How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

I scored the Johnson fight for Charles by a few rounds.

It was a close fight, but I though Charles egde it.

 

charles did not have a muscle wasting illness at 32. charles was one year older than marciano was when he beat moore.

 

so are you saying because a shot fighter can look better later does this mean in reality Charles was slipping once he first began to have close fights? Fitzpatrick, maxim, ray, Walcott etc? I think in Charles’s case he fought so often he ALWAYS put out a luke warm performance every so often. By choosing to select one period over another when each period was mixed with better wins against top fighters that eclipsed the luke warm ones is a little mischievous and over simplistic. In my view it is obvious to select the time where he was struggling consistently at a poorer level as the time when a boxer was done as a fighter. With charles, 1955 onward in my view.
　
I think all those wins you talked about are examples of modern day veteran fighters who have access to a lot more training improvements.. and not so relevant to this discussion. Walcott and Moore were excellent veteran fighters but it is easier to asses how they were able to prolong their careers due to their slick efficient boxing styles. Both treaded water until oppertunity alowed the right match making came along. Both would also pass a drugs test. Mosley and Hopkins always had the opportunity but certain programmes together with their experience have given them some surprising good fortune just not possible 50 years ago.

 

but if he did already beat johnson like many people do think he did what then? ray arcel stated that charles was still the best heavyweight in the world after he beat rex layne, he knew a thing or to, was he that far out? wouldnt you pick a fit charles under 200lb having trained for a longer fight of 54' vintage to beat valdes in a rematch? I know I would seeing as valdes could do nothing against satterfeild and gillium. how about the charles of the ray, maxim, barone fights against johnson and layne?

 

I am not going to criticize your take on the Johnson fight because you are entitled to your opinion. What I will say is Johnson was an excellent fighter an ATG, also in his prime, so I don’t think any fighter who was slipping or suffering from a muscle wasting illness could ever take johnson to a SD. Its ludicrous to think an ATG in his prime cannot beat a once great fighter beyond dispute who is slipping, suffering from a muscle wasting illness. Otherwise its like ray robinson having a close fight with henry Armstrong.

 

Here you are calling Ezzard a liar. That ain't right.

Wilfred Benitez was alot younger than both when he was slipping. See how silly this can get?

 

I find it hard to imagine ray arcel himself would make as bold a statement as "ezzard charles is still the best heavyweight in the world" after beating rex layne if charles was slipping. I mean would you put your rep on the line and say that knowing charles was slipping?

 

robinson beat armstrong beyond dispute because armstrong was slipping. johnson did not beat charles beyond dispute. it was disputed.

 

Huh? First of all, Arcel knew that great fighters slipping can still beat most guys out there. There's a hundred examples of that. Secondly, Arcel was in Ezzard's corner and would absolutely puff him up to get him a title shot ASAP and all that money that comes with it, then put him to pasture with a pension of sorts.

 

I watched the whole fight and had charles one round up but would not argue if called a draw or if anyone thought johnson nicked it. very tight fight of pure boxing with neither getting a true upperhand. a bit like pastrano v johnson.