Rocky Marciano '53 vs. Ezzard Charles '48

There is absolutely zero precedent for Charles choking. He's one of the greatest fighters of all time and put forward and awe-inspiring post-prime performance. This is one of the most poor excuses I've ever seen. Charles got up and turned around far worse situations in his career, like the Marshall rematches or fourth Walcott fight. There's no way Charles would choke.

Why?

Who did he beat afterwards?

Do you know he lost 13 of next 23 fights?

Charles left everything in there with Marciano, and tbh, it's pretty baffling you're trying to dispute it.

When did I do this?

I called you a moron because you can't read properly.

It had the almost the exact same scorecards? Despite it being a shorter fight and much wider? Okay....

Even if the scorecards were exactly the same, it still wouldn't be a good comparison as just the scorecards on their do not tell the entire story. There were far more competitive rounds in Charles-Marciano than there were Usyk-AJ. You have don't have any of the same dynamics in that fight. A more apt comparison IMO, is Hagler-Duran. A bigger, fitter champion was ran close (8-6-1) by a smaller, past prime, all-time great who's skill troubled the bigger man, but the bigger man won based on workrate in the late rounds. You have similar cards, both went fifteen, and both played out similarly in the way the momentum shifted. Charles vs Marciano was lower quality, but more dramatic; whereas Hagler vs Duran had a higher overall skillset and more of a chess match.

It was in no way clear in the sixth round that Usyk would remain in control. Watching it live, I had a niggling suspicion that he'd lose in the seventh, as per Joshua's tendancies. Usyk coming out like a ball of fire in the seventh was completely unexpected. The other rounds Joshua arguably took were nip and tuck, and could've gone either way.

The rounds Charles won early on were extremely clear. He lacerated Marciano, hurt him to the body and outlanded massively with combinations. He didn't win one round comfortably, he won four on the spin then more later on. And you're making it sound like Marciano was all-time great ring-general. He wasn't, and he wasn't 'in control' for even half of the proportion of the fight Usyk was.

Usyk vs Joshua was absolutely nothing like Marciano vs Charles. You're only using Usyk- Joshua because it happened recently.

You must have some sort of visual impairment if you think Marciano was landing cleaner punches then Charles. And btw, the parts of fight which Charles won isn't on film. If it was, we wouldn't be talking about AP reports or judge's decisions. We could watch the whole thing.

Yes, however, that is not the point I'm making.

No, a close fight is a close fight. Whether it's unanimous, split or one they made up on the spot. If it was close, it was close. Charles-Marciano was very close.

I'll take the opinion of man himself, his manager and the massive clamour at the time for one over someone seventy years later, who blatantly doesn't know much about the fight and, like everyone else, hasn't seen the while thing love.

Yes. Extremely competitive.

I'm not gonna spell out to you what happened. Read up on it.

Marciano had major issues with an old, old Charles. He loses to a young one.


Gazelle, I'm not answering another post. It's not worth my time, the stuff you're posting is backwards and full of holes.

 

Charles control the first 4 rounds of that fight, than Marciano took over from round 6 and on, and really up the pace in round ten when he battle Charles nearly non stop for the last 4 rounds. I am not sure a younger Charles would do better much better, the main reason Charles lost that first fight is because Marciano up the pace imo. He up the rhythm of that fight. And a younger Charles would still be facing a Marciano tossing about 100 punches a round if he felt like the decision would slipping away.

 

The first fight took it all out of Charles,he was never anything special after that.

 

The fight may not be complete film wise, but you can listen to about ten rounds on radio with comments on the action on the missing rounds.

I think base on the radio call, Marciano took control from Charles in round 6 and really did not give him the ball back. And in each round after 6, Marciano just up the punch rate.

 

Charles Dec.

 

Because prime Charles was 10-15 lbs lighter and the Rock did a demolition job on the only man (Matthews) to surrender that much weight against him.

The Charles who faced Marciano was stronger and better equipped for surviving 15 rounds against a strong relentless HW swarmer. And I do mean surviving as that's all he did in that fight after the initial rounds.

 

I think Charles would need to be heavier. You ideally don't want to give up too much size vs a prime Rocky. Perhaps the 182 pound Charles who beat Louis would be a better bet.

 

based on what!?

He was getting floored by lesser men than Marciano!

 

This non-sense needs to stop. Charles is so grossly over-rated that when I see his name I want to vomit. Great fighter but the hype train has gone off the rails, slammed into a school and killed small children. Please, STOP!

If anything, Charles because a better fighter after losing to Walcott because he learned at Heavyweight he needed to incorporate defense. He stopped charging head-first into exchanges, and relied of defense.

Tunney did the same ahead of his fight with Dempsey. Sure, he never lost after Greb, but he recognized his lethal power at Light Heavyweight would be much more average at Heavyweight.

Patterson did the same after losing to Liston. Unlike Liston who regularly bi'tched out of fighting Quarry, Patterson stepped up twice. Notice how he kept his foot light on the petal and made real problems for Quarry. Mac Foster, Earnie Shavers, Thad Spencer didn't fight so smart and they got starched, despite being bigger and more dangerous. Lyle didn't push it too hard, but by that point Quarry was a more complete fighter so he out-classed Lyle.

Marciano probably puts away a more reckless, albeit more dangerous, Charles even earlier.

 

yeah, and what actually bothered Charles was Rocky's head-movement. He just kept missing. Rocky broke his confidence before he broke his body. I dunno how Charles being younger makes Rocky stop using his head-movement and staying out of range.

 

The 1949 Charles was beating everyone he was the best heavyweight in the world. The version Marciano fought had just lost to Nino Valdez and Harold Johnson.

 

Had Charles actually been washed up at 32 years of age, I'd see an argument. But this isn't a Joe Louis situation as much as people try to stretch it into one.

I see this as a physically stronger less great vs. a quicker but less strong great. Either way, Rock's relentless pressure and strength is gonna be too much.

LHW Charles would have to box a flawless fight to just last the distance, let alone win. HW Charles was fairly strong physically and could at least spoil this alleged weight drained version of the Rock on the inside without getting rag dolled.

 

49 Charles might have lost to Valdez under those conditions as well, a giant man who was allowed to rough house. Some articles state, Valdez was at points allowed to pick up Charles and carry him to the ropes.

Johnson is an all time great and the loss was controversial. Charles was subject to controversial losses his entire career.

I think the schedule was what got to Charles when he had sporadic losses more often than not. Reason the first Rocky bout was such a game "turn back the clock" effort, he actually had quality time to rest and prepare.

 

Loads of people floored Charles.