Would Marciano have beaten Charles in his prime ?

First off, although Charles put on an incredibly courageous and determined performance and made Marciano earn it every minute of their first fight, it wasn't really as closely contested as is sometimes made out. Ultimately, Marciano won 9-5-1, 8-6-1 and 8-5-2 on the cards- a comfortable winning margin- and it was widely agreed that the officials' scores were fair. Many of Marciano's rounds, particularly late in the fight, were of a one-sided nature in his favor, with Charles breaking down under the pressure and Marciano putting out a buzzsaw punchrate that kept Charles doing all he could to stand up. Hence, even if Charles had put on a noticeably better performance, he may still have lost the fight.

Second, while I do believe it is true that Charles had lost some of his old speed and mobility by the time he fought Marciano, I think he had gained some things he previously lacked which aided him greatly in the Marciano fight. This is from page 219 of Russell Sullivan's the Rock of His Times:
"In truth, it was his last chance- and everyone knew it. Charles seemed determined to take advantage of it as he trained for the bout at Monticello, several miles away from Marciano's camp at Grossinger's. He had been studying film of Marciano's fights and claimed that he had been working on a plan to beat the champion for eighteen months... He was sparring with his customary skill and seemed more relaxed than usual, spending much of his down time glued to the Mcarthy-U.S. Army hearings on television.
This, then, was the 'new Charles,' a more focused and passionate fighter who had a fresh, unburdened mental determination to go along with his established physical skills."

One of the main criticisms of the peak heavyweight Charles was that he was a listless fighter, one who didn't really have a fighter's spirit. Sportswriters during Charles' reign viewed him as lacking the passion and killer instinct of most champions, as simply viewing a fight as another day in the office. He was referred to by the press as a "good horse who won't run for you," a champion who won "with skill and with finality but with no flash of fire," a "reluctant dragon," one who fought with "cautiousness bordering on timidity," etc.

On the other hand, as is noted in the passage above (and as can be found both on the film and in the anecdotes of the fight), when Charles fought Marciano, he viewed it as his final chance to gain public acceptance and become a revered champion rather than an apathetic figure, his last chance to regain the title, and he acted accordingly. In his preparation for and performance during the first Marciano fight, he showed more vigor, more passion, and more relentless, dogged intensity than he ever did in his 1949-1951 run as champion. According to sportswriter Wilfrid Smith, "Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career [against Marciano]... Charles was the man who rose to greater heights." W.J. McGoogan of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote that Charles "fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best of his career of about seventeen years, and was still beaten to a pulp by the younger, stronger champion."

In other words, I ultimately view this as a trade-off. A Charles with both the extra bit of speed and athleticism of the 1949 version and the extra mental strengths of the 1954 one might be a favorite over Marciano, but much the same as a Foreman who had both the physical force and athleticism of the '70s version and the mental assets of the '90s version would probably be the greatest heavyweight who ever lived, ultimately each version lacked that extra little bit of something he needed to pull it off. I think the Charles of his heavyweight peak would still lose to Marciano, ultimately with a similar result to their actual first fight.

 

I don't think they really believe Rocky would be a walk in the park for either Holmes or Ali.

I think Holmes and Ali could both beat Prime Marciano, but only by descision - and that is no guarantee for either of them. Prime Marciano would prove to be a miserable opponent for both these limited punch power boxing greats.

 

My exact point was that no diagnosis was made at the time, but only 11 years later. That is like saying the problems Ali had in 1982 effected his performance in 1971 against Frazier.
In truth, Charles looked impressive against Bob Satterfield in early 1954.

 

ALS is a weird little disease, it causes problems for some much more readily than it does for others.

For any person to think it was causing Ezzard problems vs Marciano is just plain silly, and quite frankly an insult to both Charles and Marciano.

 

I studied the disease when I got my degree. That was a long time ago and I don't pretend to know much, but generally adult onset has a rapid progression. Ten years of life from the time of diagnosis is about the maximum.

Someone posted that he was showing the 'symptoms' of ALS. My question would be what physician who was qualified to identify the symptoms of ALS examined him back in the fifties and made this diagnosis?

 

I've a question. When did Ezzard first start showing any sort of symptoms that ultimately led to his ALS diagnosis? Sure as hell didn't show in any of his Marciano fights, Russell!

 

Ten years of life?? He should have been dead by 65 or so than. Not make it to the 70's.

 

Lou Gehrig might have begun showing symptoms of ALS in 1938. He was diagnosed in 1939. He was dead in 1941.

 

I'm no expert on the disease myself, but I am aware of how it progresses at times. My job is a quality control function at hospital.. in other words I look at inappropriate doc diagnoses at times. Not that Ezzard having had ALS is one of them, I just wanted to give an idea of what I deal with at work. (my main stuff regarding neuro anatomy, physiology and disease states only amounts to about 16 credits total - hardly an expert on my own part )

 

My schooling is obviously outdated and I'm now retired. I could certainly be wrong, but an onset in the early 1950's and death in 1975 does not make sense off what I remember being taught.

 

Do you believe it was possible he was manifesting symptoms as early as the mid 1950's?

 

You are correct, as far as I know, with your statement the adult onset generally progresses more rapidly. In youth the disease, again if I recall correctly, progresses at a much more gradual pace. It's been a bit since I read anything about it, and I am NO expert. I may have missed a few studies. In all honesty, I don't recall ever having read a patient's record that may have had the disease.

 

Nah... for proof, just look at his performance.

 

Yes, I was just watching the film of the fight with Satterfield. He had excellent muscular coordination at that point.

 

I've no problem with people questioning a Marciano fight. When a person comes out with Ezzard had ALS symptoms during their fights, that one is quite frankly silly at best (I'd use other words in my lexicon, but this is a friendly forum )

There is one thing that interests me, one that I've never even thought about looking into. My pondering is this, how many fighters, especially at heavier weights, have suffered from a diagnosis of ALS? Might be an interesting thing to look into.