How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

I am telling you charles was not suffering from a muscle wasting ilness at 32. I am telling you that at age 29 charles was not as good against barone and beshore as he was against wallace, satterfeild and marciano at 32. I am asking you was marciano at age 31 past his prime in 1955?

 

You speak with the authority of someone who doesn't know. As for me, I'll take Ezzard's opinion over yours.

Get off the stats, and then you'll realize that this isn't something you can "tell" anyone. This is about weight of opinion and nothing else. And if you think that Ezzard was still in his prime at 32, your opinion in my opinion weighs as much as that toe nail I just clipped.

In my opinion, certainly.

 

Love Charles but I still favor Marciano. Not counting out Charles to pick up a W though.....

 

Rocky beats any version of Charles...

 

It is not just my opinion that charles (even as champion) was not always as impresive against fighters inferior to satterfeild and wallace. there is hard evidence to prove this. It is not just based on stats. The news reports of the barone and beshore fights bare this out. A downward spiral in form did not begin when charles lost the title, since many feel he ought to have won it back. the downward spiral began after the maciano fights when he faced 8 contenders in 11 hard fights squeezed into 12 months.

 

A news report is not necessarily "hard evidence" aside from the stats it offers.

Ezzard was not in his prime at 32. Common sense and the man's own opinion slam that idea. He was slipping by then.

I don't know of any Marciano fanatics who would go there to build up the Rock's championship record. Are you a Marciano fanatic?

 

Thats fair enough I just dont think Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. charles had three close decisions that could have went either way before he was champion. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed.

One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson who got the nod in close fights against charles, were the equals of, or better than Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

The valdes loss would have easily been avenged had nino ever rematched ezzard since charles knocked out gilium, satterfeild and wallace who all slayed valdes or knocked out fighters who beat valdes.

charles looked great against world level fighters in recent fights before facing marciano. If he was slowing down how did he improve after tha valdes fight?

 

there is nothing wrong with what you are saying, I understand it I just feel
Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. after the moore ray and maxim fights and disapointing bouts with barone and beshore Charles returned to form just as he later did after a blip with valdes. declining fighters might get lucky but usualy dont return to championship form for a string of solid wins like charles did prior to marciano.

 

but you said yourself the walcott fight looks dead even. The johnson fight is close, I would say even. You have not added satterfeild who beat big cat williams, you have not added layne who beat walcott and walcott, johnson satterfeild, layne were at least a match for maxim, ray and moore. valdes just was not good enough to beat charles twice. he got lucky because charles latter proved he was much better.