Marciano v Cokkell Not In B & W.By D Brown

You're confusing your personal, completely subjective aesthetic preferences with what's actually the most effective boxing. And I think you have it completely backwards. The traditional style of boxing you're romanticizing is clearly more entertaining and it relies on reflexes FAR MORE than the less exciting range fighting you disparage does.

 

You can't just point to a fighter's number of fights and claim "wear and tear" to discredit his conquerors.

This is subjective reaching in the face of the hard fact that Charles was only 32 years old and it's absurd to argue that as aged. Especially since Maricano is only two years younger than him.

For instance, nobody is crapping on Charles KO win over Archie Moore. In fact it's often hailed as one of the greatest wins in the history of the division.

Moore was 32 years old and had well over 100 fights by that point. Charles in comparison had only 59 and was 5 years younger than the Mongoose. Were is the "wear and tear" criticism for Charles/Moore III? You just don't hear this crap from boxing fans unless they are trying very very hard to discredit a great win.

If anything, Maricano might have had more "wear and tear" given he was an aging swarmer who likely took far more punishment on average than a cutie like Charles.

 

Ezzard Charles is well known as a brilliant boxing technician and universally praised as one of the greatest boxers of all time. You are a nobody.

Charles likely elected the best strategic approach that would give him the best chance to win. He is the only man to go 15 rounds with Rock.

We should be looking at what Charles did right in this fight, analyzing his success, instead of arm chair criticizing him for what you feel was the wrong approach.

 

of course it does! It means the first 6 years of his career he only did 3 years worth of fighting!

it was a razor close verdict. Sol Strauss of the 20th Century Sporting Club attempted to line up a November 14, 1947 bout for the title between Joe Louis and Elmer Ray in MSG. However, Louis instead signed to defend on December 5th in the same venue against Jersey Joe Walcott, who had defeated Ray earlier in the year. Seems 20th century sporting club wanted a heavyweight challenger for Louis over a lightheavyweight.

Ray barely managed to get the nod of two of the officials, after putting up a hot rush down the stretch, particualarly in the 7th and 9th when he forced Ezzard to grab and hold. The third official voted for Charles." -Associated Press

• Unofficial AP scorecard - 5-4-1 Charles

Have you been to Miami? A Cuban fighting in Miami is a Cuban fighting at home. I am not saying Charles deserved the verdict but I am saying Valdes would have unquestionably have been a favourite with the crowd.

Rex Layne in Utah? Harold Johnson in Philadelphia? Come on. These fights were close but Charles was boxing in front of their fans.

The result of a fight that can go either way often depends on who the fans are there for.

 

Do you actually disagree with anything substantive I actually wrote or do you just get upset when people don’t blindly put the usual ATG fighters on the same pedestals as everyone else?

Why do we need to analyze his success? He was more skilled, more accurate, and faster than Marciano. He’s supposed to win rounds against someone like Marciano. Seems pretty open and shut.

If you want to assume that everything he did was optimal because you think he was flawless and brilliant, knock yourself out. That’s not what I see when I watch the film though. And I couldn’t care less about the universal praise.

 

The first 33 fights took 3 years to take place. He started them in highschool. Then he had three years out. As long as he had been fighting. Coming back he was still only 24 years old and physically bigger than the 168lb youth who had not fought for three years.

where is Charles slipping? Without getting knocked out, Johnson and Walcott are the only film we have of Charles losing before facing Marciano. I don’t think Charles looks any worse in competitive fights being outpointed by Walcott and Johnson than he did outpointing maxim as champion. He looked better against Louis for sure but not necessarily maxim.


I never saw the film of the nick Barone or Freddie beshore title fights but apparently Ezzard really sucked in those fights. That’s what I was talking about when I said the “theme” of Charles career where he had dud or close fights from time to time between great wins throughout his career.


After the war but before becoming champion the Fitzpatrick fight was controversial. One of the Archie Moore fights were controversial. One of the pre championship Maxim fights were controversial. The Ray fight was officially a loss. Ezzard fought that often. It happens.


Without watching these fights are we to assume these were not dissimilar to being edged out by Walcott (4th fight) or losing by a shade on points to Layne and Valdes? Why the recovery of form against Satterfeild and Wallace?


Where was the raise in form from Joe Frazier any time after beating Ali?


#Well let's look at this in detail:


*Charles lost a SD to Elmer Rey in 47. The AP had it 5-4-1 Charles

*Charles beat Maxim MD in 49 (can't find much info on this one but a rematch happened)

*Charles beat Walcott UD in 51. (unpopular decision but UP had Charles up 8-5-2)

*Charles was KOed by Walcott in 51.

*Charles lost a UD to Walcott in 52. The AP had it 7-6-2 Charles.

*Charles lost a UD to Layne in 52. Salt Lake Tribune - 6-3-1 Charles "In a blatantly obvious hometown decision, Referee Jack Dempsey scored 2 rounds for Layne, 1 round for Charles with 7 rounds even. Most objective observers felt Charles had won. During the fight Layne butted Charles repeatedly without caution from the referee"

*Charles lost a UD to Valdez in 53. Unofficial UP scorecard - 5-3-2 Valdes

*Charles lost a SD to Johnson in 53. The AP had it 5-3-2 Johnson


My take away:


-Charles had off nights against Rey and Maxim in his prime that he set right in rematches.


-The Charles/Walcott series was all about tactical adjustments rather than declines.


-Charles seemed to get raw deals in Walcott IV and Layne II.


-Charles had off nights against Valdez and Johnson but rebounded with great performances.


At 32 he was having more off nights, but he gave one of his career best performances in the first bout with Marciano as noted by contemporary writers, but dropped the ball huge in the rematch, hence he had became erratic. Even after the Rocky KO loss, he still had a couple good nights left in him before falling off the horse completely.

 

Two close fights that could have went either way followed by two stunning knockout wins over two rated contenders, the second being a world title eliminator.

I would say the most recent two were wins and produce something of a roll yes. The earlier two of the four were close and against very good fighters.

 

Yes, I disagree with your assessment that Charles would have had more success by moving, jabbing, and fighting at range. If Charles could have made such a strategy work, he likely would have employed it.

It's kind of insulting and over-simplistic to assume Charles just wasn't smart enough to stay away from Marciano. I'm sure you could care less about the universal praise, that's why you are you and Ezzard Charles is a legend.

 

You are absolutely using the sheer number of fights Charles had to claim "wear and tear" and discredit Marciano. Likely because several posters have already pointed out that Charles was only two years older than Maricano and barely out of his 30s.

So? Moore was 5 years older and had some 60 more fights than Charles at the time of the meeting. Nobody brings up "wear and tear" in this context because people are not desperate to discredit Charle's signature LHW win.

 

He's being deliberately ignorant. One of the greatest range fighters ever, Miguel Canto, was a 5'0 tall midget with no power. He didn't need long arms to outbox physical specimens.

 

I was not being deliberately ignorant. I agree with you. A fighter shouldn’t have to always have the longer arms to outbox an opponent. That’s my point.

as you say, It is a greater example of boxing when the guy can do it without always having to have longer arms in order to win.

 

It depends on the type of range fighting you are talking about. The less exciting method is the Jack Johnson, Klitschko method. Where the fighter with the longer arms prevents his opponent from working by using The jab and grab technique. It’s like they draw a line in the canvas. They know as soon as the guy steps onto the line he can’t reach them but they can reach him.. if he gets past that line without getting hit then they grab him before he hits them. effective and primitive.

Then there is the dancing method where the longer arms are again used from a circular perimeter on the outside. This requires movement fast hands and reflexes. This method is confused with good boxing, but it isn’t because it requires more physical advantage than skill. leaning back and going back in straight lines to force the opponent to over reach with shorter arms coming forward.. and always having more energy and stamina to complete the task. Taking more unnecessary steps.

This is not a personal completely subjective aesthetic preference. It is a fact that the reliance is on physical advantage by way of more physical range, more physical energy than actual boxing skillset.