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

Marciano vs Charles 1 was an absolute war. No way Charles was shot here.

Walcott pulled off one of his best performances in the first fight so he wasn't shot either. The second fight is a different story. In my opinion, Walcott folded cheaply in the second, opting to take the count in round one. You could say he was mentally shot for that one.

 

:good that's what the thread is about.

Shot or not?

No.

Film does not bare this out.

 

Both Walcott and Charles were well north of 30 with about a combined 160 fights of mileage behind them. And one was a former middleweight while the other was in the last outing of his career. So yeah. It's kinda foolish to suggest that either were prime or close to it.

 

I've seen them too, and read all the contemporary accounts of them including the Ring magazines ones. When was Wallace rated? Who did he beat to merit being rated?

Louis involved in the promotion of the Walcott v Charles June25th fight said after the fight .

" I can tell you this ,it wasn't anyone's idea of an exciting fight".

The NY Boxing Commission didn't even recognize it as a title bout it was held under the auspices of the NBA through its commissioner Abe Greene.
Walcott was seen as an afterthought as regards the title ,so poorly was he considered his first challenge against Louis was originally proposed as an exhibition, not for the first timeyou are rewriting fistic history .

 

Coley Wallace was ranked number 4 September of 1952.

Satterfield and Wallace were ranked 9 and 10 respectively following their losses to Charles.

 

Thank you ,I could only access the yearly ratings.

 

that and the question of how the fights go in their primes.

 

The latter is the intruiging one for me.

 

:good That's right.

Charles got a crack at Marciano out of sensationally knocking out two rated fighters in spectacular fashion back when #1 rated fighters had to beat contenders to maintain their ranking.

George Foreman maintained #1 rating during 1972 out of beating the appalling trio of 4-15 Terry Sorrell, 3-24 Clarance Boone and 1-14 Joe Murphy Gordwin!!!

 

And the comparison is valid because?:huh

 

It's valid because the comparison underlines how capable the challenger (Charles) still is risking his rating by taking on rated contenders right up until landing a title fight. more celebrated champions like George Foreman maintained his rating against the appalling trio of 4-15 Terry Sorrell, 3-24 Clarance Boone and 1-14 Joe Murphy Gordwin!!!

 

charles' popularity was low at the time so he needed to force the fight, foreman's was huge and he didn't.

fights are made on money not rankings and charles needed to show some action to win back fans and newsmen to make the marciano fight marketable.

 

One was box office one wasn't.Foreman was on the cover of the Ring with the heading," is this the most powerful puncher of all time?" The general boxing public thought the Charles v Walcott 4th fight was a stinker.Charles was seen as colourless, a cautious safety first fighter.

 

Do you think Charles achieved this?

 

do you think there was renewed interest because Charles scored exciting knockouts against contenders Wallace and Satterfeild?