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

are you asking me if marciano v charles 1 happened? the fight was made, what's to think about?

but it has absolutley zero relevance to whether charles was prime or not.

p.s yet another reminder that no one you are discussing with is saying they were shot/spent.

 

Do you think that is fair? Charles fought a lot of name fighters between losing to Walcott and challenging Marciano didn't he? Layne x3, Valdes, Johnson, Satterfeild, Harrison, Reynolds, Brion, Bivins and Maxim. He really paid his dues to earn it second time around didn't he? Some challenges did a lot less first time around. Take George Foreman and the appalling trio of 4-15 Terry Sorrell, 3-24 Clarance Boone and 1-14 Joe Murphy Gordwin!!!

 

fair? you pansy (and yes it was because people didn't wan't the fight at first and it took charles getting those wins to make the fight profitable.)

what has a comparison between the run up to title shots of two fighters at totally different stages of their careers, 20 years apart and different in almost every way, got to do with whether charles was prime or not?

 

I've never argued against Charles getting two title shots with Marciano ,my bone of contention is he was not prime.

 

charles was still capable of prime results though. exciting knockouts at world level in his two previous bouts.

 

it shows two things. #1 he was still capable of producing prime results. #2 he was a lot more willing than most #1 contenders.

 

Winning fights isn't an indication that you are in your prime Otherwise Ali's prime went on for 15years!
What it can often indicate is how good you were when you were in your prime eg Archie Moore!

 

1- prime result is a meaningless phrase you just invented. was he still capable of world level wins? yes. was he in his prime? impossible to tell from the results of two fights.

2- there is zero correlation between that statement and anything to do with anyones prime.

 

Being capable of world level wins is good enough in my book. Not being capable of producing world level wins, especially knockouts at world level, is an indication of prime being over.

I think it shows confidence in one's ability to seek the hardest fights possible in order to force a title fight. Being more selective shows less confidence in what one has left (or yet to develop) dont you think? Charles knew he had no more improving to do and had plenty to offer. He even said "line them up!" After beating Satterfeild.

 

Ali was capable of prime results all the way until 1974. After that he needed to be more selective. I'm not talking his absolute zenith, just being able to match a result on paper. After Manila he struggled to look convincing against World level opponents.

Archie Moore was a veteran fighter who took years to develop. He was just another world class contender treading water for many years. He outlasted one generation and added cunning to his game plan, that's what made him stand out. As the last man standing from a black murderers row he was able to use his experience into a developed economy he did not previously have. The latter Moore was better.

 

Once again you disagree with the subject himself.
Moore stated categorically he was past prime when he fought Marciano ,that his legs were gone.
So what we know have is you saying you know more about Joe Louis and Archie Moore than they did themselves. Seems reasonable:think

 

Unfortunately for your argument ,what is"good enough in your book",isn't good enough in ours.:-(

 

so you have decided the word has a new meaning?

if i say goat means good fighter is nas the goat? no
if i say black means white was tyson white? no
so when you say a fighters prime is up to his last decent win it doesn't make it true, it just makes you wrong.

at this point you are just being intellectually dishonest with yourself, the obvious is right there but it doesn't fit your narrative so you are making worse and worse arguments(and new words, new phrases and new meanings to existing words) to defend what you already know is indefensible. it's not quite as bad as klompon's 'he's so **** he lost a fixed fight', or any time seamus tries to use logic, but pretty close.

 

Wtf is a " prime result ?"

 

No, I realise what most people see as prime is the moment where ring development reaches its maximum and physical development arrives together with it. This peak is short lived its the actual apex. Either side of this of course you still have a world class fighter with championship ability.

Now with fighters like Ali, Louis and Charles who all had absences from the ring with world war army stints and forced exiles there is arrested development so the whole thing is rather difficult to assess. What you are left with is what you see with your own eyes. Film showing world class ability as well as films of other fights showing a tired fighter slowing down. It's the natural order of things.

Now, You can decide where you think the apex of professional and physical prime combines on one night for the said fighter or simply look at film and say "from this fight to that fight on film he was every bit as hard to beat". He might be quicker at one stage and he might be cleverer at another stage but overall just as good.