Marciano versus Prime Charles/Walcott

Listen. I am a bigger Walcott fan than anyone on this board. including you. But I disagree with your assement. Walcotts 3 best performances in his career were in order 1. Louis I 2. Marciano I 3. Charles III. I do not see how walcott could EVER put up a better performance vs these men THAN HE DID IN THESE FIGHTS.



Walcott did have faster legs in 1947, but his aggresiveness, counterpunching skills, and inside fighting, and CONFIDENCE all argueably improved by 1951. Which is why he finally won the world heavyweight title he could not win during the past 4 years. Why do you think Walcott in 1947 had so much trouble with the very good swarming violent ray(who is not equal to marciano in this department)?



I simply do not see how Walcott could ever put up a better performance than the boxing/slugging display he put on marciano the first 12 rounds. He looked so brilliant. Perhaps the Walcott of the Louis I could, but it would take THAT SPECIFIC version to do it.

 

MarcianoFrazier once layed out an incredible anaylsis of Marciano vs a 1949 Charles matchup, one in which i completley agree with. I will look for it somewhere.



Some thoughts I might bring into discussion that most likely will be missed

1. Charles actually showed vulnerability to swarmers in 1948-1949. Elmer Ray who was 37 at the time, beat Charles by displaying affective aggresion and not giving him room to breathe. Also Pat Valentino, an average swarmer, gave charles 8 very difficult rounds in 1949 which can be seen on film.

My thoughts: Charles had peak legs in 1949, but I do not think he liked to be cornered and mauled while he was younger.

 

It's not a matter of who is the bigger fan. I can certainly respect your opinion, the view that a prime Rocky would beat a prime Walcott is surely a more popular one than mine, but this is how I feel. Walcott simply had to take too many chances and played with disaster every time he traded punches against the ropes, and eventually got caught as his reactions had slowened and his body had grown tired.

He was tiring and it is very obvious, you can even see him breathing through his mouth, very deeply. Jersey Joe showed a lot of heart and used the last of the tricks he had left in the bag in rounds 11 & 12.

From what I hear, atleast in the version I have of the fight, the commentator constantly points out that Walcott is looking tired.

Walcott stated that the reason he was caught by Louis is because the referee forced him to be more aggressive by cautioning the two for "not fighting". He came out notably more aggressive in the 12th. He was also showboating and got overconfident, Louis actually caught him with a counter right hand while Walcott was in the middle of his "waltz".

Against Louis the first time he took no chances, put on a masterful exhibition of defense and counter punching and was the victim of an unjust decision. Surely that outcome forced him to be more aggressive in the future but it was not necessarily to his advantage in the second Louis and the Marciano fights.

 

Jersey Joe Walcott being past his prime in the Rocky fight is overstated. However, I do agree that's not his peak. I consider the late 40's his peak. The only thing I think he loses between then and the Rocky fight is his mobility. And not completely, but he's not quite as quick or mobile. I think Rocky beats any version of Walcott the majority of the time. Regardless of Walcott being a little old he was still a terrific fighter and not that much past it. And most importantly, he was fighting the fight of his life up until round 13. He usually slipped up and got too cute when he was younger. I think he has intelligence and ring experience in the Marciano fight in contrast to the Louis one.

I would pick Marciano over any Walcott more often than not especially if he isn't going to be blinded for 4 rounds this time around.

Marciano beats any version of Charles. Charles was more faded than Walcott. But a younger Charles engages more and gets in a bit more trouble doing so. A older Charles at least had the foresight to clinch clinch clinch, backpeddle, combo, clinch, clinch. He clinched an insane amount in those fights, especially the 2nd one.

 

Without going into specifics: That even one of Walcott or Charles was still in their prime at 38 and 33 respectively is far fetched, but not entirely impossible. That they both were still in their prime... That definitely borders on the fantastical. This just wasn't the case. That's a such a given for me that I won't really bother going on about it.

 

I mean we completley disagree here. The announcer, I forget who it is Dunphy maybe(?) says "Walcott has the legs of a 20 year old. he seems to be getting stronger as the fight goes on". This is substantial evidence Walcott was not growing tired. In fact film reveals the exact opposite? bag of tricks? If you call pummeling Marciano with powerful left hooks, and sneaky deadly right cross in round 11 "Bag of tricks" then ya...In round 12 Walcott actually outworked marciano in the trenches proving he was not tired. In round 13, Walcott came out on his bicycle, similiar to late rounds of Louis I. He was on his toes dancing around then got caught on the ropes and BOOM! It seems Walcotts Bicycle plan you intend of him doing did not work vs Marciano in round 13.

I mean, I am not going to argue with you here because I love Walcott. but it seems to me your stating For "ONE" perfect fantasy fight...Walcott can outbox marciano to decision. but it seems if we are talking trilogy...you do not favor walcott. Remember, marciano was one of the best fighters in all of history in rematches.

 

I believe Walcott at 38 was at/near his prime. I have studied Walcott more than any fighter in history and I believe his best years as a fighter and best years in a h2h sense are 1947-1952...This is the prime Walcott.


Charles was actually 32 in june 1954 when he fought Marciano, not 33 like you say...Yet I do firmly believe charles was past his prime when he fought Rocky.

 

Ok. This is not unreasonable. Without studying the fight to closely I do think The Great A has a solid point that a 38-year old Walcott would fade more in the later rounds than a 4-5 years younger version. This would make him more prone to a lapse in concentration, of course.

 

Right. I think saying Walcott was in his prime is fair. He probably wasn't at his peak. Although he made up for it with other assets like confidence, ring experience, etc. His mobility was more top notch in the Louis fights in my opinion.

 

No this was not a robbery. In fact it was a very close fight that could have gone either way. Here is a snidbit from MarcianoFraziers wonderful Article on Elmer Ray back in March of 2008


The United Press scorecard had it 5-4-1 for Ray, while the Associated Press card scored the match 5-4-1 for Charles. Here is the description from the Middlesboro Daily News account: "The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one. For from 10 rows back it looked like Charles all the way. He danced and jabbed and landed a lot on Ray's bobbing pate and Elmer's busy elbows. But inside 10 rows you could see the devastation wrought by Ray's jarring hooks, blasts which raised the sheaf of Ezzard's cheek. “No holding,” was the continual admonition of referee Eddie Joseph. But Ezzard, of the winged retreating feet, had to hold for his life, and in doing so he made of Elmer Ray a modern Sam Langford."
According to the Nevada State Journal, "Ezzard had clicked off 15 straight victories since he received his discharge from the army 18 months ago, including nine knockouts, but he was unable to overcome his heavier and more experienced opponent, and he was unable to score a single knock-down against rugged Ray, who kept marching in, bobbing and weaving and throwing hooks to body and head. Although Ray admits to 31, which would make him at least five years older than his opponent, it was Ray who finished stronger in the 10th round and thereby apparently wrapped up the bout by a close margin." - Brought to you by MarcianoFrazier


Did I mention Elmer Ray was 38 years old when this fight took place?



Here is a close indication what Ray had in order for Charles on the inside all night

This content is protected

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK6wylLSVyI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-v4OtvXRcQ

Walcott was fighting flat-footed in round 11, used some nice defensive moves in round 12 (although not a whole lot of movement) and was not exactly on his bicycle in round 13. He was actually going against the ropes, looking to counter as he had many times before in the bout except this time he was not able to get away with it. Marciano beat him to the punch, something he had not been able to do for the previous 12 rounds.

When Walcott did truly get on his bicycle against Louis the first time, he was impossible to catch. It was only for one round however, the last one, not like he coasted almost all of the fight as is sometimes made out to be.

I wouldn't count Marciano out in any fight. However I've always felt after studying the films of Walcott-Marciano I and Walcott-Louis I over and over, that I would favour the Walcott of the first Louis fight to beat the Marciano of the first Walcott fight.

I never felt that Marciano was necessarily better or improved in rematches, in my opinion it's because he put people through hell and had his opponents broken down by the time they fought again. The LaStarza fights are different because Rocky had obviously massively improved by the time they fought again.

 

Prime Charles would have beaten Marciano. He was past it when he faced Marciano. Maybe Walcott could have beaten him, too. Both were better boxers. Walcott was beating Marciano the first time before the knock out. Charles was the better boxer of the three.