Marciano vs. Norton

Not only did the newspapers of the day describe Walcott as a "journeyman," they used the same term to describe Charles. Charles was at the end of a long light heavyweight career. WWII left an opening for him to make some money at the end. Tragic, actually, given how he wound up. The media described Charles as an "inflated light heavyweight" and Walcott as a "superannuated heavyweight." Look up "superannuated." You should understand why the term was used. Walcott was also described as geriatric, if that gives you a clue. Walcott and Charles fights were generally regarded as exceedingly dull affairs with two of the best in an era short on talent. Sorry, but thems the facts.

Do you people ever actually read the historical record, or do you just live in the self-referential fantasy worlds where the obvious becomes obscure? Since everybody in the day knew this, why don't you guys take a look at the actual past and base your judgment on this? Walcott was a journeyman. A proper illustrated encyclopedia of boxing would have Walcott's picture by the entry "journeyman." They would use JJ Braddock's photo, but they would reserve his picture for "Cinderella boxer." Of course, if you guys were editor it wouldn't be the picture of Braddock putting Louis on his hindquarters.

 

Sounds like you had no answer for the Pepping It character, either.

 

Neither "Charles or Walcott" was appreciated during their tenure in boxing...... Charles was bland, and Walcott lost some early fights he should've won........ Both were great overall boxers, however, they were both gapped between greats like "Louis & Marciano." Cheers.....

MR.BILL

 

Lets rember the media also never forgave Charles for beating Louis. So they still said some unfair remarks up until the Charles fight with Marciano
were he would "redeem" himself in the eyes of the media for his effort vs the Rock.

 

I have the entire 15 rds from 1950 on video.... It's in good shape as well.... HOWEVER! The overall fight is painfully slow......... poor Louis was 218 pounds, balding, and fought like he was 136 yrs old....... The 30 year old Charles at 183 clearly schooled Louis with ease.......... Pabst Blue Ribbon was the beer sponsor........... Hey, I still drink that **** to this very day..... Ice cold in the bottle; not too bad......
thumbsup:good

MR.BILL

 

I always wondered why I thought Marciano was a great fighter.

 

I have the entire fight also, it was a slow fight, but Charles did beat Louis. Louis still had power with that jab though, look at Charles face at the end lol.

Charles got his licks in also.
I might do a round by round score of it. Not action type of fight, but regardless, as with Corbett beating Sullivan, the media were pretty hard on Charles for this win.

 

Louis was a SHELL by Sept. '50................ He looked old, slow, bald & nonresponsive..... YES! His jab was all that remained..... SAD!! Ezzard Charles was too young and fresh for Louis in '50.....
atsch

Amazing, Joe Louis was actually a better fighter with more sharpness in 1951 when he fought Marciano............... Why? Because he had a dozen fights to prepare himself.... But, at age 37, Louis could NOT withstand the wicked power of Marciano..... STILL! Louis was game for the first 6 rds against Marciano.........:|

MR.BILL:bbb:deal

 

Norton would win. Marciano fought guys when it was good to fight them.

 

Quarry was before my time but was my father's favorite fighter. I later became a big Quarry fan. Looking at it objectively though he would have had zero chance of defeating Marciano at any point in his career. You are lighthearted about Quarry's partying and self-immolation before the Norton fight but it actually is not funny at all. He was in no condition - mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. to be in that fight and suffered a tremendous beating and probably permanent damage as a result. Marciano, incidently, was interested in purchasing Quarry's contract about 10 years before and decided against it. He saw how JQ ran hot and cold and actually left the Quarry-Machen fight early when he saw how listless Jerry looked in there.

 

Ali - Disputed decision agaisnt Doug Jones in 1962. Ali was much more badly hurt by the Henry Cooper knockdown then Maricano was in flash knockdowns against Walcott and Moore. Rocky did not need a split glove to save him from possible defeat in those fights.

Ali definately lost the first and third Norton fights and possibly all three.

The second Frazier fight was very close, Ali lost the first one, and had to suffer the closest thing to death (his own words) to defeat 'Smokin' Joe in the Thrilla in Manila.

Yes, Ali was one the best heavyweights ever but he had some questionable decisions that went in his favor. Why do the people who try to sully the record and accomplishments of Rocky Marciano conviently forget to do the same to others like Ali? Perhaps they have an agenda?

 

How the should I know?

We cant even see eachothers faces.

Personaly I am white but my favourite fighter is Sam Langford, not because of his race but because I am fascinated by his story as a fighter.

By the same token you dont have to be white for Rocky Marciano to be your favourite fighter. Danny Williams is a huge Rocky Marciano fan as is Howard Eastman. Eastman even ran allong the same route as Rocky Marciano used while training for his fight with Bernard Hopkins.

Joe Frazier and George Foreman both name Marciano as the second greatest heavyweight that ever lived.

There is something raw about tha man that can apeal to any fighter or fight fan.

 

When I listen to Joe Louis in the Marciano Ali superfight, and the radio computer fights.
IT seem evey time Louis pick Rocky Marciano. Over Ali, Dempsey and any one else he face.

I suppose Louis became a fan of Marciano lol.

 

You mean like fighting Champion Jersey Joe Walcott after Walcott won the title with a devastating knockout victory over Prime Ezzard Charles?

or fighting Ezzard Charles, the # 1 heavyweight contender who was coming off a two dominating knockout victories over Ranked contenders Bob Satterfield and Colley Wallace..... and winner of 11 out of his last 13?

or fighting Archie Moore, # 1 heavyweight contender winner of 45 out of his last 46 fights and winner of title eliminator over Huge Cuban nino valdez?


or fighting Joe Louis, # 2 heavyweight contender winner of last 8 in a row?

or fighting 22 year old Rex Layne, # 6 heavyweight contender winner of 34 out of his first 35 including 25 by knockout?

or fighting 23 year old Roland Lastarza, # 10 heavyweight contender, Winner of all 37 fights in a row??

or fighting 29 year old Harry Kid Matthews, # 5 heavyweight contender, winner of 81 out of 84 fights including his last 50 in a row?



Ya they sure picked a cupcake of a schedule for him :roll:



* the only criticism you can make of marciano is his management taking on a washed up Lee Savold instead of a young prime top contneder like Clarence Henry, Coley Wallace, Rematch Lastarza or Bob Baker who were all interested in fighting Marciano on that date. I would have liked to seen Marciano taken on either Baker or Henry in 51-52. That is my only criticism. Marciano cannot be criticised for taking on Cockell instead of Valdez, since marcianos management came to agreement to fight Valdez in the winter of 1955 in Miami so they already planned ahead to use cockell as a tuneup for a big fight with Valdez. Then Archie Moore made alot of noise how he deserved the megafight over Valdez, so Moore and Valdez squared off in the Final Title Eliminator to determine true # 1 contender and Moore clearly won a close but well deserved decision.