Many people forget walcott after knocking out charles to win the title defended it once before marciano and he won a close unanimous decision. now what im asking is charles outboxed him the first time and did so again in the 2nd fight as well as knocking him down.
what did walcott do differently in this 4th fight that helped him win a decision, after getting beat on points by charles twice.
perhaps jaclem u saw the fight , can u tell me??
ezzard Charles vs Jersey Joe Walcott IV
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
..yes indeed i saw that fight...and like 99% of the others who did, thought...no...knew...ezzard was robbed.
what did walcott do differently from the first two? well...for one...his people (i never accuse the fighter) had a pro-walcott referee in zack clayton. so obvious that even over the air he could be heard saying "come on pappy"...one of walcott's nicknames!!!! also, he completely took ezzard's body attack away..and ezz was a great infighter...by warning him every time a punch from charles landed lower than the top of the collarbone. walter winchell reported that the day after the fight ..which he called a "dipsy"....that clayton was seen driving around philadelphia in a shiny new caddilac. as for the judges....well...it was in philadelphia where the walcott folks had...ah..influence.
did ezzard to anything wrong? there's no question he was a bit gunshy...after all walcott had kayoed him...knocked him cold..with one punch in their previous outing.
still...he won it..and even one of the annoncers said "history may have been made here tonight...no heavyweight champion has ever re-won the title." then the decision.
i'm known here as an ezzard charles near fanatic....but my statements here reflect the consesus at the time. the reason there wasn't an uproar from the crowd and writers...who thought it was a bad decision...was because walcott was well liked and charles wasn't...and ezzard did fight a cautious but highly tactical fight...even though his infighting was taken away.
ezzard never complained about a loss...but years later when i asked him about that fight he just said, "well...i guess i should have gone all out a little more."
what did walcott do differently from the first two? well...for one...his people (i never accuse the fighter) had a pro-walcott referee in zack clayton. so obvious that even over the air he could be heard saying "come on pappy"...one of walcott's nicknames!!!! also, he completely took ezzard's body attack away..and ezz was a great infighter...by warning him every time a punch from charles landed lower than the top of the collarbone. walter winchell reported that the day after the fight ..which he called a "dipsy"....that clayton was seen driving around philadelphia in a shiny new caddilac. as for the judges....well...it was in philadelphia where the walcott folks had...ah..influence.
did ezzard to anything wrong? there's no question he was a bit gunshy...after all walcott had kayoed him...knocked him cold..with one punch in their previous outing.
still...he won it..and even one of the annoncers said "history may have been made here tonight...no heavyweight champion has ever re-won the title." then the decision.
i'm known here as an ezzard charles near fanatic....but my statements here reflect the consesus at the time. the reason there wasn't an uproar from the crowd and writers...who thought it was a bad decision...was because walcott was well liked and charles wasn't...and ezzard did fight a cautious but highly tactical fight...even though his infighting was taken away.
ezzard never complained about a loss...but years later when i asked him about that fight he just said, "well...i guess i should have gone all out a little more."
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
ITS FUNNY cause no one ever talks about that fight. they say walcott lost to charles twice, then kayoed charles in a classic punch, then fought a war with marciano. they forget he defended his title in a close on on charles. im suprised that it didnt go as a controversial decision, but u maybe right about the media disliking charles and liking walcott.
how did walcott get 3 chances at him anyway??? once a fighter loses in a title shot, he only gets a rematch to that same guy if the fight was close or wil make a lot of money doing it again, but after losing a 2nd time, walcott MANAGED TO GET A 3RD SHOT AND THATS WHERE HE GOT CHARLES.
how did walcott get 3 chances at him anyway??? once a fighter loses in a title shot, he only gets a rematch to that same guy if the fight was close or wil make a lot of money doing it again, but after losing a 2nd time, walcott MANAGED TO GET A 3RD SHOT AND THATS WHERE HE GOT CHARLES.
red hot dempsey...it WAS a robbery..one of the worst...maybe the worst..in heavyweight title history up to its time. considered by every damn fight writer i've read or talked to as worse than sharkey/schmeling 2. the comments i made about referee clayton are a matter of record..and even under those handicaps charles still won. the ring magazine coverage was titled "who really won?"
it was not a sizzling fight, but charles won and won big. but many of the writers at the time chided him for being too cautious ..."you have to go after the champion to take it away"...and everyone...me included...gave walcott the last round. he bounced a few sold rights off charles' head.
how did walcott get that third shot at the title? too much to go into here...but i know how it happened and i will do a thread eventually...but i want to check some data first to refresh my memory...and the data comes from totally reliable sources.
back to walcot/charles 1V... i watched it with five other guys..two charles fans..one nuetral and two walcott fans. the latter groaned throughout the fight and paid off their small bets BEFORE the decision was announced...and refused to take the money back when it was.
charles won. it's as simple as that. i count it as one of the five worse decisions i've ever seen...in any title fight in any weight class.
it was not a sizzling fight, but charles won and won big. but many of the writers at the time chided him for being too cautious ..."you have to go after the champion to take it away"...and everyone...me included...gave walcott the last round. he bounced a few sold rights off charles' head.
how did walcott get that third shot at the title? too much to go into here...but i know how it happened and i will do a thread eventually...but i want to check some data first to refresh my memory...and the data comes from totally reliable sources.
back to walcot/charles 1V... i watched it with five other guys..two charles fans..one nuetral and two walcott fans. the latter groaned throughout the fight and paid off their small bets BEFORE the decision was announced...and refused to take the money back when it was.
charles won. it's as simple as that. i count it as one of the five worse decisions i've ever seen...in any title fight in any weight class.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
WOW THATS INTERESTING JACLEM. PERHAPS MARCIANO SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT CHARLES FOR THE TITLE INSTEAD CAUSE IF CHARLES WON, HE PORB WOULD HAVE FACED MARCIANO NEXT.
i definetely want to see that fight some time.
i liked the left hook charles laid on him in the 2nd fight to knock walcott down. i have a poster of that .
i definetely want to see that fight some time.
i liked the left hook charles laid on him in the 2nd fight to knock walcott down. i have a poster of that .
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
....the handling by the referee and the voting by the judges were ridiculous....but hey....if your thinking walcott won makes you happy...that's fine with me. i do hope, though, that you are never appointed to be a boxing judge.
have a nice day.
p.s. giving walcott the edge in the close rounds and any i thought were even.... because of my rooting interest and to keep that bias from affecting my score...i had it 9/6 charles.
,,,oops..almost forgot..where did you get your tape/film of the complete fight? i'm not suggesting you don't have it...just really interested.
have a nice day.
p.s. giving walcott the edge in the close rounds and any i thought were even.... because of my rooting interest and to keep that bias from affecting my score...i had it 9/6 charles.
,,,oops..almost forgot..where did you get your tape/film of the complete fight? i'm not suggesting you don't have it...just really interested.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
It was 8 mm film of my father's that I recently converted to DVD. He had some other classic fights as well . . Louis-Godoy, Baer-Galento, Marciano-Layne . .
I don't think the comment about my judging of boxing fights was neccesary.
Just to start a friendly debate, how did you score the following fights:
Hagler-Leonard
Holmes-Norton
Forrest-Mayorga 11
or any other controversial decisions that you can think of. I'd like to know your criteria for scoring a fight and
BTW-I'm was statting that after watching the fight, I thought Walcott won. I could be wrong . . .I didn't even bother to do a round by round b/c the fight was so boring in my opinion. I couldn't see a clear win by either man.
I don't think the comment about my judging of boxing fights was neccesary.
Just to start a friendly debate, how did you score the following fights:
Hagler-Leonard
Holmes-Norton
Forrest-Mayorga 11
or any other controversial decisions that you can think of. I'd like to know your criteria for scoring a fight and
BTW-I'm was statting that after watching the fight, I thought Walcott won. I could be wrong . . .I didn't even bother to do a round by round b/c the fight was so boring in my opinion. I couldn't see a clear win by either man.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
i scored these bouts.....
leonard-hagler: 115-114 leonard. hagler was agressive but leonard didnt hit him with all pitter patter, he landed some good combos and backed hagler up a coupele times. he also made hagler fight off his game plan and leonard had great ring generalship.
Mayorga- Forrest: 115-113 MAYORGA. i thought mayorga was in control the whole fight and lost rounds because he toyed with forrest. he really handed it to forrest and outclassed him, though forrest did put up a much better showing this time.
holmes-norton: 143-143 DRAW. this was so close. and i scored it a draw. neither man really deserved to win it was so close. holmes won by one point. the last round i scored even because norton dominated the first 2 min, then holmes came back and hurt norton and was beating him in the corner at the final seconds.
leonard-hagler: 115-114 leonard. hagler was agressive but leonard didnt hit him with all pitter patter, he landed some good combos and backed hagler up a coupele times. he also made hagler fight off his game plan and leonard had great ring generalship.
Mayorga- Forrest: 115-113 MAYORGA. i thought mayorga was in control the whole fight and lost rounds because he toyed with forrest. he really handed it to forrest and outclassed him, though forrest did put up a much better showing this time.
holmes-norton: 143-143 DRAW. this was so close. and i scored it a draw. neither man really deserved to win it was so close. holmes won by one point. the last round i scored even because norton dominated the first 2 min, then holmes came back and hurt norton and was beating him in the corner at the final seconds.
Charles-Walcott 4 was not a robbery. Not even close. Charles never stepped it up and simply let walcott dictate the fight. In those days you had to TAKE a champions title and Charles never looked like he wanted to get in there and get his hands dirty. All of their fights were close (why they had so many rematches) and fairly uninteresting (other than the KO). To say its one of the worst robberies is silly. The film exists for anyone to watch it and you can plainly see that Walcott defends his championship and Charles never wants to go after it with gusto.
dempseyfire...thanks for the film info...i have the others mentioned but have only seen a bootleg of the one in question. any way i can get the one you have?
of course my comment about your judging was unneccesary....in the larger scheme of things boxing and commenting about boxing and going way back even the dinosaurs were uneccessary. don't take my jibes too seriously....we've agreed on too many things overall.
i did not score the fights you mentioned on paper...so i have no idea if the decisions were good or not, because unless you look at each round and score ir and WRITE YOUR JUDGEMENT DOWN....you really can't tell about the close ones. i may look at the tapes and do just that sometime.
i notice no one has commented on the actions of zack clayton....which is one factor that made the fight an obvious fix-o. all walcott had to do was go the distance and he was going to win. this is one reason why the decision was a farce. keeping the action on a low level is one classic way to get by with this....like dempseyboy the aassumption is that the folks will get bored and no one will care.
re: going after the title. a title fight should be judged as any other fight...without regard as to who is the challenger and who is the champ. the champion already has the edge in keeping his title in case of a draw...
the first two fights were reasonably close...two very clever boxers...but there was no doubt that charles won them. the "closeness" was NOT the reason the third fight was made. i have written somewhere that i'd go into this further with the actiual reason but there's some memory boosting i want from sources before i do.
i think we've pretty much got all out of this commentary we can get....i say it was an outrageous and one of the worst decisions ever and klompton and dempseyfire don't agree.
it would have been hard for the two mentioned gentelmen in question though not to have been laughed out of congregations of boxing fans in the day or two after the fight occured.
of course my comment about your judging was unneccesary....in the larger scheme of things boxing and commenting about boxing and going way back even the dinosaurs were uneccessary. don't take my jibes too seriously....we've agreed on too many things overall.
i did not score the fights you mentioned on paper...so i have no idea if the decisions were good or not, because unless you look at each round and score ir and WRITE YOUR JUDGEMENT DOWN....you really can't tell about the close ones. i may look at the tapes and do just that sometime.
i notice no one has commented on the actions of zack clayton....which is one factor that made the fight an obvious fix-o. all walcott had to do was go the distance and he was going to win. this is one reason why the decision was a farce. keeping the action on a low level is one classic way to get by with this....like dempseyboy the aassumption is that the folks will get bored and no one will care.
re: going after the title. a title fight should be judged as any other fight...without regard as to who is the challenger and who is the champ. the champion already has the edge in keeping his title in case of a draw...
the first two fights were reasonably close...two very clever boxers...but there was no doubt that charles won them. the "closeness" was NOT the reason the third fight was made. i have written somewhere that i'd go into this further with the actiual reason but there's some memory boosting i want from sources before i do.
i think we've pretty much got all out of this commentary we can get....i say it was an outrageous and one of the worst decisions ever and klompton and dempseyfire don't agree.
it would have been hard for the two mentioned gentelmen in question though not to have been laughed out of congregations of boxing fans in the day or two after the fight occured.
...oops...mistake....the bootleg film i refer to in the above post is of a different fight...too many threads going at one time. charles/walcott 1V i saw on live tv. (would still love to have a tape or dvd of it though) incidentally, on some discussion of famous fights a few years ago....some guest expert...forget who...said walcot/charles 1V " was not for the title." i may have that discussion on tape somewhere. should look it up to see who this clown was.
my comment about those in disagreement with me on this 'being laughed out...etc" was uneccessary and did little to add to the discourse. it is true, though.
one i DID judge on paper...complete film of...is dempsey/willard. i had willard winning all three rounds until the big sissy went into the tank and quit in his corner. (i was going to say "quit on his stool' but that sounds disgiusting.)
my comment about those in disagreement with me on this 'being laughed out...etc" was uneccessary and did little to add to the discourse. it is true, though.
one i DID judge on paper...complete film of...is dempsey/willard. i had willard winning all three rounds until the big sissy went into the tank and quit in his corner. (i was going to say "quit on his stool' but that sounds disgiusting.)
-
overhand_right
- Heavyweight
....i've got a few fires going now, so i'm reviving this one so i can dampen it completely.
judgiing ...walcott/charles 1V......Nat Fleischer 9-6/charles. dan daniel (ring magazine) 9-6 charles. Jim Jennings N.Y. Mirror....9-4-2 charles and wrote "referee clayton harrassed, nagged and warned charles unjustly for fouls that were not committed." Arthur Daley (New York Times) 11-4 charles and wrote "Weather forecast was 'mild and balmy' and so was the fight and decision. ringside observers were aghast at the decision"
jack cuddy..united press....9-5-1 charles new york mirror headline...."gift decision."
Dan Daniel...."...it was obvious clayton's sympathies were with walcott.....cropped up time after time. ....harassed charles from round one."
okay...this ends this one.
When i get my data together ..as i said ...i'll give the reason walcott got that third title shot at ezzard.
judgiing ...walcott/charles 1V......Nat Fleischer 9-6/charles. dan daniel (ring magazine) 9-6 charles. Jim Jennings N.Y. Mirror....9-4-2 charles and wrote "referee clayton harrassed, nagged and warned charles unjustly for fouls that were not committed." Arthur Daley (New York Times) 11-4 charles and wrote "Weather forecast was 'mild and balmy' and so was the fight and decision. ringside observers were aghast at the decision"
jack cuddy..united press....9-5-1 charles new york mirror headline...."gift decision."
Dan Daniel...."...it was obvious clayton's sympathies were with walcott.....cropped up time after time. ....harassed charles from round one."
okay...this ends this one.
When i get my data together ..as i said ...i'll give the reason walcott got that third title shot at ezzard.
Re: ezzard Charles vs Jersey Joe Walcott IV
Is this the worst decision in the HW championship?
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: ezzard Charles vs Jersey Joe Walcott IV
Why was Charles so reviled?
Re: ezzard Charles vs Jersey Joe Walcott IV
Been asking myself those questions for the past 6 years too guys, still no definite answer...