debunking the myth of louis being completely past it ...

I have to disagree, Louis was definitely past his best w'hen he fought Marciano. Also sports science plays a big part in prolonging fighters careers these days. It was totally different in Louis' day.

However I do think Marciano had the right style to have a great chance of beating Joe in his prime.

 

Poor thread.

 

Joe Louis was badly over-the-hill.
Charles was way past his best too.

For the vast majority of fighters, 37 is just plain old. Then, now, whenever. 37 is generally OLD OLD OLD for any boxer. And Louis was a typical case.
Maybe Walcott was an exception, perhaps Archie Moore too. But Louis was clearly little more than a shell at 37. And Ezzard Charles had lost his mobility in the legs, at 32/33. Clearly.

 

Charles look pretty mobile when he ko Wallace imo. 2 fights before his clash with the Rock.

I think Marciano beats Charles, regardless when they ment imo.

 

The fact is that Louis WAS completely past it when he fought Marciano... FOR HIM. The thing about Louis is that he was so damn great that even being way past it, he was still better than most everyone except for a few guys, so he looks like a competitive fighter. But he was a shell of what he once was. Most of the guys he fought on the comeback he would have quickly drilled in his prime.

Just watch the prewar footage on him and then watch the post war footage. The difference is marked, IMO. He is way faster, more active with feet and hands, more blazing with his speed and reactions pre-war than post. But he was still a solid boxer, so yes, he was at least competitive against Marciano even being relatively slow, with few punches, no combos, and his power punches, particularly his vaunted right, almost gone.

 

Joe Louis had seen better days, but he was still a contender and he meant business. Have a look!

This content is protected

Louis destroys Savold

This content is protected

Louis knocks down Pat Valentino in 10 round exhibition during the early 50's

This content is protected

Louis holds off a motivated Brion to a decision win

 

Louis had 9 fights after being beaten by Charles, he scored 3 stoppages ,over Andy Walker , Freddie Beshore , and Lee Savold.

Walker and Beshore had both been stopped 3 times at that point and Savold had been stopped 8 times.
Louis was a greatly diminished fighter when he fought Marciano,his reflexes were half of what they had been and his ko right hand was sheathed in rust.
Because he had been so great in his prime he could still dominate a lot of average contenders.
Anyone who thinks he was even 60% of what he had been is kidding themselves.

Marciano had to walk through the Louis jab, and weather a few left hooks to acheive his victory, but he was not subjected to blazing combinations or pole axe right hands ,and once inside his youth and strength told on the older man ,until eventually Louis's aging legs betrayed him.

Whether Louis, in his prime could have defeated Marciano is open for debate,though I think he would have.
What is not open for debate is that the man facing Marciano that night was no longer the Brown Bomber


Glimpses of that fighter were last seen against Walcott in their return fight.

 

Could you imagine putting Cesar Brion in with a prime Louis.

 

Savold was 36 years old and had lost 37 fights at that stage ,he only had one more ,against Marciano ,and of course also lost that by stoppage.

 

You could make the observation that Louis did a better job on him than Marciano.

 

On a ten-point scale (5= average heavyweight), I reckon the Louis Marciano beat was about a seven. It was a decent win for the Rock.

 

I call "bull****" because Ezzard Charles does not get much better than this.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFq5aOYYJM[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2BEE8Ce70[/ame]

Lazy terms like "Past Best or Prime" gets thrown around way to loosely while actual anaylsis is completely disregarded. Charles lost to the ingenius Walcott after giving him one too many fights, was possibly robbed in their 4th meeting, and as result shut out of the Championship scene as long as Jersey Joe was on top. Nobody wanted a fifth match between the two. However, he was very motivated by the chance to meet Marciano and took apart two top contenders to earn his number one contendership as the inconsistent Valdez fumbled down the rankings. Most writers at the time observed Charles looked as great as he ever did in the first Marciano meeting. Its only now that we have boxrec armchair experts claiming Marciano beat a Charles who was past it, shot, or whatever. Charles was quick as ever and executed his gameplan to stay off the ropes and counter to perfection...just not enough to fend off Rocky for 15 rounds.

 

Marciano looked very sloppy against Savold, but that doesn't change the fact that Savold was 36 when he fought Louis,and had nearly 40 losses on his record.

 

Charles didn't have the leg speed in the Marciano fight or in those two fights posted above (Wallace and Satterfield).
Yes, he was still a very good fighter but he's a more static fighter than he'd been 4-5 years earlier.

It's not at all controversial or worthy of debate. Charles was past his best, clearly. He just didn't move the same as he had at age 27 or 28. So he had to absorb more punishment and stand and slug more.

 

You could and you should.