Marciano versus Prime Charles/Walcott

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by PowerPuncher, Aug 17, 2009.



  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,763
    21,433
    Nov 24, 2005
    Interesting.
    But, assuming we go along with this, I suspect Charles' mental or emotional input into his fights during his peak was not at a completely uniform or constant level, I suspect it varied from fight to fight.
    So, there's no reason why Charles' couldn't have summoned the same "vigor and passion" if he'd been faced with the Rocky Marciano challenge while inhabiting his c.1949 physical body.
    I certainly think his psyche would differ in that situation to what it was facing an old Joe Louis or someone like Joey Maxim or Lee Oma.

    Also, the peope who wrote those things about Ezzard Charles may have - to some extent - been talking out of their asses.
    I've heard those sorts of criticisms of "lacking flash and passion", "cautiosness bordering on timidity" levelled at Lennox Lewis. And as a boxing spectator I can definitely see where that comes from, but in actuality it's a big leap to actually find how that subjective impression of Lewis or Charles effected their actual ability to perform and win fights. Really, it's just non-fighters talking crap about fighters, a fan critiquing the spectacle of the fight or the charisma of the fighter, but it doesn't really seem to have much bearing on what happens between the two men in the ring when the bell rings.
     
  2. Maxmomer

    Maxmomer Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,373
    37
    Jun 28, 2007
    I'd give them both 50/50 chances of beating him. Maybe even better. If Walcott was a bit faster, a bit more crisp or in a little better condition would Marciano been able to land that right hand? If Charles had more stamina and better legs would he have been able to make the last third of the fight more competitive? So Walcott and Charles at their peaks, as Marciano was when the actual fights took place, I think they'd both have very good chances of winning.
     
  3. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,264
    Jun 29, 2007
    Walcott was past his prime. In fact after facing Marciano, he never won again. Walcott retired because he was past it. If Walcott had something left, he takes another big pay day.


    I could agree with this. In other words, Marciano did not beat a prime verison of Charles. The first Marciano vs. Chalres fight was a war.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005

    Funny how James J Corbett who had not won a fight in 6 years, who would never beat a fighter above 160lb again was in his "Prime" when he fought Jeffries....yet Jersey Joe Walcott who was heavyweight champion coming off his 2 greatest victories of his career and would again put up a all time career performance vs marciano was suddenly "past his prime". Double Standards




    Few thoughts to ponder:


    1. Walcott was Heavyweight Champion. This alone should mean something

    2. Walcott would have kept fighting had he beaten Marciano. He was going to keep going as long as he was champion. He had accomplished his goal...Winning the world heavyweight title and there was was nothing left to prove to him. When Marciano beat him in a war, it basically took everything out of Walcott mentally and physically(Marciano of course was known to do that). Felix Bocchicio even bought Walcotts family a house and he would pay him a 500 dollar a month job to enjoy walcotts retirement. Walcott was covered. So your idea of walcott trying to take another "Big pay day" is nullified by the point walcott already had a great retirement plan and not needing to prove his EGO when he had a family he wanted to spend time with. Walcott certainly had something left in 1951-1952...In fact most of it was still there if not all of it.


    3. Walcott was coming off his 2 career best wins heading into the marciano fight

    4. Walcott claimed himself "never before did I feel so good physically and mentally in a fight" referring to Marciano I fight



    It is not important to look at what walcott did after he fought Marciano, but what he did BEFORE he fought Marciano. Going into the Marciano fight, Walcott was heavyweight champion coming off two great wins over Ezzard Charles. Corbett on the otherhand going into the jeffries fight had not won a fight in 6 years!


    So your claim here is when Walcott landed the perfect punch to relieve Ezzard Charles of his senses in July 1951 to capture the world championship....he was already past it? When was walcotts prime then?
     
  5. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    95,062
    24,778
    Jun 2, 2006
    Walcott was 37 when he defended against Marciano,but in truth he fought the fight of his life.What he did after this has to be interpreted with caution,same thing with Charles he put on a sterling performance in the first Marciano fight, both men were never the same after, neither was Cockell.
    Marciano may have ruined more guys than anyone, including Baer.
     
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    Mcvey. That is not my point. My point is how could he possibly claim James J Corbett, who had not won a fight in SIX years and who would never go on to beat a fighter above 160lb again was in his prime against Jeffries....yet walcott a heavyweight champion coming off his career 2 best victories, who would go on to give what newspapers describe All time Great performance in Marciano fight...was Suddenly past his prime?

    If we look at the facts, it seems to me Walcott was alot closer to his prime entering the first marciano fight than Corbett was entering the first Jeffries fight
     
  7. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    Don't forget Layne. 34-1 heading into the marciano fight....he went something like 20-17 after.

    or Lastarza 53-3 heading into Marciano title fight: He went 1-3 afterward

    Harry Kid Matthews- 81-3 heading into Marciano title fight: he went 2-2 afterward
     
  8. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,570
    1,936
    Aug 26, 2004

    Very accurate, ..Carmine Vingo was one we know about.....Baer killed Frankie Campell and most feel it was Max who put the finish on Ernie Shaff.....Marciano improved the 2nd time around, his opponents did not in fact most of his opponents were never the same....Archie was never the same but still good enough to go on to another 38-4-2 and KO a heavy that Liston could not
     
  9. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    16,482
    11,167
    Jun 30, 2005
    Walcott was a bit past his prime in the first Marciano fight, but Corbett was much farther past it (but still a good fighter) against Jeffries.

    Now, a question:

    According to what you're saying, Walcott had been ruined by the first fight with Marciano. Should we then discount Marciano's quick knockout of Walcott in the rematch as not very meaningful? In other words, how much credit should we give Marciano for beating Walcott the second time when Walcott was already ruined by the shellacking in the first?
     
  10. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    It defintley does not mean as much. However Rocky still gets credit for doing what he is supposed to do with a ruined fighter like that...Dispose of him in the first round. Walcott was # 1 rated by Ring Magazine entering the fight.


    Now my question to you is If walcott was a bit past his prime by the first marciano first, then your essentially claiming walcott was past his prime when he relieved charles senses with that amazing left hook in July of 1951 to win the world heavyweight championship? So when walcott won the heavyweight title, he was already past his prime?


    I will tell you this...All 3 of Walcotts greatest fights he ever fought happened from 1947-1952, with 2 of them coming in 1951-1952.