Marciano versus Prime Charles/Walcott

Difference is Rocky did what he was supposed to do with a 37 year old man...BEAT him. Charles on the otherhand LOST to a 37 year old man.

also I wouldn't laugh. According to you, Walcott did not enter his prime until 33 1/2 years old in 1947. If your going to make fun of advanced age, 33 1/2 years old aint young.

So you admit a Prime Ezzard Charles lost fair and square to a 37 year old Contender?

Stronger than Marciano? Where is your evidence. In a 1960s interview with Ezzard Charles a Boxing Historian who posts under the name "Albinored" reported to me in his talk show, Ezzard Charles told him "Marciano was the strongest fighter I ever faced."
No mention of Elmer Ray.

 

Now this is well thought out. You should have said this in the first place.

 

Even with Marciano not being blind for 3-4 of the middle rounds?

 

Ray weighed 194 1/2lb and 192lb in both Ezzard Charles fights. Rocky weighed 187 1/2lb when he fought Charles. That is essentially a 5-7lb difference....nowhere near the 20lb difference you are referring too.

Doesnt this define Marciano?

This content is protected

Looks are quite decieving arn't they. After all, you thought Ray was 20lb heavier than Marciano when in fact he was only 5lb heavier.

Perhaps he had more strength too. Afterall, Ezzard Charles said so.

The highest Charles weighed pre 1950 was 181lb with him mostly coming into the high 170s. In fact Charles did not hit 186lb until 1951. In that case, your claiming you want to take the 1951 Charles and compare it with Marciano rather than the 1940s prime charles? Speaking of which, Why didnt charles defend his title vs Marciano in 1951? why take on Lee Oma, Joey Maxim instead?

I personally think charles in 1948 at 175lb is the best version of any charles including heavyweight. The lack of weight however does hurt him. Although faster and sharper, its more likely a 1954 Charles at 185lb can take marcianos power shots than the 175lb charles of 1948.

Actually we have 5 sources. 3 of which score it for Ray. Middleboro daily news and Nevada State Journal also scored it for Ray.

 

I cant remember him clinching much in the first Marciano fight. And I seem to remember the referee being quoted saying he hardly had to break them the whole fight. I may be mistaken.

Also, there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE between Charles in the first and second Marciano fights. In the 2nd fight it's basically the beginning of a completely shot Charles (he never recovered from the 1st fight), the 1st fight he's over-the-hill but still a heck of a fighter.

Prime Charles would actually use his legs more and give Marciano real problems. I think that Charles beats Rocky.

 

You are mistaken. The ref never had to break them up but Charles clinched a lot. He fought a strategic fight. Backing up, combos, clinch, clinch. A lot of holding and grudging so Marciano could do little inside work. Marciano usually forced his way out of clinches or Charles backed up but he held quite a bit. He didn't hold to the ref broke them, though. He didn't need to.

Yes Charles II was not the same Charles. Marciano ruined him like he did a lot of fighters. He had that power and ability to. He was also probably not in as good as shape coming in near mid 190's.

That's interesting. He would, but he wouldn't hold as much and would be more aggressive. I think he gets in trouble in exchanges with Marciano. Charles did everything he could to keep off and be safe of Marciano. I think Marciano KO's a prime Charles.

 

Think people are forgetting point wise, that Rocky was blinded for 3 or 4 rounds, giving Walcott a huge edge.

Before round 6th, Rocky was taking the play away, and perhaps even winning on the scorecards leaded into the round.

The First Charles fight, points wise was not relly close. Charles won about 5 or 6 rounds depender on what scorecard you take. I did heard the broadcast, and round wise, I didnt think it was close. Sure the damage each dish out on each other was big, but strickly on points of the day. Marciano could have lost rounds 14 and 15, and still walk away the winner on a wide points score.

 

I thought it would be a good time to bring into the equation my "Common Opponents" Comparison

Marciano and Charles fought 7 Common Opponents: Archie Moore, Rex Layne, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Harry Kid Matthews, Bernie Reynolds, Freddie Beshore.

Marciano went 8-0 with 8 knockouts
Charles went 10-4 with 4 knockouts

* It would appear to me that if Rocky from this perspective alone, looks like the better heavyweight. If you were to match them up in a fantasy fight, Rocky would be the favorite from this outline alone. There is a reason why Charles was a Great Light-heavyweight but only a "Very good" heavyweight....While Marciano is a GREAT heavyweight. In fact, I know a Die Hard Charles fan who knew him personally and is still a current boxing historian. He tells me all the people including himself who were part of Ezzards "Group" thought charles was past his prime by the joe louis fight! They thought the best version of even a heavyweight charles was one who would come into the ring at 173-175lb.

 

Unforgiven, I hope you choose to read and respond to the depiction below


Yes I FOUND IT! Here is the best anaylsis of marciano-charles I prime for prime fight I have ever read. I already quoted him once today, and I shall do so again(I hope he takes this as a major compliment to his work).....MarcianoFrazier below


"Second, while I do believe it is true that Charles had lost some of his old speed and mobility by the time he fought Marciano, I think he had gained some things he previously lacked which aided him greatly in the Marciano fight. This is from page 219 of Russell Sullivan's the Rock of His Times:
"In truth, it was his last chance- and everyone knew it. Charles seemed determined to take advantage of it as he trained for the bout at Monticello, several miles away from Marciano's camp at Grossinger's. He had been studying film of Marciano's fights and claimed that he had been working on a plan to beat the champion for eighteen months... He was sparring with his customary skill and seemed more relaxed than usual, spending much of his down time glued to the Mcarthy-U.S. Army hearings on television.
This, then, was the 'new Charles,' a more focused and passionate fighter who had a fresh, unburdened mental determination to go along with his established physical skills."

One of the main criticisms of the peak heavyweight Charles was that he was a listless fighter, one who didn't really have a fighter's spirit. Sportswriters during Charles' reign viewed him as lacking the passion and killer instinct of most champions, as simply viewing a fight as another day in the office. He was referred to by the press as a "good horse who won't run for you," a champion who won "with skill and with finality but with no flash of fire," a "reluctant dragon," one who fought with "cautiousness bordering on timidity," etc.

On the other hand, as is noted in the passage above (and as can be found both on the film and in the anecdotes of the fight), when Charles fought Marciano, he viewed it as his final chance to gain public acceptance and become a revered champion rather than an apathetic figure, his last chance to regain the title, and he acted accordingly. In his preparation for and performance during the first Marciano fight, he showed more vigor, more passion, and more relentless, dogged intensity than he ever did in his 1949-1951 run as champion. According to sportswriter Wilfrid Smith, "Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career [against Marciano]... Charles was the man who rose to greater heights." W.J. McGoogan of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote that Charles "fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best of his career of about seventeen years, and was still beaten to a pulp by the younger, stronger champion."

This content is protected

.-" MarcianoFrazier

 

I think Marciano is better than either guy at heavyweight, period. That being said, arguments that Walcott or Charles were at their peak are simply wrong, period. Both opponents show that Marciano, a great fighter for a small cruiserweight, would have had big problems against the best bigger men ...

 

So when was Walcotts prime then? If you disagree with my assessment that Walcotts prime was 1947-1952...then tell me why and further explain. Also explain what Walcott did better in those years than he did 1947-1952, and how those things made him a better fighter than when he was world champion?

 

I disagree. In fact if anything, I think this shows Marciano would have trouble with small speedy boxers. I think this shows marcianos favorite stylistic matchup are the bigger sluggers who stand right in front of him to trade..Rocky had the durability power strength and incredible workrate to outpunch outwork and outlast these bigger sluggers. I think the Rex Layne fight really exemplifies my point.


2ndly,

By this logic Dempseys fights with Gene Tunney(lost 19 of 20 rounds), Willie Meehan(Lost), Jack Sharkey(whom dominated dempsey for 6 rounds nearly knocking him out), Billy Miske(fought dempsey to 10 even rounds in 1918), and Bill Brennan(cards nearly even going into round 12) show dempsey would have big problems against the best bigger men?

Yet I hear you continuously claim that 185lb Dempsey would do very well against the best of the big men...despite his trenuous struggles with much smaller inferier fighters.

 

If that was a past prime version of Walcott, where did it show...Walcott looked great vs Joe Louis in both fights, in the 2nd he was doing great but ran into a buzzsaw ( best combo puncher ever) and the Marciano 1, he looked equally as good but ran into one of the hardest compact punches ever thrown.....Charles was in top form vs Marciano in fight 1, could Charles have been better earlier, Yes, would he done better vs Marciano, mabey but would it be enough to win, NO....Marciano still dominated Charles despite a few lively moments and Marciano rose to the occasion ( as he showed in fight 2 vs Charles)...Marciano was not a guy these men could beat and there experience helped them...lets face it the guy was great

 

Exactly. I think this a misconception with Marciano that because he was small he wouldn't be able to handle the bigger strong powerful heavyweights. I think that's quite the contrary, it's the speedy quick guys that could stick and move or that were technically good boxers that would give him the most trouble. The big guys standing in front of him would be bigger targets for Marciano to bust up. This is another reason why Marciano will persistently and consistently be wrongfully downed in H2H fights in my opinion.