Evaluate Marciano-Charles I

For Marciano Ezzard was where Ali was for the foreman fight, just as effective as the peak years but performing by more efficient route. Charles skipped around a bit more in the joe louis fight where as by the marciano fight his style had evolved to more measured counter punching and wasting less shots. I dont think ali was any less effective in 1973-1974 (the spell where he beat Norton, frazier and Foreman back to back) than he was at his 1960s best and so too for ezzard. Less dancing, more punching. An examination of ezzards filmed fights between title fights shows he was hitting harder and beating (in many cases better men) than he was in his title days. In fact, the record shows that aside from the one walcott KO loss (who many think he beat 3 of 4 times) Charles had never been decisivly beaten as a heavyweight until meeting Marciano.

This version of Charles was a great fighter and would beat young Foreman to the draw in a way kingston Joe Frazier no longer could. Foreman was a great talent but he was a gamble that paid off, never has there been so green a champion.

 

A truly great fight between two all-time greats. Marciano said that it was his toughest fight - tougher than Walcott I. In this fight, each fighter brought out the best in the other. And both were top class men outside the ring as well.

 

Better than Walcott I(who was coming off 2 wins over a younger ezzard charles) and whom was leading Marciano on all 3 cards?

 

I dont think that Charles was better than Walcott from fight 1.

Walcott control the fight and was leading on the cards going into round 13. Marciano NEEDED to ko Walcott to win the fight(If Rocky sweep the last 3 rounds, it ended in a draw and thus no title)

By round 13, Rocky had complete control of the fight and was adding more rounds to have a sort of wide lead in the fight after the slow start in the first 4 rounds.