Gene Tunney vs Rocky Marciano

I am not so sure Tunney could get past Wallace, Walcott, Satterfield, Joe Louis, or some of the other Heavys Ezzard fought getting to the title. To say Tunney could would only be speculation because he only fought 2 heavyweights...an older version of Dempsey and Heeney.To suggest that he could would only be a guess as to how he would do.

 

Nobody does....... Well, a lot do not........ If we had a conference with all the posters on ESB, I'd bring a machine gun to the meeting and fire away at a mass majority.......... I just get so pissed at times when I read dribble........
:good:fire

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Is it not funny how everyone talks about the Big Heavyweights Bob Baker and Nino Valdez and this version (experienced and skilled with 2 fisted power) KO'd the man that dominated Baker and Valdez

Is there any doubt Charles deserved a shot at the title

Is there any doubt he was a dangerous challenge

Charles moved well to get out of reach of Satterfield and spun him and countered. The Wallace fight shows a different version of Charles using a counterhook off the right (a thing of beauty) but while he was careful vs a still dangerous and durable Joe Louis he smelled blood and showed his power and experience vs Wallace and Satterfield

 

Believe me, he would. The only problem for him is Walcott, the man who did KO Charles. Louis was old, Satterfield was entertaining but vulnerable, Wallace never was. Nothing to take away from Charles, these are just facts.

Satterfield upset many fighters but was also KO'd by many fighters. His win over Baker was a big upset and Valdes was having a bad streak in 1955-1956 when he lost 6 of 8 fights. I don't feel the need to list all the man that beat Satterfield but there were 25 of them, 13 of which KO'd him.

People are making a win over Wallace out to be some kind of a big win but this is the same man who was coming off a KO loss to a washed up Jimmy Bivins. He was beaten by every half-decent fighter he fought in the pros, he just never made it despite his amateur accomplishments and a role in a Joe Louis movie.

The comparison is whether Charles was similar to Tunney at the time he fought Marciano. He wasn't really at all. Charles was fighting in close while that'd be the last thing Tunney would ever do against Marciano.

Charles at 32 was not at the peak of his abilities no matter how hard you'll try to make the Satterfield and Wallace KO's out to be great wins. They were not. A prime Charles also does not have close fights with Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson. The third fight against Rex Layne was also very ugly. He was a different fighter from what he used to be, still very capable, but different and a lot different from Tunney.

 

This was no Coley Wallace Ezzard was fighting:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cq-QpgcWcU[/ame]

 

I have the actual full TV video of "Louis-Charles" from '50 on tape.... My beer 'Pabst' is the sponsor....... However, that fight sucked ass...... Louis was age 36, but fought like he was 60.... Christ, Louis looked 60 as well..... At 218 with a bald spot / doughnut up top, Louis looked way old....... He was also slower than **** by then, as well......
atsch:shock:

MR.BILL

 

Louis was old and slow but he still had his skills and his power. He was better than the average contender of the day but no longer fit to be the heavyweight champion of the world.

I think this Charles shows everything he did in the fights against Satterfield and Wallace, except he also has the spring in his legs to move around for 15 rounds. It may have made fights more "dull" for the viewers but it was definitely more effective than the slugging style he adopted later in his career which did not bring him to the heavyweight championship. It was the cautious Charles who would at times strike out like cobra that won the biggest fights in his career.

We've seen it over and over, the previously untouchable fighter turns old and at the same time his fights now turn exciting. Suddenly he's there to be hit and it'll be up to his toughness whether he can last in the sport. Charles proved he had the toughness in him but he was by no means at his peak in the mid 1950's.

 

And what Heavyweight win makes you beleive Tunney would have beaten Charles, Moore, Walcott and Layne....I love Tunney but a rusty Jack D. had him down for the long count but they were impressive wins but you could run from Jack...but Walcott was a horse of a different color and Charles would use his speed and power and effectivly be aggressive vs Gene but based off a Tom Heeney win at Heavyweight and a near miss and a win over a rusty Dempsey I am not to certain Gene gets past Charles or Moore or Walcott

Now Marciano was another kind of animal....Rocky breaks him up and down but Gene may be able to stay up and about for around 10rds 11-15 are tough rds for him to live in.

 

Well they did not shave there heads like the baldys do today...Holyfield had the donut so did Tyson and Shavers and Foreman....Bald heads hide bald spots

 

Holyfield seemingly went bald over night.... In 1991 against Foreman, Holy had a full head of hair.... Come 1994 against Moorer, Holy was balding like a mother****er.... Against Mercer in 1995, Holy was Kojak...... A good indication that Holy was juicing severley in them days.......

Anyway, I thought Louis looked terrible against Charles in 1950.... Louis was balding, heavy and slow...... A mere ghost of himself......

MR.BILL

 

i've read somewhere that louis only had partial use of his right arm during hiis come back.he did look old, you're right:good

 

I've seen many guys in their mid-20's go bald (or grey) in as little as a year's time. You don't need steroids for it... sad but true!

 

Im sorry if you disagree. I just think the charles who beat satterfield and wallace was a very good charles- the best there is on film. In his next fight hes in with marciano who makes evryone look bad.
you say charles was more impresive against Louis-ok. I disagree. satterfield was faster than old louis and charles timed him perfect. walace was a big fresh kid who moved like louis and was mowed down.
Its only a point of view. Im not saying its an easy fight, nobody KOd tunney so im not saying marciano does either, im just saying tunny wont do beter than charles. marciano beat a good charles, the proof is on film that charles was good because he never looked beter than in his most recent fights before marciano.
AGAIN SORRY IF You dont like the word bull****, but its crazy, charles never looked beter on film IMO against old LOUIS.

 

I have to disagree entirely, I think Charles looked more impressive against Louis and Walcott who were of better quality than Wallace or Satterfield ever were. But I don't think either of us are going to convince the other about which Charles was truly better. The films are there and we have come to different conclusions. We're just going to have to disagree on this subject.

 

I don't think there was any kind of injury involved or anything like that, it's just that he couldn't find the openings to throw the right. Or maybe he could see the openings but couldn't pull the trigger which is what commonly happens to old fighters. After his fight with Louis, Marciano said that Louis's right hand was nothing but that his left jab still hit like a hammer. Louis busted up both Marciano and Charles with it.

However in the Charles fight, Louis still had more use for the right hand than he did in the Marciano fight where he hardly threw it even once. It was mostly his jab though that did any damage that he inflicted on Charles.