Ezzard Charles gave champ Marciano a good s**** in1954 ,how would the four years earlier version have done?
I've often wondered that myself. He took him the distance the first time and won a few rounds. Opened up a big cut in the rematch, before being stopped. The Charles of the late 40's and early 50's was beating the best heavys and light heavys around, and probably hadn't burned out yet due to being so busy. I'm thinking it could have gone either way. But some reporters back then said that Ezzard looked better than he ever did against Rocky. Who knows.
Come on McVey. U know the older Charles was better than the 1950 version. Careful or that **** Mongoose will cry that your anti-Italian. ��
Those picking Charles should probably consider the Barone fight from 1950. A durable LHW swarmer, Barone supposedly had success pressing Charles and attacking his body before running out of gas. Or even the trouble the crouching Valentino gave Charles in their 49 fight. Charles also was nursing some injuries in 1950, which led to a disappointing performance against Breshore. [url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lvI-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=T00MAAAAIBAJ&pg=4436,3643246&dq=ezzard+charles+freddie+beshore&hl=en[/url] Also Wilfrid Smith who had the pleasure of covering prime Ezzard Charles big fights in Chicago, had this to say regarding the Marciano fight: "Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career" Than there is this. W.J. McGoogan "You wander what Charles could possibly do in September or any other time that he did not do on June 17. He fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best in his career of about seventeen years
No, he hates Italian descended fighters, and simply claiming to be Italian himself does not blow anything out of the water. I can write racist tirade after tirade against asians, than claim to be asian myself, and so what?
Any future post picking Charles needs to address these issues. Rather than knee-jerk..."CHARLES WAS YOUNGER, HE DO BETTER!"
Charles wasn't shot when he fought Marciano the first time or anything like it. His only decisive loss since 1950 was the knockout loss to Walcott and some think he won the last instalment of their serries anyway. Charles fought often, so often in fact that even in the 1940s or even as champion he put out stale performances. Dan Parker of the new york post called Charles "a colourless mediocrity" after the Detroit win over Walcott. The defence against Maxim was described in the form of a three inch blank space in one newspaper. Although Nat Fleischer had praised the Valentino fight he was equally scathing of the Beshore fight that was titled "Charles No Louis Beating Beshore" in his magazine. On losing his title Charles dropped a couple of close decisions but appeared to be a more aggressive fighter who went for it a bit more. The fighters he was facing were tougher guys than 90% of his title chalengers too. Lesenevich, valentino, Barone, Beshore, maxim were no better than Layne, Harold Johnson, Nino Valdes, Cesar Brion, Bob Satterfeild and Coley Wallace. IMO The film's against Johnson, Layne, Satterfeild, Harrison and wallace are not of a shot or boring fighter and these all came after losing the title. Charles had a long break from January to June to prepare for Marciano in 1953 too. I dont think Charles was any less effective against Marciano the first time than he could have been at any point. Where were the hard beatings and damaging heavyweight fights before that point for Charles?
So he's a liar? He isn't of Italian descent? You know this to be a fact? My monies on H.E.:good But you don't take cash bets do you?
He went 10-14 after the first Marciano bout with not a single significant victory. When exactly did he become shot?
I don't care what he is or what he claims to be, it doesn't change his agenda, that's the whole point. Sure, just like when you predicted Stiverne would beat Wilder.