Why was Ezzard Charles given a shot at Marciano?

maybe i should have said "lost a close fight in valdes home town". its the truth after all. whilst it is said valdes smothered and outworked ezz it was a clsoe fight. valdes himself said charles hit him "some hard, hard punches". losing a close fight in someones hometown is not a decisive way to lose if the guy still knocks out rated guys who beat valdes. the reports were posibly hometown reports? remember as an ex champ charles was a guy who had already been there nobody would look to give him the benefit of the doubt against a home town boy.
charles either severly under estimated valdes or had a complete off night since he rebounded with much beter wins. gillium outpointed valdes and walace knocked out gillium. by knocking out big wallace charles did the next best thing to avenging his loss to valdes who he couldnt get to rematch. he also beat gillium as well who was just as big as valdes he also beat. losing to valdes isnt even a blot on charles's record when you weigh it all up.

 

:good

 

This content is protected

 

I'm not sure KDs counted to the score back then though :huh

 

Nice post! Too many people just don't understand what an impressive run he had from 1946-1954. He went 53-8 in 61 fights during this time. Only Walcott and Marciano beat him decisively. He beat Walcott two out of four times and some feel 3 out of 4. He gave Marciano hell in two fights (the 98th and 99th of Charles' pro career)... L15 and LKOby8.

 

He had a more impressive run from 1946 to 1951 though, 42-2.

 

Very true... and 9-1 in World Title Fights.

 

No but it would have possibly swung it his way in a close fight.

 

charles was a legitimate heavyweight when you weigh it up. he was as big as dempsey and beat a lot more rated heavyweight contenders than many other ATG champs. he beat them big, small good and bad. as hookie says only charles and marciano beat him decisivley.

 

I have to say that the film of the Charles-Johnson fight has changed my opinion somewhat of Charles and how far he had gone back. A week ago I would have said he was clearly slipping. Now after watching the film of the Johnson fight and going back over Charles' record, I think the case for Charles slipping is not as strong as I thought.

1. I have my doubts if either the Walcott or Marciano fights can be used as convincing proof that Charles had gone noticably back. Marciano and Charles had seven common opponents--Layne, Beshore, Louis, Reynolds, Matthews, Walcott, and Moore--Marciano went 8-0 with 8 ko's against them. Charles went 10-4 with 4 ko's. Marciano was just a better heavyweight than anyone Charles had previously fought. As for Walcott, Charles did beat him the first two fights, the second in March 1951, before abruptly getting ko'd by Walcott in July. The 4th fight was a disputed decision, with 24 of 41 ringside reporters picking Charles. One of the judges even commented that the fight was "too close to take away a champion's title" rather than a clearcut win.

2. Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. In both he had three close decisions. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed. So were the 1952 fights with Walcott and Layne, and the 1953 fight with Johnson. The big difference is that Charles won 2 of 3 of his late 1940's disputed decisions, getting the nods over Moore and Maxim. He lost all three of his early 1950's disputed decisions, even though the press thought he deserved the fights with Walcott and Layne, and the film shows an extremely close fight with Johnson. One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were the equals of, or more than the equals of, Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

3. Charles did not seem to have lost his punch. Between 1949 and 1951, Charles had 15 fights and scored 8 knockouts. Two of these came beyond the 10th round. He stopped Freddie Beshore in 14 and Rex Layne in 11. Between 1952 and the Marciano fight he had 15 fights and scored 7 knockouts. All the '52 to '54 knockouts were by the 10th round or earlier, and he might well have stopped Layne in 1953 rather than in 1951 if the lengths of the two fights were reversed. He had Layne down several times late in the 1953 fight.

4. He certainly did not always look sharp off the films or news reports in the 1949 to 1951 period. The second-tier Valentino reached him a lot on film. He went 14 in a surprisingly close fight with Beshore. He was unimpressive for the most part against Barone and Oma. Charles seemed to often fight to the level of his opposition.

5. Two factors do bolster the image of Charles as an aging and slipping fighter---one was the loss to Valdes. Charles probably took Valdes very lightly, but after watching Valdes on film, it is still difficult to explain this loss. Perhaps the film of this fight will turn up.

6. Many extrapolate from the obvious slippage in 1955 and 1956 backwards to the 1952 to 1954 era.

Bottom line--Charles was exactly the same age going into the first Marciano fight as Ali was going into his fight with Foreman. Off the Johnson film, only months before facing Marciano, he was still a very formidable fighter capable of hanging with the best in the world. Common sense indicates he had gone back some, but how much certainly is a matter of dispute.