes Charles was still a good fighter when Marciano fought him i've never claimed he was shot but he was still past his best at that point.

And if you're bringing up Charles's record a few years prior to the Marciano fights. Then let's also bring up Charles record just 2 years after the Marciano fights which was 8-9 with no notable wins.

Assuming 170 fights for a fighter in either his late 30s or early 40s wouldn't have alot wear and tear would have to be stretching it.

Yes Moore was still a good fighter in his older age i've never denied that.

But the thread asked why do people here downplay Marciano's best wins.

Well it's because his best wins are against fighters at an advanced age or past their best.

He never beat some of the bigger notable Heavyweights of his era like Baker, Valdes.

I'm not saying Marciano avoided these fighters but it's also an unanswered question on Marciano's legacy.

All in all I'm not saying those list of wins aren't impressive nor am I trying to say they were washed up far from it.

I'm just giving the reasons why people look at Marciano's resume the way they do.

 

Great points.

 

Yes, on a round by round basis it's true, the KD being called wouldn't turn the loss to a draw; but while completely fantasy, it should be mentioned that if the scores were 10 point must, not round by round; then the 6-3-1 card would be 96-95, with the KD point taking it to 95-95. It's a stretch for sure, but I'm assuming this is where it comes from. I scored it 95-94 for Charles in like 2020 or something.

 

Although, in terms of the thread, i don't see why any of this debate over context comes into play much at all. The fights are filmed and all three look great against Marciano, and it's because they A) obviously were great and B) were in phenomenal shape, up to the task and simply not quite good enough.

Moore is an especially great win imo.

 

Not sure how you're working that out. 6-3-1 on rounds translates to 97-94 on points. An extra point for the knockdown takes it to 96-94.

 

Yeah my bad completely on the maths there.

 

As the targeted demo of this thread I will explain myself

A)People say Ezzard Charles is the LHW GOAT. They say hes the LHW GOAT because he beat Archie Moore 3 times and if this had not occured Archie Moore would be the LHW GOAT. I do not accept either line of logic.

B)Jersey Joe Walcott is super lucky and fortunate and had a bunch of things break his way that normally don't break a fighters way.


Not being high on Rocky Marciano does overlap with this heavy but its not the primary motive behind these opinions.