I would roughly compare Charles in the first Marciano fight to Ali in the Foreman fight. In terms of having enough left to fight a great fight, but not actually having his full "prime capabilities". Still, I think Marciano did kind of "ruin" him, once and for all. Certainly the quickly-scheduled rematch signalled the nail in the coffin. But it's quite possibly that Marciano would have taken a similar amount out of a 1950 Charles - and that's including if Charles wins !
Yes I think we agree then about the "still capable of greatness". If that's not the same as prime, is still capable of greatness the same as the onset of a decline? I don't think so. And that is because Charles fought so often that there probably never was a point where he was consistently capable of greatness in each fight unless we search for a period where he strung a group of lesser opponent's together to shine against. Fighters all ways look a great deal better against lesser foes. Superiority and greatness is a lot harder to exhibit against the most capable fighters. I think Charles fought a lot of excellent fighters between losing his title and challenging Marciano. Yes Charles lost to Valdes but was Ray better than Valdes? Yes Horold Johnson got the decision over Charles in Harolds home town but was johnson that much worse or the same level as Joey Maxim who took Charles to a majority decision in 1949 in Charles' own home town? I think that Marciano finished off Charles at a time when he possibly still had a few more great fights left in him. An immediate rematch was tough match making for both Rocky and Ezzard. The crazy schedule of 1955 killed off any possibility of Charles regaining any kind of form. Thrown in with the huge Yong Jack Johnson days after a tough split decision with Bob Albright was utter madness. Fighting twice a month against rated prospects was silly too.
Personally, I think that Charles was in decline, yes. By that I mean that he was literally less good at boxing than he was in the Marshall footage and that the cause of that was the passage of time and the fight he fought in that time.
The Marshall fight reminds me of Holyfeild at cruiser against Qawi. Faster more movement but better fighter than his heavyweight days? I don't know. Like Charles Holyfeild boxed better then perhaps? But nobody says Holyfeild was better at cruiserweight even though he must rate as one if the best ever in that division. Where should we put Evanders prime? Beating Tilman, Dokes, Douglas, Bowe or Tyson??
Charles had had more than fifty fights in that footage of Marshall. He was a seasoned professional with bags of experience against ATG fighters. He had more experience at that time against great fighters than Holyfield would ever have. Evander's prime would be Bowe I guess.
Charles was kind of unique in that he got a second chance to start over relatively young after the war. He had been absent from professional boxing as long as his pre war career had lasted. Whilst he had recovered from that career he still had the experience of it to draw from - without the wear and tear. So yes Charles had over 50 fights but he had a gap in his career to start over as a new prospect all over again. Like Holyfeild he was against good fighters very early. In many ways When Charles fought Marshall he was having his 8th fight back not really his 50th. An 8 fight prospect on a new career. When Holyfeild fought Qawi he was having his 12th pro fight, it's not that much difference. Evander also had been an experienced international amateur boxer so he was ahead of the average 12fight novice like Charles was when he started over after the war.
I think Charles is underrated as a Heavyweight Champion and certainly underrated (called a faded fighter) when he faced Marciano. Charles had 2 electric KO's over Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield and his 1st fight against Marciano was one of the best versions of Charles that I have seen. Charles had his lapses of training, he fought often and against contenders but he was on a high going into the 1st Marciano fight. I think we have other examples of great fighters Ali and Duran Hopkins,Toney included who have came back strong after a lull. I do believe that the Marciano fights were incredibly taxing on Charles and by the 2nd Marciano beating Charles was done. Charles was not burnt at 33 and other than early in his career had few wars. Marciano pitched a war against the experienced ex Champion and Charles stepped up to the plate using all of his experience and resources and did better than many other ATG would have fared against Rocky. Perhaps a younger version of Charles would have been physically better and less experienced but Marciano would always be a tough nut to crack for any version of Charles. Charles was an excellent heavyweight, Marciano was great.
Questions. Did Moore ever comment on how the version of Charles who knocked Archie out in their third bout would have done against Marciano? Because that was Ezz's final match before the Baroudi tragedy. Another consideration. What about the punch resistance of Charles between his acquisition of the HW Title and the rematch with Rocky? Was he stronger and more able to take a hard shot when completely matured at his full weight? JJW sent a shudder through him with a hard shot late in their first showdown for the vacant title, while Fitzpatrick and Marshall both put him on the deck, Fitzie in round two during July 1947, when Ezz still weighed below the LHW limit. If Charles lost something of an aggressive edge after Baroudi, did he trade it off for an increased gain in punch resistance after stepping up to the heavyweight ranks? Between Fitzpatrick I and Marciano II, Ezz was only dropped when he lost the HW Title in JJW III (and was trying gallantly to beat the count in that one, against an opponent who dropped Marciano and Louis 3X). Can this be akin to what happened to Max Baer after Frankie Campbell? Maxie became shy about going after opponents following that death, but as a result, his stamina got extended in a series of bouts over much longer distances, particularly King Levinski II. (Tommy Loughran also tutored him not to telegraph via Western Union as he'd been doing.) Prior to Campbell, the Larruper had exactly one win over a distance longer than six rounds. (Foreman went into the tenth round three times prior to Kinshasa by comparison.) We saw in Maxie's "exhibition" with the Kingfish what he really could have done to Levinski at any time in their first two meetings which went the distance. To me, it just seems like Charles did gain some punch resistance for heavyweight competition after moving above 175, and that weighing under the LHW limit, he couldn't have stayed on his feet fighting Rocky as he did in their first bout, staying completely off the ropes by giving ground grudgingly. Potential wise, maybe a 1947 version of Charles weighing above 180 could have defeated any version of Marciano, but he never competed above 175 prior to late 1948, never at the modern CW limit which represented his full physical strength and punch resistance. We never got a blend of pre Baroudi with optimal strength weight out of him.
We are talking 1950 Charles here of the Valentino fights. I don't think that Charles looks much better than the one that faced Marciano the first time. The Charles of the Marshall fight was 173 lbs. I'm not sure I like the chances of somebody giving up over 10 lbs to Rocky.
I really like the Charles performance against Valentino when he hits his stride, I like that fight a lot. But I could buy that he was as good/better versus Marciano yeah. You're right about the weight, but I'm pretty sure you could use that version of Charles at about 180 and do a better job. But that's debatable.
Wallace was primarily known as a Louis look alike he had been stopped by Elkins Brothers and Jimmy Bivins before he fought Charles. Satterfield had been stopped 9 times before he faced Charles and Charles 2 fights before those wins were losses. I think Charles was past prime and that Rocky further ruined him as he did ****ell, and to some extent Layne. Sustained beatings like that leave their mark imo.
A past prime fighter could not have produced such wins back to back. Charles could not have been more impressive in the Satterfeild and Wallace fights. Both fighters were names and rated at that time. Charles then had from January until June to train for Marciano so he was in form and had lots of time to train during a time in his career where he was still capable if greatness. Proberbly had three great fights left in him. A past prime fighter being "further ruined" by Rocky has to have been partially ruined before Rocky got to him, so tell me, how or when was Charles ruined?? He was ruined in the Satterfeild fight? I don't get it. Charles only got a MD home decision against Joey Maxim in 1949. He can't have been ruined then. later (but before facing Rocky) Charles dropped a hometown decision to Harold Johnson. I thought Charles won but it was close. Was the loss due to a decline or was Harold Johnson not always good enough to push someone like Charles very close? Charles was a brilliant heavyweight but his form could show to be better on some nights than on others when he fought so often. The Marciano fights ruined him and his schedule in 1955 coming after those fights damaged him.