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

They were interesting matches of pure boxing. There has been better series among champions of course but it does not diminish the standing of Walcott nor Charles during that time.

Whatever way you spin it this serries was not one between two deteriorating veterans who were washed up, worn and all spent up. Nobody was better.

Prior to meeting Rocky, Walcotts knockout of Charles was sensational.

Likewise, prior to meeting Rocky, Charles knocking out Walace and Satterfeild was sensational too.

 

Charles was a light heavy for around 5 years Patterson about 2years.
Charles is routinely considered one of the top 3 light heavies of all time ,many would say he is the supreme lhvy .
Anybody have him in their top 10 at heavyweight?

 

Bert Sugar. .....

 

You can't include the years he was in the army and did not fight at all. Charles was exclusively active as a lightheavyweight only for about the same length of time as Patterson was. Before then he was a tall middle of less than 169lb.

 

It isn't even up for debate really. Charles is considered by many to be the finest 175 in history and is invariably top 5, particularly H2H.

He was the inaugural 175 winner of the ESB Classic Forum All-Time Rankings by Division by runaway. Incidently he wasn't rated at Heavyweight.

The guy beat the great Archie Moore 3 timesout of 3 along with a who's who of the era, and it's a great era. He did nothing like this at Heavyweight.

Before the war Charles wasn't prime, but was already accumulating some very impressive victories. He came back after the war and went on an absolute tear in the 175 division for almost 3 years in what was his peak years. During this period he scored enough top quality wins to be considered the best ever or close to it. Never mind the time, look at the sheer number of fights and just who they were against.

Whilst weighing 175 and under almost every time, and when not barely over it. He was not fighting as a heavyweight.

A point conveniently chosen to support the agenda.

So he beat Archie Moore x 3 while not even prime? Never mind everyone else at the time, and it was a considerable line up. To say Charles was not prime prior to this is absurd.

Cherry picking one poor performance to build a case on doesn't cut it, especially when one was fighting as hard and as often as Charles. So many intangibles.

Again conveniently chosen to suit an agenda. Charles was around a 3-1 favorite and Baksi had been beaten by the lowly regarded Tandberg 2 fights prior.

Charles prime absolutely did not start there.

Basically agree.

Lets get one thing straight tho - Charles lost a huge amount of advantages the moment he started fighting fully fledged heavyweights. To his credit he was still a great fighter and may have beaten the 175 version of himself but he was a smaller fish in a bigger pond. He was never ever going to be as great and effective as he was at 175.

Maybe. Charles had lost 2 of his last 4 fights going in.

A Marciano critic might take the stance that Charles was just Charles and maybe Marciano wasn't as good as people think?

With Walcott on an upward spiral as a fighter in his second to last fight ever (after an extremely long career) and Charles better at heavyweight than at 175 i am definitely getting the impression you are a pretty big Rocky fan. I am a pretty big fan too but certainly not to this extent.

 

They weren't washed up and they were still class fighters.
I believe however both were better a few years before
and so did the contemporary newspapers of the day.
I'd like to make one thing clear, my opinion is in no way a knock against Marciano, he fought who was around ,as I have said several times.

 

Rocky Marciano's rep is the most zealously defended and jealously guarded of all champions.
To even imply anything that is not a total positive is heresy and instantly brands you as a hater by the faithful.
ps Another fine post JT:good

 

if a lhw needs to be over 168 then charles was not a hw at all, ever, just a cruiser.

if lhw is over 160 then yeah, lhw.

 

Here's a report that summarizes their series.

Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott met for the first time on June 22, 1949. The fight was an elimination bout for the NBA (National Boxing Association) Heavyweight title. The Charles who stepped into the ring that night was not the same aggressive fighter of the past, however. The death of Sam Baroudi, which occurred after he sustained severe head injuries during their encounter a year earlier, had deeply affected Charles. The Ezzard Charles who stepped into the ring against Walcott a year later was more defensive and tactical minded fighter than the Charles of the past.
Walcott’s performance didn’t help matters, either. His jab seemed weak and tentative throughout the fight. To onlookers, it seemed as though both fighters were fighting to NOT LOSE as much as they were fighting to win. The fight ended to a chorus of boos. In the end, Charles’ body punching turned out to be enough to carry him through to a solid, if not exciting, decision victory over Walcott.
They met for the second time in Detroit, on March 7, 1951. Walcott had become a fan favorite by then and many were rooting for the old underdog. For Jersey Joe, this was his fourth attempt at the World title. He was the first man to have ever fought for the title more than twice without winning it. But once again, Charles came away with a decision, dropping Walcott in the 9th and securing a second decision victory. Walcott, however, felt he’d won the fight and been victimized by a raw-deal, bad decision. Some people agreed. One thing was certain; ringsiders felt the second meeting between the two fighters was about as dull as the first!
A third meeting was scheduled just four months later. Walcott was installed as a heavy underdog this time around. Fans complained about a lack of competition in the division and showed little excitement leading up to the fight. In the 7th round, however, all that was about to change. Joe landed one of the most storied punches in boxing history. A short left-hook put Charles down for the count and Jersey Joe Walcott became the oldest fighter (at 37 years of age) to win sport’s most coveted title. It was a record which stood until George Foreman broke it over forty years later in 1994 – recapturing the title at age 45.
The stage was now set for what would be their fourth and final meeting. The fight took place on June 5, 1952. Walcott came away with a disputed 15-round decision and his title intact. It was a fight in which Charles seemed to fight passively while Walcott spent much of the time moving out of Charles’ range. When all was said and done, however, many people agreed that Charles did not do enough to take the title back from Walcott.
Jersey Joe Walcott would lose the title to an up and coming Rocky Marciano in September of 1952. He went down fighting, though; sending Rocky to the canvas in the opening round and building a solid points lead before getting stopped in the 13th round.
He would lose the rematch as well… and retired afterward.
Ezzard Charles would go on to face Marciano in back-to-back fights in 1954. He lost the first by 15-round decision. The loss, however, went a long way towards restoring his reputation as being a “boring, safety-first fighter” with the fans. He lost the second fight by 8th round knockout.

The don't sound like the fights you described.:think

 

You are too kind

 

nobody questions this. It has long been established opinion. It is based on Charles beating Moore. You can't rate Moore without acknowledging his losses to Charles. Obviously Moore established himself as a great light heavyweight but both guys were fighting both heavyweights and lightheavyweights. Both were too good for the smaller heavyweights. Perhaps Moore even improved some after his serries with Charles? There is some evidence Archie really took off after losing to Leonard Morrow.

What more could Charles do at Heavyweight? He defended the title 10 times and beat Walcott, Louis, Baksi, Maxim, Bivins and Ray.

Gene Tunney was a lightheavy for longer than Charles and was a heavyweight far less than Ezzard was.

exactly. As you say Charles was not prime before the war then he was rated for two years at Lightheavy before moving up full time.

It was a great era for lightheavyweights but what actually was a lightheavyweight back then? Was it even an exclusive division?

Lightheavyweight existed within the heavyweight division as a spring board for the smaller ones to challenge the heavyweight champion.

Who was the first lightheavyweight champion never to fight a heavyweight?

Mate Parlov?

Bivins was rated as #1 at both heavy and light heavy in 1942 and only as a heavyweight after that point.

When the training of the day brought most heavyweights down to 190lb any light heavy was but a meal or so away from them.

Like I say, When the training of the day brought most heavyweights down to 190lb any light heavy was but a meal or so away from them.

you say yourself that Ezzard was not prime before 1946 and Charles first fought Moore in what, 1947? so perhaps Charles was beating Moore while building up to his prime. If you look at these results Charles improved during them.

it's not so much cherry picking, Charles always had a heavy schedule, but to pinpoint a prime we have to decide on a run where there was less blips. Even as champion Charles had some Luke warm performances.

The Baksi fight was a landmark win for Charles though. It was when things started to happen for him. It launched his career more than the Archie Moore fights EVER did. Only hindsight makes the Moore wins so important.

Did he though? A lot of the heavyweight contenders like Maxim and Bivins moonlighted within both divisions. Not to mention Mauriello and Lesnevich, melio Betina...

absolutely.

175 was a meal away from the elite heavyweights back then.

yes two hastily arranged fights with then unknown Valdes in Spanish Miami and Philadelphian Harold Johnson in Philadelphia both got the nod in close fights over Charles before Ezzard spectacularly relaunched himself with the stunning wins over Walace and Satterfeild. Incidentally, these last two back to back wins never fail to be included on any highlight reel of Ezzard Charles "best bits" on film. No slow motion compilation is complete without including knockdowns Charles produced in those fights.

Maybe Rocky was not as good as people think. I dont have any more proof than anyone else. He was certainly an unusual and unconventional fighter. The men he beat were good in the conventional sense, and recent film of them in previous fights certainly bares this out.

These guys were not spent or used up.

 

Satterfield was ko'd how many times? Wallace was never anything but a Joe Louis look- alike without his power. Neither Charles or Walcott were considered to be anything special whilst they were active fighters it is only in the last 10/15 years their stock has risen. A Boxing Illustrated poll in the mid 1960's rated the heavyweight champions it said of them both ,"not the best,not the worst". Charles is now considered an atg p4p but he wasnt when I was young, neither were either of them considered great heavyweights.

 

However high or low they were thought of at the time when Rocky fought them both were coming off spectacular wins worthy of any highlight reel. They certainly were not "spent" or used up going into those fights. Can you dispute this?

 

As I have shown their 4 fight series was considered a bore snore apart from the ko in the third fight. They were both castigated for their last fight so they weren't coming off spectacular anything .Walcott had won just 2 of his last 4 fights Satterfield was ko'd by everybody and his brother[13times] ,Wallace beat who exactly he is known for portraying Louis in a sh*t film that's it. When was he ever rated?
You're trying to lay bricks without cement.

 

You can't dispute any of what I am saying. Those films show highlight worthy footage. Satterfeild and Wallace were rated at the time.

Walcott was a highly celebrated champion. He even featured on a postage stamp. I've seen those series of fights and there is no evidence of either fighter slowing down or deteriorating. Walcott fought with more authority than at any previous point in his career in the last two with Charles.