charles v tommy harrison 1953, can you see this guy losing to valdes?

Yes he was still a good fighter beating and losing to decent opposition ... his legs were far from pime and he got hit more than before. That's that.

 

Charles lost in his 94th (L10 Valdes) and 95th (LSD10 Johnson) pro fights. He also lost in his 98th and 99th (L15 and LKOby8 to Marciano) pro fights. The wins over Wallace and Satterfield were his 96th and 97th pro fights. My point? Charles was well past prime but still rose to the occasion in some fights.

Tommy Harrison was his 90th pro fight BTW!

 

Harrison is the boxer the feature film was based on about a boxer assuming Bob Satterfield's identity.

 

Why not? Often the last thing to go in a fading fighter is his power.

 

What is the point of all this? Is it an attempt to talk up Valdes? Come on, Charles was much better than Valdes and even Johnson!

 

I posted on this earlier, I think Charles may or may not have been declinded since he was a Light Heavy contender, we really just don't know with such limited footage. He certainly had better opportunites and more success at Heavy; cleaning out the top 10, beating lots of tough contenders, getting a win over a prime all time great in Walcott, and having great showings against Marciano and Johnson. I must say that I don't see much evidence of a decline from his time as Heavyweight Champion to the Marciano matches in his better performances.

Most of the articles from the time describe Charles as being an aggressive two fisted attacker during his early Light Heavy run, he was never known as a dancer that beat guys with his legs. Not sure how people got the impression he was Ali or something. During his heavyweight run there was also a considerable amount of pressure on him to score impressive knockouts, that was especially true after he lost the title. It was demanded that he stop the tough Brion in his first comeback fight and most articles said though he dominated the fight he took a few unncessary shots as he recklessly slugged looking for the ko round after round.

He was also sporadic, most likely do to constant travel and grueling schedules, maybe moreso by 53. People also forget that after that 4th Walcott fight, he knew he may very well never get another shot at the title. Could that have been psychological hurrdle that hindered his performances? This is a guy who knows from experience that title shots are hard to come by in this era of boxing, even after Marciano won the title early in Charles' comeback there was talk in the press that the likelyhood of him getting another shot was very doubtful regardless if he keeps winning.

I guess the point is that people tend to oversimplify things like this. "Charles slipping but still rising to the occassion" is something I can buy into and is certianly more fitting than drawing a line and saying he was faded from this point on....life and boxing just doesn't work that way. Truth is that Ezzard just wasn't as consistent as he once was for whatever reason...schedule, motivation, tough stylstic match ups, but was certainly still capable of greatness. That. I think "faded" or "shot" would imply that Charles would be completely incapable of fighting at a great level, simply unable to do the things he once did no matter how hard he tried. Which doesn't seem to be the case with the Cobra at this stage.

 

Charles wasn't a hot n cold fighter during what I consider to be his prime. During this time he went 39-1 overall and 9-0 in HW World Title Fights! The only loss was a close loss to Elmer Ray, which he avenged by KO. Thru his first 100 pro fights (Marciano was 98 and 99 btw) he went 87-12-1, after that he went just 9-13! He rose to the occasion vs. Marciano but he was definately past prime.

 

-I have to strongly disagree with your reasoning. The crafty Walcott defeated Charles by developing a trap specifically for the man after learning his patterns in 2 losses. I don't think Ezzard lost because of diminished abilites. He rebounded though more cautiously in their fourth meeting and in the eyes of most writers and fans should have been the first 2-Time Heavyweight Champion.

 

Exactly. I think its also worth noting that three of his four losses in that time were disputed decisions(2 against all time greats, and the Layne fight being convincingly avenged), the other against Nino was in the big Cuban's backyard without film to see how well Ezzard performed. So really only one bad loss of the bunch that he didn't get a chance to avenge.