Both Walcott and Charles was "spent" when they met Marciano.

This might be true,

 

i got caught out going by the title alone a couple times recently too, this time i opened the thread first and the op very obviously asks about the matchups in their primes:

this is the interesting bit of the question imo, and the bit i am talking about, as we have both said they were obviously not spent going into their first rocky fights.

being 'not spent' is very different from being in their primes, and while i don't think either man wins i don't think it's that crazy to give a better chance to a younger version of a fighter who did well early but who's workrate was dropping and who was starting to look tired by the time of the stoppage(walcott).

 

what is your interpretation of "not spent" though? Somewhere between "spent" and "prime" covers a whole lot of ground. Edge of Prime? Not prime but Still world class? Capable/fair? The "one last roll of the dice" stage, Going through the motions? On the skids? And "nearly done".

Let me remind you both these fighters were still performing career defining stuff in knocking out rated fighters or in Walcotts case, knocking out a dominant world champion.

Younger or better? If it's just younger there is a lot of evidence of both guys not being so good as their Marciano form when they were younger men. Take your pick. 1952 Walcott had to be better than the guy who lost to Joey Maxim and Abe Simon. The Charles who Lloyd Marshall bounced around like a rubber ball was younger as well.

I think most fighters younger than Walcott would look tired by the time of the stoppage -Marciano included!

 

Only Saturday's and Sunday's Choc. See you Monday!:good

 

yeah, like 1/3 of a career depending on the guy.

i pretty much agree with the last two points as you made them. but i also think walcott was a bit further gone than charles and would have had more in the tank earlier in his career. walcott was also inconsistent and/or more closely mob handled than a lot of guys, so losses, even to a fighters worse than maxim, don't mean a huge amount to me in the context of his upper level in a fantasy fight(especially when i'm still picking rocky).

 

It's difficult to imagine a fighter even being a bit further "gone" if in his previous fights he's just executed a career best performance that required an ATG knockout?

In the case of Walcott, he was a late bloomer, like say Jimmy Braddock or Archie Moore. These kinds of veterans spent a large part of their careers treading water as young men. Holding back what they really had until oppertunties finally came their way. You still need to build up to top level though even when the right path becomes available. So younger versions of great veterans could (and did often) find themselves out of their depth at a level that as older men they did succeed.

 

I think rocky was great and you think rocky was great, lets agree to disagree wether a well over 35 yo man in his last actual fight and last ring performance(a ko1 lie down with no real punishment taken) might have had a bit more physically, specifically more stamina/the ability to match a high pace, a few years earlier.

 

Walcott spent everything he had left in the first fight. EVERYTHING. That's why many people say he was so good that first time losing to Rocky. And at those high steaks he always would have because it was a title fight. Younger guys are also finished off after losing a 13 round war that ended with a severe "out cold" knockout.

Had Walcott not had so hard a fight, had he fought another guy in Rockys place that night who knows how long he could have gone on. After all, Walcott had just had two career defining wins and was genuinely the best heavyweight in the world at that point regardless of his age.

But I agree, Walcott had a lot less left the second time. And who wouldn't? He had previously fought himself to exhaustion and suffered an all time terrible knockout. Where as going into the first fight he was coming off two if his most triumphant wins. That's some contrast.

 

wasn't rocky was the best hw in the world at that point?

pretty amazing how wallcott could fight 69 fights over 22 years including louis twice, charles 4 times, bivins, hatchetman x2, ray, murray and a few other decent guys, taking 4 stoppage losses along the way without losing anything, maybe he was better than rocky? but then rocky ruined his career when these guys couldn't touch him? (even the ones who ko'd him?).

the internet is a strange place, i post that rocky was great and i wouldn't pick younger versions of guys he beat to beat him at any point in their careers but would walcott a better chance if he was 5-10 years younger than the 69 fight 22 year veteran that he was. in the mind of rocky marciano's mum here that is a massive insult to the man and i need to be taken to task for it.
what da ****?

 

I'll address this bit just to give The Mac Attack a headstart, he might be hungover and all that

The comparison is Michael Spinks and Joe Walcott.

At the career stage you are comparing -

One of these guys had 70 fights.
One of these guys had 32 fights.

One of these guys had fought professionaly for 22 years.
One of these guys had fought professionaly for 11 years.

One of these guys was about 38.
One of these guys was about 31.

One had been stopped 4 times.
One had never been stopped and probably never legitimately dropped.

One had been stopped by Joe Louis and actually fought 26 rounds with him.

Spinks was actually on the decline as soon as he stepped up to heavyweight due to the obvious obstacles after such a move. Charles may or may not have been as well, tho there was a lot less weight difference between the 175'ers and Heavies back in those days. Regardless Ezzard was a superb heavyweight, absolutely, tho his peak was obviously at 175.

I've been reading this thread with interest.

Looking at it on face value i cannot see how a fighter could possibly be "on top of the mountain" after all of the above mentioned. Joe Louis took a lot out of a lot of fighters. Walcott also had age and a long long career behind him.

He was however a cutie and i am not truly sure how much punishment he took throughout his career as i haven't watched and read enough of him.

Looking forward to some other input on the matter. Maybe Arnold was on top of his game, against the odds.

 

As I have earlier said late bloomer Walcott was going through a renaissance. He twice beat the most dominant champion since Joe Louis in back to back fights, the same guy he twice lost to. Walcott was turning a corner here surely. Otherwise he would have continued losing to Charles. Where was the decline in his title winning performance?

The thread says "spent" which means all used up, nothing to offer.
It is incorrect and not factual at all to put either performer in this bracket.

 

Why obviously?

Charles was a lightheavyweight for about as long as Floyd Patterson was a lightheavyweight. Was that Floyd's prime too?

Before the war Ezzard never made 175lb.

Within months of his comeback after the war Ezzard was beating heavyweights.

But at lightheavyweight Fritzie Fitzpatrick almost beat him. His prime didn't start until beyond that point. It must, therefore, be the point charles began to tangle with heavyweights.

His prime started about the time he beat Joe Baksi. That was a super win. But even then Charles was not the most celebrated or consistently dazzling kind of performer, perhaps because he fought so often.

I think a fighter hits a prime and is capable of prime performances for quite a time after that. He might be faster at one point or do something different at another but until he actually hits the skids generally a top fighter ,Going by film, can produce parallel prime results until that point.

No question the Marciano fight, being for the title, was a real serious Herculean effort. It took a lot out of Charles and Marciano.

 

You've pretty much said it JT.:good

 

not until beating the best fighter in the world can Rocky be the best. Walcott had emphatically established he was the best in knocking out the most dominant heavyweight, Charles, baking it up in winning a rematch as well.

Both Charles and Walcott were still producing wins that on film look as good as anything they ever did just prior to meeting Rocky first time around.

Yes they had a lot of fights but this is the fact of it.

 

You think the Charles/ Walcott series was good?