Better Title Reign: Charles or Marciano?

Charles twice beat a better Walcott, a better Louis, and fought in 13 world title fights (including later challenges). Marciano had other high quality wins like LeStarza, 2 victories over Charles and Moore but only 7 world

MArciano because he has more quality but it isnt as far apart as you'd realise

 

Marciano's reign was better.

Overall heavyweight resume, Charles might have it.

 

Marciano and Marciano.

For a none serious reason, because his chest patch had comical value.

 

Power puncher made some good observations about Charles facing better versions of Walcott and Louis, along with having more appearances in world title fights. However, I still have to pick the Rock. He never lost a fight, holds claim to the highest KO percentage of all time and defeated Charles twice. The difference between the two may not be so terribly wide, but I have a hard time making a case for Charles having a better reign than Rocky.

 

I would have thought it was a no brainer.

Every challenger that Marciano faced was ranked #1 by ring magazine at the time of the fight except Cockle who was ranked #2.

Most of Charlses title oponents were ranked outside the top 10 outside of Louis and Walcott.

So I would say Marciano and not by a little.

 

So for the question of who was the greater champion then this seems somewhat definitive.

Would you go for the same man on the question of who has the better heavyweight resume as well Janitor? Different question it is, also though, i think people only seem to count wins and not factor in losses when debating this kind of topic. Just asking for an opinion.

 

1. A better Walcott? says who. There is hardly any noticeable difference at all between a 1951 Jersey Joe Walcott that charles beat and a 1952 Jersey Joe Walcott(whom Marciano beat) on film...Just ONE year Apart. In fact Walcott recorded his career best wins in late 1951-through mid 1952! So is your whole case the 1949 version of Walcott was better than the 1951-1952 Walcott? If thats your case, I would have to disagree with you once again. I have film of Walcott-Charles I...This version of Walcott was not the one who looked so great against Joe Louis in 1947. though he moved nicely...there was not a not a noticeable difference between this walcott and the heavyweight champion of the world walcott. Walcotts movement was at its peak in 1947, but faltered by 1949...In fact Walcott on film from 1949-1952 pretty much looked like the same fighter...recorded some of his career best wins during this stretch...and Walcotts aggresivness and counterpunching skills argueable got BETTER by 1951-1952.

Actually, I think there is more evidence that shows Marciano beat a better version of Louis than Charles did. Charles faced by far the rustiest version of Joe Louis we have ever seen. He showed up a career high in weight, his timing was terribly off, and his stamina was lacking. After that loss, Louis racked up 8 victories in a row and looked phenominal for his age against Lee Savold in mid 1951...a fight in which reporters noted Louis "Reflexes havnt looked this sharp and fast in a couple years"....Louis had shaken off the rust from the charles fight. I think going into the Marciano fight, Louis was just about the same physically from the charles fight...except he was much less rusty, and looked in trimmer better shape. It is my opinion, but I think had Louis got to rematch Charles in september of 1951 like the plans were....that Louis would have put up a better performance than he did a year earlier.

But Charles DID not defeat better versions. Look above

 

As for who had the better title reign...It is not even close.


Both beat Excellent versions of Jersey Joe Walcott...Lets say a WASH

Charle beat Louis...but Louis was terrible rusty. I doubt this version of Louis could have taken the Ezzard Charles of June 1954 or the Archie Moore who was cleaning out the division in 1955.

After that...Charles title reign looks TERRIBLE. Joey Maxim whom he already beaten 4 times...got a title shot. despite not having beaten a HW contender since 1946! For some odd reason, maxim managed to get rated # 3 in the heavyweight division that year. Seems very sketchy, IBC was up too no good.

Pat Valentino gets a title shot, He was ranked top 10 and coming off a win over Turkey Thompson so this was a somewhat respectable defense. But Valentino was not world class...he looked very unimpressive on film, and was nearing the end of the line as a fighter by this stage. Joe Louis would go on to kick the crap out of Pat in his next fight retiring him permanatley.

Certainly this win does not compare to a win over # 1 rated Roland Lastarza who coming into the fight had beaten everyone he had ever faced outside of a controversial split decision with Marciano. Lastarzas skills on film far exceeded those of Valentinos.


Gus Lesnevich- A old retired lightheavyweight who was unrated and had never done anything worthy in the heavyweight division. Very poor title challenger.


Freddie Beshore- Beshore was unrated, and very ordinary as a fighter. Yet he still went 14 rounds with Charles. Beshore was not worthy of a title shot.


Nick Barone- A lightheavyweight who never did anything in the heavyweight picture. Completley unworthy of a title shot


Lee Oma- A legitimate heavyweight. However, he was 35 years old, looked very soft physically, and was on the brink of retirement by 1951. He looked dreadful in the fight with charles, and it was this was an IBC set up.




While Charles did take on Walcott and Louis....Nearly all of the rest of his challengers were all unworthy. Most of these fighters were either washed up/journeyman level fighters who got title shots because they were highly connected with the IBC. There were much better highly rated young guns out there like Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Roland Lastarza, Rex Layne, and even Marciano himself that deserved title shots over these no hopes. Charles despite being very active as champioon, deserves alot of criticism for the choice of his opposition.


Marciano on the otherhand defended his title 5 times vs the # 1 contender and his "easy" defense was against the # 2 contender. Charles on the otherhand took on just 4 Ring Magazine contenders(walcott, louis, valentino, maxim) out of his 8 defenses so he was taking on rated opposition just 50% of the time. There is no comparison. Marciano beat BETTER quality(Walcott, Charles, and Moore) compared to charles (Walcott and Louis)...and after that Lastarza was a younger brighter higher rated contender than anyone Charles fought.


Marciano by a Landslide

 

A new myth on boxing his emerged. Of all places ESB. What is that myth?

Louis was better against Charles than against Marciano.

I don't even know how people can argue this. I guess it's just because Louis is younger. As if that's the definitive indicator that Louis had to be better. Watch the fights.

 

Charles was knocked out by Walcott. Plus He failed to stop Jersey Joe in three other opportunities.

Marciano knocked Jersey Joe out in terrific fashion.

 

I think that puts a whole new complexion on the question because most of Charlses better heavyweight wins took place before or after he was champion.

We would then have to take into acount Charlses wins over Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Baski, Rex Layne and Bob Satterfield.

Comparing their overall heavyweight resumes I would say that Charles has the edge in depth but obviously not in consistencey.

 

Marciano's.

Charles'.

 

Agreed. Most of Charles title opponents were so-so at best. Marciano pretty much fought the best out there.