Ezzard Charles 1950 v Rocky Marciano 1954

I would not go that far. Norton upset Ali in that time frame, I sure Moore or Walcott or Charles could get in a win in the 365 days a year from 1970-75 some were.

Ali is only human.

 

the style of norton was not even close to the style of these men, norton was stronger,bigger and norton was a hw.
ali is only a human better than them

 

:good spot on.

 

ezzard still had legs when he fought marciano. Charles never made the ring ratings as a heavyweight until 1948 so his peak began at the tail end of the 40s lasting into the marciano fights. apart from one knockout loss nobody beat him without dispute until marciano.

even as ex champ 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.

A study of his record proves that on paper against rated heavyweights Charles was always apt to lose once in a while so long as he fought as often as he did. He was very active. film proves he was still putting out championship class performances, displaying good legs and knocking out rated contenders throughout the 48-54 period.

when he had no legs was 1955. his matchmaking and ring activity was crazy. in 1955 Charles fought 11 times. altogether he fought 3 times in December, 2 times in April and august each! he fought 8 rated heavyweights that year. unsurprisingly under this schedule against hard opposition Charles burnt out. He only won 6 times out of the 11. and did not knock out any of them.... this was when he faded. Remember he fought just 12 rated heavyweights spread over the first four years after the war compared to 8 in one year when he didn’t have it no more.
there really isn’t any mileage in Charles being a weary burned out old man when he fought marciano.

 

This is spot on - and bad news for any of the "Marciano only defended against washed up old men" brigade:good

 

ali early 70s was better than any version of charles by far

 

ali was beter than charles but he had dificulty with doug jones. was doug jones beter than charles?

 

Do you think Ali would have been in shape 365 days a year for 5 years fighting Ezzard Charles, and Joe Walcott EVERY DAY.

HELL no. Ali is going to lose some were down the road. Ali may win all bouts in the first 2 or 3 months, but sooner or later Charles and Walcott are going to nab a win. And I belive, a good number of wins under that time set.

 

Stop hanging out with Gene Tunney.

Gene Tunney in 1952 interview re. Dempsey:

“Jack Dempsey, I’m convinced, was our greatest heavyweight champion. In his prime, when he knocked out Jess Willard to win the title in 1919, he would have taken the four leading heavyweights of today – Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Harry (Kid) Matthews and Ezzard Charles – and flattened them all in one night.
“These four men are honest, earnest, capable professionals. If they are not touched with ring genius, neither are they stumblebums. So I do not mean to deprecate them when I say Dempsey would have levelled them all in the same evening as follows: Matthews, two rounds. Charles, two rounds. Walcott, five rounds. Marciano, one round.
“A total of ten rounds. Even then, I don’t consider I’m giving Dempsey any the best of it. He might have demolished each of the four in less than one round. He was eminently equipped to do it. He had many championship gifts, including a great fighting heart and the ability to absorb a tremendous punch and recuperate astonishingly fast.
“He learned his trade the hard way against fighters of all sizes, shape and brands from mining camp, deadfall and dance hall to huge arena and stadium.

Tunney Claims that Dempsey would have flatten Harry Kid Matthews, Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano all in one night, one right after the other, and in less than ten rounds total.

 

a green ali in 1963 did beat jones by ud.
when ali 70s did face jones?
what are you insinuating?
charles, walcott,moore and marciano are overrated like the hell.

not just ali.
a prime holyfield, prime foreman, prime tyson, prime frazier... would have cleaned the division in this era

 

Holyfeild, foreman, tyson, frazier were all fine fighters but how can you be so sure? cleaning out any division is a pretty bold statement in any era.
could these versions of albeit great fighters clean out ANY division?
not the holyfeild who lost to moorer
not the foreman who lost to jimmy young (and old man foreman who lost to morrison officially and really lost to crawford grimbsby, axel Schultz and lou saverese)
the tyson who struggled with bonecrusher, razor Ruddock, james tillis etc?
perhaps not even the frazier who lost to foreman was a sure bet in another era.
the point I am making is nobody is perfect and great fighters even within their primes are not always so reliable as to predict they would walk through a previous era.
I am saying there is proof ezzard charles was a great fighter. Marciano was a great fighter and charles was still a great fighter when marciano beat him because the evidence is overwhelming.

 

Spinach

 

holyfield,tyson,foreman and frazier .. "FINE" fighters? fine? these men were better than marciano for sure. and probably they would beat marciano. foreman for sure.
obviusly we are talking prime vs prime.
if you want we can compare old charles,mooreor walcott with prime foreman... the foreman who faced young was finished mentally, because he faced muhammad ali, in the era of marciano had no muhammad ali.
moore,walcott or charles would fight worse than spinks did against a prime tyson.
against joe frazier.... the final would be like joe vs bob foster...
a prime foreman 72-74 would destroy these 3 cruisers early. please...
a prime evander holyfield was a ****ing machine facing great big men, and evander in his prime 89-91 would give problems even to prime ali.

 

Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) is an edible flowering plant in the family of amaranthaceae. nothing to do with 1950's heavyweight boxing....:huh