Rocky Marciano vs. Ezzard Charles

But, the best fighters Marciano was up against ( Walcott, and Charles ) were but 6' 190-200 pounds, and at best had a 74" reach. If they made him look bad, then what could a skilled 6'3"+, 78"+ reach 210+ pound fighter do? I think many fighters would own Marciano from the outside, and if they were smart tie him up and use their size in the clinches.

If you add in the mix that both Walcott and Charles were not ironed chinned guys, and were slightly past their primes, it makes me wonder. Rocky had to give extra effort to defeat them. Could he pull off the same vs bigger, harder puncher who had more range and durability in comparison to Charles and Walcott?

 

Insightful post with which I agree

 

I think the same I beleive Ali would be too big too mobile and fast ,and be able to tie Rocky up inside ,throw in Marcianos suspect skin tissue and I see a win for Ali and other fast big men with a good jab and legs,Rocky was pretty slow footed.

 

Walcott was not past his prime. Charles was, but his performance in the first Marciano fight was an extremely inspired one and was widely considered one of his best nonetheless.

Marciano was 4-0 with three knockouts and one comfortable UD against Walcott and Charles, and he still won fights against them even when he spent multiple rounds partially blinded by ointments against one (Walcott) and suffered a freak-of-nature injury against the other (Charles). It is true that Walcott and Charles troubled him, but the fact is, he was clearly more than able to handle them- sometimes that seems to get obscured when you spend too much time looking at smaller details of each fight (or rather, the fights Marciano struggled teh most in) in and of itself. It is true that boxers who lacked the assets of an Ali or Holmes troubled Marciano, but it is equally true that swarmers far inferior to Marciano troubled Ali and Holmes.

 

Walcott was physically past his best. I don't know how else you can look at it.

His time was dedicated to the game unlike earlier in his career, and he was applying everything he'd learned over the years... Which was, to say the least, a lot.

 

Walcott was at his boxing best, for him, vs Marciano. I can't see anybody arguing otherwise. I don't know that Charles was past it in either fight to be honest. When Rocky really fealt threatened by Charles, the end result is clear. Kinda like when Hagler fealt threatened by Hearns... the end result is the same.

Interesting idea, but it could be argued Marciano faced an equal of Ali or Holmes in Walcott. Ali and Holmes would face their worst nightmare vs Marciano. A past it Holmes showed it against Tyson... Marciano is a Tyson on Steroids and would have shown a prime Holmes the canvas at about round 8 or 9. Marciano would have hammered Ali, assuming Ali could take it, he may just win two of three.

 

It is hard to say how much Walcott had left. He never won another fight after Rocky knocked him out. If Wlacott was not past his prime., why did he opt to retire? Wlacott had a six children to feed, and no occupation for him coudl make him as much as boxing could. I agree that Chalres was past his prime. I disagree that Marciano's UD' over Chalres is a good display of boxing in the context of Rocky being a skilled / great fighter. Yes, it was gutsy, and inspired, but Rocky didn't look very formidable.

What swarmer far inferior to Marciano troubled Ali, and Holmes? And when I say troubled, I mean made Ali or Holmes look bad, cut them up, won a good amount of rounds, and took them the distance. In additon Chalres was past his best. I don't think anyone past their best ever made Holmes or Ali look bad.

 

In the first fight Walcott looked pretty formidable, if you ask me. I can't think of another 37 year old (aside from Lewis) who ever looked better. It was a fast-paced, ebb and flow fight that saw very few lulls in the action.
Marciano always ranked this as his hardest fight.
The second fight was over too quickly for us to say how much of his former self Walcott still retained, but the Walcott of the first fight could have very much still been in the thick of things as far as contenders go. It's pure speculation on my part, but I still think he could have been a force had he wished to continue, although with back-to-back knockout losses and a long career behind him, it's not easy to say.

As for the reason of his retirement...who can say? Perhaps he felt he really had nothing more to fight for. Certainly, the two knockout losses to Marciano must have played a majot role in his decision.

I agree that Charles was past his best, although by no means washed up. I also agree that Rocky didn't look his best, but one possible reason is that, according to him, he was overtrained. The fight was postponed (although I'm rusty on the exact details...I'd have to reread my sources to refresh my memory) and it hindered his preparations. That's the story from Rocky's side anyway.
But in any event, it was not considered a good performance by either Rocky or the press, although Charles got plenty of positive ink after his spirited showing.

 

A 38 year old Walcott is equal to Ali or Holmes. You must be the only one who thinks it. Bringing up a rusty past it Holmes v Tyson as a deciding point - desparate. Marciano may have hammered Ali if he could get close enough to hit him. He would take 4 punches from Ali just to get in punching range and then Ali would be gone again. Talking 1966 Ali here not the rusty one that Frazier beat and even Bonavena nearly beat until he was KO'd in the 15th. If you using a bad version of Ali and Holmes to make a case, lets use a bad version of Marciano re Cockell.

 

What else was he going to do? He'd already been beaten twice, once by a first-round knockout, to the reigning champion, and he'd already received six shots at the heavyweight title. He wasn't about to get another chance at the big time, and I expect he knew it, and he was probably rather weary of the fight game anyway.
The "six-children-to-feed" line is terribly weak when talking about a guy who's now participated in eight world heavyweight championship fights. Walcott and his family were set for life, and even if they hadn't been, a retired heavyweight champion, especially a well-liked one such as Walcott, can make gobs of money just by making personal appearances, signing autographs and various other things which don't require them to continue being punched in the face.

I meant that Charles' performance was inspired.

Putting *s next to guys who are debatable in terms of being classified as swarmers, and underlining/bolding the names of guys who were definitely swarmers:
*Doug Jones was a 5'11", 185-pound ex-light heavyweight contender and, largely using awkward crowding and a semi-crouching defense, ran Ali to a close decision many observers thought he lost. *Henry Cooper was a 188-pound mediocre heavyweight contender who fought something of a swarmer style against Ali, and put him down and in trouble with a left hook at the end of round four.
Swarmer Chuvalo, who I would say was slower than Marciano and certainly wasn't any Fancy Dan in there, didn't win many rounds against Ali, but roughed him up badly and gave him one heck of a bruising to the body.
Bonavena, who was essentially a tough, brusing swarmer, gave Ali a very rough first 14 rounds, to the point at which Frazier was worried at ringside that Ali was going to blow their payday.
Norton was another awkward swarmer and nowhere near as good as Marciano, and he beat Ali the first time and ran him razor close in their two rematches.
Frazier was a swarmer, and he beat Ali the first time and took him to war their two rematches, although Frazier was arguably as good as Marciano.
*Shavers was similar in height and reach to Marciano and fought what could be seen as essentially a swarming style against Ali and Holmes, and of course he had Larry down and on the brink of a knockout in their title fight, and he also ran Ali to an extremely close decision.
Mike Weaver was a swarmer and far inferior to Maciano, and he gave Holmes all kinds of hell and had him hurt and busted up during their match.


And keep in mind that none of those guys were as good as Marciano, except, arguably, for Frazier, and none of them were even as good as Walcott or Charles, aside from, arguably, Frazier and Norton.

 

"He should've established the jab against Marciano!".

That's the thing. Marciano's hard counters make people think twice about sticking that jab out. Moore, Walcott, Louis and Charles were all grade-A jabbers but none of them got it consistently going. One thing you'll notice about Marciano's fights is that the more rounds go by, the lesser his opponents jab. Not a coincidence.


As for saying "What Ali did against Frazier the second time minus being on the ropes", i think it is a silly statement too. You think Ali liked it there against the ropes? He wasn't given an inch to breath and was forced there. It's what swarmers do.

It's like saying "Against Shavers you should do what Holmes did except for that knockdown". That's what punchers do, forcing you on the ropes is what swarmers do.

 

Its entirely possible that Rocky,s second fight with Charles would have been stopped due to his nose injury,if the fight took place today.

 

Or a points win for Marciano since it was done by a elbow.

Also back in that day, a fighter can get away with a lot of fouls.

 

Exactly :good