Ezzard Charles 1950 v Rocky Marciano 1954

You still don't know what you're talking about, do you.

Marciano MADE Charles fight at a pace he didn't want. Charles didn't love to get into exchanges and brawl... poor ring generalship you have to be kidding me.

 

When Vitali Klitschko dominates a fight he imposed his will. When Marciano dominates a great fighter it is the other guys fault. Mendoza you must use the same rule for all.

 

A younger Charles certainly has more gas in the tank. Marciano would still be stronger and would still will break Charles down as the fight progresses. Charles will have more fight in the later rounds though. I could certainly see Charles edging 1 fight in a series

 

Rocky KO 9

 

Just tell me why Charles engaged so often with a bigger puncher. Poor ring strategy.

 

Charles vs Marciano 1 was a war. Charles visibly rocked Rocky, but fought a tactually poor fight. I do agree that Rocky imposed his will in the later rounds. But my point is part of that reason as to why Charles was worn down was he went toe to toe too often instead of using movement and outside skills.

 

No, he was forced to engage. Marciano forced litterally everyone he fought to engage, and it isn't everyone having poor ring strategy. It was a lose-lose for Charles. Had he not engaged, he'd have been overwhelmed. Had he engaged, he would have been (and was) overwhelmed.

 

Charles pretty much did the stick and move in the first 5 rounds, and it work.

But by round 6, Marciano up the pace and Charles could not keep away, and was pretty much FORCE to exchange.

Marciano didnt slow down after round 6.

 

Exactly, Marciano forced him to do it.

 

The following posts above basically tore down this question.

 

Of course Marciano made him Twat. He was fighting an old Charles with legs that could not carry him for 15 rounds against a prime animal like Marciano. Splitting bouts with Rex Layne does not cut it ...

 

Good post ... The men Rocky fought (Charles, Walcott, Moore) were all still very good and dangerous fighters ... however they lacked the legs to go the distance in a fight with a Marciano and sooner or later he caught up with them .. No different than the post exile Ali who did not have the legs against a Frazier and had to fight different fights than he would have in the 1960's if he fought them ...

I'm not saying any beat Rocky at their best of those three ... maybe they fight bolder and get caught earlier ... I'm just saying that if you're not over powering Marciano like a Foreman or a Tyson might you better have the legs to stay out of his way or you're gonna get hit very hard ...

 

VITLAY would look like he have poor ring strategy VS Prime Rocky too.
Cos Rock would force him to FIGHT (Voidtali cannt do this) on the inside (or this).

 

Walcott got knockout, not because of lack of legs, he just got caught, and was fooled into that feit exchange with the right hand.

Walcott was still moving pretty well leg wise in round 13.

 

ali 70-75 would beat charles, walcott or moor any day of the week, 365 days in the year. and to have fast legs or more power than rocky is not the only way to beat him. ali 70s had the chin,stamina ,the heart ,the skill,the size, the experience to beat prime rocky.( i doubt that tyson had much more power than rocky,)