How would Liston have done against Marciano's title opposition ?

How would a hungry lion do vs. slightly past their prime versions of their natural prey?


I would pick Liston to finish Charles and Moore quicker than Marciano did. Walcott could run, but he could not hide.

 

I think he matches up pretty well with all of them bar Walcott who moves and gives him angles, Walcott could maybe outbox him for periods but I think he gets his jab working and catches up to Walcott to KO him

I think Charles fights him in the pocket and gets knocked out for his trouble, same with Moore

 

fair post.:good I accept Liston would be favorite over charles but I could not rule out a charles win. Charles beats all the men LIston beat.

 

Layne was not a mediocre talent. Charles never defended his title against such a live young heavyweigt as layne. oma? Barone? valentino? Those guys were mediocre by comparison. rex was better than fitzie fitzpatric who nearly beat a much better ezzard charles than everyone says he was against marciano. Yet charles pounded layne in all their fights - even the one when he was robbed. Another round and rex would have been KO'd in the two bouts that did not go the distance. There was nothing wrong with charles's legs untill 1955.


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. In both he had three close decisions. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed. So were the 1952 fights with Walcott and Layne, and the 1953 fight with Johnson. The big difference is that Charles won 2 of 3 of his late 1940's disputed decisions, getting the nods over Moore and Maxim. He lost all three of his early 1950's disputed decisions, even though the press thought he deserved the fights with Walcott and Layne, and the film shows an extremely close fight with Johnson. One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were the equals of, or more than the equals of, Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

 

Chokelab, watch the film...Charles in his 1949 fight with valentino clearly had faster sharper reflexes than in 1954.

 

I have thanks, sassy.

Ezzard was indeed more mobile in 49' but no more effective in 53-54' since he hit harder, wasted less shots and got hit less. Charles swaped movement for efficiency. Ali in 74' was still a great fighter but less mobile so too for charles. Was charles better in the disputed decisions against fitzpatrick, ray, maxim and moore than he was for valdes, johnson and walcott?

who was the best batch of 3 fitzpatric, ray and maxim? or walcott, johnson and valdes?

Charles fought a lot, he fought the same guys so many times that he was always having SD's most years he fought. Often in the other guys hometown. Ex champs dont get the shake with a SD like the do on the way up, it has nothing to do with decline, its just how it is.

1955 charles hit the skids big time. Up until then he was as effective as he had always been as a heavyweight. Thats when his reflexes and speed was blown. He also fought more than once a month in that year, thats what ruined him.

 

:rofl:rofl

That's pretty much how it works.

 

In 1953-1954 Charles didn't hit harder, he didn't waste any less shots and he got hit more.

Charles KO'd Archie Moore, Elmer Ray, Fitzpatrick and beat Maxim 5 times.

 

Using my own highlight to make the point:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENjJBizFnb4[/ame]

0:00-6:40 is what I consider the prime of Charles, out of what is on film atleast. Valentino fight at 3:10, Louis fight at 4:40.

7:10 Charles got increasingly willing to stand and trade shots during the latter part of his career. Partly due to his legs going, partly due to the criticism he got for not knocking everyone out.

Obviously as 10:30 onwards shows, Charles was still more than a match for Marciano and a great opponent at that stage in his career. But the tactics he used against Louis for example may have made it an even more difficult night for Marciano, atleast for strategic purposes.

The true Cincinnati Cobra in my opinion is the one who could be a fleet-footed boxer one moment and lash out with vicious combinations the next.

 

He was indeed a fine fighter. IMO he did not drop a level before marciano, charles remained as effective from 48-54. A decline sets in when a fighter drops a level and takes beatings from lesser guys. Charles was not taking beatings he was just getting shafted in close fights.

Charles fought so often that even in his younger days for every 10 top guys he fought hed get one SD. people count the SD's he lost as proof of a decline but in truth a SD amounts to a fight that can go either way. Ezzard was not taking beatings at a lower level untill 1955.

 

I love how people think Liston would for sure KO Charles, when ya know, Marciano wasn't able to in their first fight being way more active and hit just as hard as Liston.

 

I think it is arguable that Marciano hit harder. Liston certainly had a greater punch variety, an all-time jab, great upper-cut, hook and right. He was more well-rounded on offense.

 

Arguable sure.. probable Marciano hit harder.. I believe so. Marciano came at Charles to put him away much harder and with more tenacity than I've ever seen Liston go after anybody. Variety or not, Liston wouldn't put that much pressure on Charles and Charles still weathered the storm.