Marciano-Walcott II: What exactly happened?

I won't lol. This is ESB. There is a huge demographic influence that always skews the polls away from objectivity and reality (quality AND age of opposition, careful matchmaking, comparatively advantageous conditions, peripheral support (judges, admin, refs & docs), crowd/house support/environment, etc., etc.) for a few golden idols. Having grown up in the sixties (and was first exposed to Rock as the majority's "people's choice" (so to speak) and JL as the "probable best" from the less biased) I saw first hand the US generally and in the majority despise icons like Ali (Clay), MLK, and Jimi Hendrix and only later offer them begrudging credit with a good deal of that still only as it would be politically incorrect to do otherwise. Meanwhile, behind closed doors .... yap, yap, yap. The influence mitigates but remains upon and within the children (and their children) ... Can you imagine (impossible of course) if a 29 year old Ali KO'd a 39 year old Rock? Who would be willing to accept that as being anything other than AGE? "Yeah, Rock was in great shape at 39, that was sure a "special" win by Ali against a HOFer and ATG."

Older athletes can still have occasional moments, nights, and performances that are noteworthy. But, in a head to head contest I'll take the versions that range approximately from the late 20s to the early 30s if forced to choose (there isn't any universal or perfect methodology but it is usually the combination of peak physical youth and adequate mental maturity that produces the best possible result of one's "prime"). And, if a fighter doesn't fight the best talent around until or unless those fighters are old and ring worn I will always take that into account (except when both fighters are of equivalent age) - FAIR IS FAIR. Age IS the ultimate equalizer of talent and quality of competition.


re: in fairness, Walcott was an exceptional 37 year old like the Lennox Lewis that fought Vitali was opposed to a 37 year old Ali

That is a fine statement and I have no argument with it generally. However, if only ONE assessment can be made than it has to be that HEAD TO HEAD a younger version of Walcott easily defeats the 38 & 39 year old versions that fought Rock in '52 and '53 (and the same is undoubtedly true for LL as well). The same is true for the 43 year old Bernard Hopkins that fought Calzaghe in 2008. The same is true for the Ali that fought Spinks in '78, Holmes in '80, or Berbick in '81. Or, the Holmes that fought Holyfield or Tyson. Any of hundreds of examples over boxing history ...

 

Which "younger" version are you talking about? Walcotts best stuff came in his mid 30s.

 

It was a quick count. Walcott complained about it and said he was robbed. Truthfully, he had the chance to get up but didn't and tried timing it toward the end of the count. It was a bad decision. In reality, Walcott probably was fine being down there. It wasn't a good start and that 13th KO might have been looming.

Walcott came out with an explanation that he blacked out toward the end of the count. I hold this theory highly because he seems there and then out of it for the 5-8/9. Then rushes up to try beating it. Who knows... I don't buy your aging theory. Walcott proved himself immensely in the first fight. Walcott was a late bloomer. Mostly due to poor training/managing. Ring worn... maybe, but that's strongly contributed to the Marciano fight. Walcott was a better first toward his mid to late 30's & end of his career.

I sort of have a problem with this because it's insanely oversimplified and doesn't confine within the contexts of things. Walcott was an exceptional fighter and a better fighter toward the end of his career not before. I'd say his prime lies from 48-52 with his peak being near the Louis fight.

Age isn't neccessarily the ultimate equalize of talent and quality of competition. Not a bad general view on things but look within the context. For example, Walcott was great at 37 years of age. The Marciano that Walcott beat was far better and within his prime than the Charles that Rocky fight. That Charles, though, was 32 years old. Your age theory would show Walcott shouldn't be the better but the truth was Charles was much more forgone and past his prime. There are other examples as well. Many theorize that Holyfield of the late 80's to 91 wouldn't have beat Tyson. That he was too "reckless" a bit smaller and possibly less durable. Some believe the 96 version that beat Holyfield was stronger, more durable, and smarter. Young Holyfield might not due as great in fantasy H2H due to his machismo to brawl and tendency to fall astray from the gameplan. If things weren't just that simple. Archie Moore that fought Rocky who was near 40 was coming off a huge win streak. I wouldn't call that a prime Moore, but it's certainly a Moore that was better than Louis was at 37 when facing Rocky. You have to factor all the attributes. Some fighters age quicker than others.

To be honest, in boxing it's age that's over-factored and ring weariness from tons of beating/battles that slow a fighter down and make him more shot. Fighters like Moore and Hopkins that live good and don't take too much punishment had that longevity. Fighters like Marciano and Frazier would naturally have a shorter prime.

 

Generally, what I said applies:
"Older athletes can still have occasional moments, nights, and performances that are noteworthy. But, in a head to head contest I'll take the versions that range approximately from the late 20s to the early 30s if forced to choose (there isn't any universal or perfect methodology but it is usually the combination of peak physical youth and adequate mental maturity that produces the best possible result of one's "prime")."

Specifically, while definitely not prime (like almost all fighters that start at an incredibly young age - professional at 16 years of age - they also tend to show the effects and/or fade a bit earlier due to the many wars), I would still take the Walcott of the mid '40s (a couple arguable decisions against him aside) up to '47 when he wasn't quite 34 (and fought Joe Louis) over the versions of '52 and '53. Those fights with Louis surely took a lot out of both fighters as they landed MANY very heavy shots. By '52 and '53 they were shells of themselves though they didn't look all that different generally (than the mid to late '40s versions) as they were already losing (lost) their youth back then.

 

Yes it was.

It was a bad decision. But not a surprising decision as Joe certainly knew how to approximate 10 seconds. Unfortunately, as soon as his backside hit the mat, Sikora was shotgunning the count and was at 3 while Joe probably would have expected 1 - 2. By the time his head had cleared from Rock's punch he must have thought he was hearing things when he heard where the count was and didn't make the correct connection to the jeopardy he was in as to getting counted out in a championship fight.

That's a stretch. Can't really buy into that. That attribution skews the tone of the post.

I don't think that (OLD) version of Walcott was gonna beat that (PRIME) version of Marciano.

Count confusion works but who knows ... agreed

I don't think so. Joe had his highest profile fights in those years at the end of a long career. Being as they were against ATGs they are notable and his performances in them would, of course, be descriptive in defining his career and talent. But Walcott started boxing at a very young age. He didn't change dramatically as a fighter in his mid 30s just as Bernard Hopkins isn't any different (better) in his late 30s or 40s than in his early 30s. That's an illusion and a myth. You can be past peak physically and still be a great boxer. That doesn't mean the older version is better than the version benefiting from the advantages of youth. If I move Bernard to SMW (adding 8 lbs of muscle) in '97 to '99 when he was still in his physical prime he would be FAR MORE than a match for the version that eventually moved up to LHW at nearly 42 years of age. Bernard could have easily and comfortably put on those eight pounds at 32-34 years of age and been better than the later version of himself. Success at an older age isn't an absolute proof of anything nor supportive of being better than what could have been under a different scenario. Age comes to all (notwithstanding a completely different discussion regarding temporary choices on certain forms of "assistance").

I'd take mid '40s with an absolute peak at '48 (1st Louis fight - as well - though I thought he was physically slightly past it).

No. The assertion that age is a factor for athletes and the ultimate equalizer of talent and quality of competition doesn't fail because some individuals are ring worn at a younger age. Those are disparate considerations altogether. Ezzard Charles fought some of the toughest comp imaginable of most any boxer and was somewhat ring worn by his early 30s as MANY, MANY others have been throughout boxing history. Success into the late 30s (and on through the 40s) is a comparative rarity not the norm. It is improvement in the quality of life, environment, and training/medical methodologies that extends careers or it is (in a few odd cases) the "luck" of not being thrown repeatedly into the fire against quality talented opposition that can allow a few to mature in fairly pristine condition to also have some success at a time others are (comparative) shells of their former/earlier selves.

Charles started at 18 years of age and fought an abundance of TOUGH, quality opponents interspersed over his career so that by '54 he was obviously on the comparative downswing (his performances from '54 through the end of his career clearly spelled that out). Those hard grueling fights with Marciano were his 95th and 96th professional fights. He wasn't as quick of hand or foot as earlier though he still gave Rock as good as he got for the most part. Rock was slightly younger in years (2), but far less worn in ring rounds and, most specifically, in terms of level of comp faced. Those two years were amplified by Charles having roughly twice as many career fights and three times as many tough battles. Good wins for Rock but you also do not claim that it was a prime version of Ezzard Charles at that point in time.

Okay, I was answering as I read .. I'm fine with the direction of that ending generally. We will have to disagree with how we define the importance of AGE it appears. Age and the experiences encountered in the ring (including tough opp, number of fights, etc.) are obviously VALID and NECESSARY considerations when evaluating a fighter's career and putting the victories and losses in more proper or appropriate perspective rather than merely counting wins and losses. It is not merely who you fight but when you fight them that is most important.


re: "Fighters like Marciano and Frazier would naturally have a shorter prime."

Well, stylistically I absolutely agree. [It is also true IMO that those that start at a younger age normally end up fading earlier, but I digress.] But, it is also my contention that certain fighters were thrown into the fire earlier and demonstrated their obvious greatness, while others spared that ordeal, can benefit from being given the time to take baby steps until more mature allowing them a career that they probably would have lost if tested (against great talent) like so many others under less than ideal, perfect, or advantageous conditions.

 

Charles had much more mileage than Walcott and was a natural light heavyweight. Walcott for all his years did not have a ton of bouts. He was fairly well preserved. However, while he may have been in his prime it is only because he never had a prime in his prime years. All things were not equal so the statement he was in his prime at 37 does not tell the whole story. Walcott may have had the potential to be far better than any of us will ever know.

 

Walcott forgot the script. :yep

 

Well the one 6 months before WAS beating Marciano. Did Marciano get even better while Joe declined that much? It's possibly that the early stop ended what could've been another good performance by Joe...

Okay, so you're really sort of agreeing with me. Age isn't the ultimate factor. Ring worniness is in fact more important to factor how a fighter is relative to their prime. As you said, Charles battled many times and with many great fighters. Even so, many fighters break down and wear down much quicker than others. It's not the case of just better competition or MORE of good competition. The phenomenon is similar to the post about damaged fighters someone made earlier here. Chuvalo was a fighter who took massive punishment and seems unscathed physically, while some fighters suffer dementia from just a limited career.

I've re-read your post. I agree scenarios sometimes limit and enable success at an earlier or later age. However, I think you downplay other factors. For example, Hopkins is the smarter more intelligent fighter. You can't buy experience. And sometimes fighters freak with cuts and don't know how to handle being dropped for the first time. Experience gives you so much and wisdom and age comes too. Seeing Old Foreman and Young Foreman shows some of this. Obviously, Old Foreman isn't as superior physically. But he has the mental edge, and the edge in IQ and the ability to lay traps and trick you. He has experience on this side.

In this particular case with Rocky, Charles at 32 was more past his prime than Walcott was. And those performances and showings display this.

Just a year off from his 4 year layoff? I don't think so. And his quality of opposition improves later on. I think the Louis fight is fair. I think you could argue he was within his prime for the Marciano fight (Notice the differences between peak and prime).

As I said earlier, some fighters break down faster or slower regardless of the wars or that competition. Generally, though, the more you fight, and the more battles with great competition the more a fighter will deteriorate. Just as you can assume that the older the fighter the more forgone his prime. But like in all scenarios and cases there are many factors and many reasons for whatever.

Yep. The reason I replied was because of the age comment. A lot of the generic criticism of Marciano was that who fought "older opposition." But with this logic you get the idea that a fighter like Charles (Who at his best was probably better than Walcott... maybe not as a HW. That's close) but it's clear it's Walcott who is the very game and capable fighter at 37 versus the 32 year old Charles. Moore, who had been in many battles and fights seemed fresh and amazingly youthful for a 40 or so year old... as does Hopkins does. That freshness and lack of aging seems rather remarkable when comparing that to many other cases we could (Just compare it to Jones Jr if you wish).

This seems fair and accurate.