debunking the myth of louis being completely past it ...

Yep.

 

Every one of those ATG notches on Rock's belt were against less than optimal versions of those fighters, without exception.

 

By most accounts Charles was an aggressive offensive fighter at 27 or 28, which would make him an even worse match up for Marciano. Some of the earliest available footage is Charles run and gun win over Joe Louis at the age of 29, he does not look any slower than he did in the Marciano fight. Do you perhaps have footage of Charles/Moore that your holding out on us?

 

I agree. Charles was just coming off 2 electric KO's over top big heavys and punchers. Most of Charles losses were close or disputed decisions but he came back strong and was on a high going into the Marciano fight. When it comes to Marciano, white and undefeated and a lot of people look to tear down his compitition...but that Charles would have given any heavy ATG a great fight including Ali and Joe Louis

 

Charles just doesn't look as good in my eyes against Marciano, Satterfield or Wallace. He looks completely shot against John Holman although he still managed to pull out a decision in the rematch.

This content is protected

 

Marciano had a lot to do with that. His leg movement was fine in his 2 previous electric KO's and so was his power

 

No. If you seriously think Charles looks as good and as fresh against Marciano as he does against Louis then I can only disagree.
The Louis and Valentino footage should suffice.

 

A great deal of that footage is actually leading up to the Marciano fight though. You even have the Wallace knockout in there. Either way I don't see a shot fighter in there against Marciano, if there's any decline its very minimal and splitting hairs. Those highlights are covering most of hisheavyweight run before Rocky and there is no shortage of elusiviness and explosive power. I would love to see the Valdez fight, who claimed it was his best and hardest win.

 

Really? Charles didn't fight a smart fight against Louis, perhaps pressure from the fans, no idea. He mixed it up at close quarters much more than usual and got busted up pretty good by the end of the fight. Joe was also a stationary target while Marciano was swarming with 90 punch outbursts.

Closing rounds of Charles/Louis

http://www.strimoo.com/video/17058776/Ezzard-Charles-Vs-Joe-Louis-1951-Dailymotion.html


Closing rounds of Charles/Marciano

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkmNakHKE_c[/ame]

 

Charles was a Great fighter in his day, no question about it, BUT, he did loss to Nino Valdez and Harold Johnson less then a year before he fought Rocky. A prime Charles would not have lost to either of them. Bob Satterfield was stopped 9 times before he fought Charles and one was against Harold Johnson just 15 months before. I am not saying that a prime Charles would have beaten Rocky, BUT he would have given a better account of himself. Joe Louis was past his prime before he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts (Ring Record Book). In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's. He was still a pretty good boxer and puncher BUT his reflexes and speed weren't what it once was.

 

I thought Charles was robbed vs Johnson.

I score it 5-3-2 for Charles.

 

The gif. didn't really have anything to do with my post, it's just a KO highlight reel, and the Wallace KO is not there. Only the Satterfield KO and Charles was taking a beating until landing that left.

Charles was hardly shot but I think any objective viewer can see that Charles was far more stationary by 1954 than he used to be. He had actually turned from a boxer into more of a slugger.

 

Its not a matter of being objective, I just see Charles being painted as something he was not prior to the Marciano meeting. He was never a speedy dancer, he was the Cobra, using head and upperbody movement to slip and counter from the midrange. He wasn't dancing circles around Louis anymore than he was Marciano, just not how he operated. If you want to make a case for him being more of a slugger thats fine, but the implication of him being an easier target I can't agree with. Unlesss were discussing the second Marciano meeting, where he had no interest in going the distance and gambled on beefing up and looking for the stoppage. I'd say his decline starts with that loss.

Charles was deflecting most of Satterfield's punches with his glove and arms, the added sound effects are pretty devestating though.

 

Charles wasn't at his best when he fought Marciano but he was still a quality fighter. His speed and reflexes had gone down but he could still box well and his upper body movement was still great. His prime was at light heavy before the Baroudi tragedy. In his second fight with Marhsall he looks notably lighter on his feet and has more bounce to him then in the heavyweight fights mentioned above. Either way it was a very good win for Marciano unlike the Louis win who was totally shot. Rocky said himself he was surprised how light Joe's punches felt, I doubt anyone said that about Louis in his prime.

P.S I also feel Charles beat Johnson it was a close fight but Ezzard should have got the nod and the ref should have scored the knockdown.

 

He was never a dancer but he did move a lot more against Louis than he did against Marciano. He also got hit more by 1953-1954 than previously.

And occasionally with his face as well.

Feel free to mute the video:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s[/ame]