Marciano vs the top light-heavyweights of all time

absolutly no chance.

the beginning of a decline is a fighter who drops a class level since he can no longer knock out fighters at his previous level. a faded fighter past his prime is one step further. this is a guy who can barley "hold his own" on the fringes of his previous level and is humiliated if he steps up. ezzard Charles was neither of these guys between losing the title and challenging marciano.

to begin with initially ezzard boxed for only three years then took two years out in the war. since he was out for almost as long as he’d been active when he returned it was basically a new career.

In a new four year career against albeit excellent opposition Charles notched up a new 40-2 record by which time he had lost the title to Walcott a guy he’d previously beat twice, the other loss was also avenged.

not including light heavyweights, 14 of the 42 fights were against heavyweights at that time rated in "The Ring" annual ratings. that means he won 12 (6 by KO) fights with rated heavyweights by the time he lost the title.

in Charles next 18 fights over 36 months he faced 11 at that time rated contenders a far higher ratio. he was 14-4 in these 18fights and knocked out 4 of the 7 rated contenders he beat.

this means ezzards 1951-54 win ratio is negligible against his 1946-51 record and his KO percentage was actually higher in the 36 months since losing the title against at that time rated contenders.

This study proves that on paper against rated heavyweights Charles was apt to lose once in a while so long as he fought as often as he did and the film proves he was still putting out championship class performances, knocking out rated contenders throughout the 48-54 period. Charles never made the ring ratings as a heavyweight until 1948 so his peak began at the tail end of the 40s.

in 1955 Charles fought 11 times. altogether he fought 3 times in December, 2 times in April and august each. unsurprisingly Charles only won 6 times out of the 11. he fought 8 rated heavyweights that year and did not knock out any of them.... this was when he faded. against marciano charles was still as great a fighter as 48- 49'.

 

So your theory is that as a faded heavyweight he gave Rocky a terrific 15 round bout in losing but had no shot against the same man if he himself were in his prime ? I disagree.

 

:good

 

Back up... not Ezzard Charles because of what???!!! Those were Ezzard Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights and he gave Marciano absolute hell both times (L15 and LKOby8 ). Charles went just 10-13 after facing Marciano, then retired.

A prime Charles would have an excellent chance of beating Marciano.

I'll agree with you on Moore. Despite Moore's age, he was as good as ever vs. Marciano.

M. Spinks gives Marciano plenty of trouble but I think Rocky could beat him in a great fight. Rocky would have to stay close and pressure Spinks. He'd also have to slip plenty of punches in order to stay in position to land good shots.

...to be continued 8 - )

 

exactly the oposite. My theory is charles was as good. his real peak was 48-54. he was no beter against bivins in 49' than he was against harold johnson in 53 -and both fights could have gone either way.
had he been a more popular champion charles may have got the benefit of the doubt in his last closest fight with walcott and regained his title!! instead they gave the older guy a break since he'd been a great chalenger for so many years. apart from losing the title charles had never been convincingly beaten beyond dispute since the war and he'd beat walcott twice and another time that could have gone either way. marciano and walcott were the only guys to clearly beat charles within his true post war peak.
I believe the 48-49 charles fares no beter against marciano. check the 49' charles v bivins fight for proof of this.

 

So, let's get this straight... you're saying that in Ezzard Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights he was "as good as ever"? How does an "in prime" all-time great fighter like Ezzard Charles go just 10-13 in his next 23 fights? Are you suggestion that Marciano beat the prime out of Charles'?

Charles rose to the occasion and gave Marciano a very tough time. Those fights were his last hurrah, believe it!

 

but they were not really charles's 97th and 99th fight. charles was 40-2 in his post war record by the time he lost to walcott. remember charles only boxed 3 years then was a soldier for 2 years when he never boxed. he was out almost as long as hed been in. after the war he had to start all over again, he was bigger. marciano did tip him over the edge and from that pointy on he was baddly matched fighting as many as 11 times a year with as many as 7 involving hungry contenders. he never avraged more than 4 rated guys a year before that point thats what tipped him over.

 

I think your slightly nuts .. :hey

 

I am a huge Marciano fan as the get, but I admit Charles was past his prime by 1954. Clearly. I still think he was a great fighter in 1954, but he had slowed down physically. Charles best work was in the late 1940s. This is undeniable.


I do disagree on Archie Moore though. I feel Archies best work started from 1951 all the way thru 1955. Archie was fighting as good as he ever was in 1955.

 

He already DID beat a lot of great light heavyweight fighters.... In fact, that accounts for MOST of what he fought.

 

Charles nearly lost every round and took the worst beating of his second career in the last Marciano fight. You are certainly not going to be the same after something like this.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmG1vcaH3yY[/ame]

 

Rocky would beat them all, I think Charles would beat them all pretty convincingly but Charles never went for that title, he was a Heavyweight and beat some good big boys. It could be argued that the 32 year old Charles saw better days but he just had 2 of his best wins over Satterfield and Wallace by KO and looked the best he had in years. I still think Marciano dominated him in 2 fights, the 1st one being competitive but I dont think Anyone could argue that Charles won. Marciano beat 2 of the best Moore, and Charles and those 2 would beat the rest, no doubt

 

until about 1970 anything over middleweight was a heavyweight, you just had "light heavyweights" as the name says. even though they had a title the division was not exclusive. excluding joe louis, liston and ali The best heavyweights were all lightheavyweights roughly speaking. there was always big guys over 200 but most often those little dudes were beter.

 

perhaps but he was just as efective much, much later. have you seen the bivins fight? charles fasster but its a bruising fight where he was unable to make use of an advantage. I think his wins as late as 53 are more rounded against guys as good.

 

Moore was NOT past his prime when Marciano defeated him. Moore was 39, yes, but he was the world light heavy champ and continued to be for like 5 years after that