Evaluating Marciano's Opponents

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 28 Feb 2006, 18:37

Archie Moore: Call Moore old if you want, but after the loss to Marciano, Moore held on to the Light Heavyweight crown for another decade, and even challenged for the Heavyweight crown again---which supposedly Moore took a dive against Patterson. Moore may have been ahead on points with the Rock---but those last 3-4 rounds Marciano beat Moore within an inch of his life---and Moore is an ALL-TIME great.

Don Cockell: Call this guy a bum all you want, but this is the same Don Cockell who beat LaStarza, Harry "Kid" Matthews, Tommy Farr---he was a good slugger and could take a good punch, Marciano even said he was surprised the "fat man could fight".

Ezzard Charles: Call him old when he faced Marciano, but if there ever was a greater Light Heavyweight we never saw him. He was lightning fast and had a punch---one of the all-time great Heavywieght movers.

Jersey Joe Walcott: One of the better movers at heavyweight, was robbed by Louis, and had great longevity. Just look at the list of men he fought, and even though his rematch with Marciano was a one-round blow out---Walcott is easily one of the finer Heavyweight, despite nowadays being over looked.

Joe Louis: Call Louis over the hill, but he was still in the top ten when he faced Marciano---and Marciano was losing the first few rounds, til, as usual, Marciano broke through his opponents defense and made him crumble. Sure his reflexes were slow and he was older, but he still had the punch and experience and sometimes that is all it takes, considering Joe Louis is arguably the greatest puncher of all time.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Feb 2006, 19:03

Woah freeze right there Murphy, I happen to think Moore should have beat Patterson but he would not take a dive for anyone noway nohow. Is this really a rumor that has any legs? It's not Scottish I'll tell you that much.........and if it's not Scottish it's crap!!!

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 19:24

Archie Moore: Call Moore old if you want, but after the loss to Marciano, Moore held on to the Light Heavyweight crown for another decade, and even challenged for the Heavyweight crown again---which supposedly Moore took a dive against Patterson. Moore may have been ahead on points with the Rock---but those last 3-4 rounds Marciano beat Moore within an inch of his life---and Moore is an ALL-TIME great.

He was old. Yes he was an All-time great...at lightheavyweight. Moore couldnt beat Patterson because Patterson was the better heavyweight, period. To say that Moore took a dive against him is absolutely rediculous.

Don Cockell: Call this guy a bum all you want, but this is the same Don Cockell who beat LaStarza, Harry "Kid" Matthews, Tommy Farr---he was a good slugger and could take a good punch, Marciano even said he was surprised the "fat man could fight".

Yes he was a bum. Rocky was surprised because he knew he was a bum and didnt expect to to last as long as he did.

Ezzard Charles: Call him old when he faced Marciano, but if there ever was a greater Light Heavyweight we never saw him. He was lightning fast and had a punch---one of the all-time great Heavywieght movers.

He was old. He was without a doubt in my mind the greatest light heavy of all time. But I believe alot of other heavyweight champs would have beat him at the stage he was when he fought the Rock.

Jersey Joe Walcott: One of the better movers at heavyweight, was robbed by Louis, and had great longevity. Just look at the list of men he fought, and even though his rematch with Marciano was a one-round blow out---Walcott is easily one of the finer Heavyweight, despite nowadays being over looked.

The list of mean he fought is long and filled with alot of losses. Some you could kinda explain away others you cant. I believe Walcott has gone recently from being overlooked to overrated. I think he was a very good fighter who had some moments of greatness. The reason he excelled so late in life I believe was because he was able to maintain his conditioning and skill while the division grew weaker around him.

Joe Louis: Call Louis over the hill, but he was still in the top ten when he faced Marciano---and Marciano was losing the first few rounds, til, as usual, Marciano broke through his opponents defense and made him crumble. Sure his reflexes were slow and he was older, but he still had the punch and experience and sometimes that is all it takes, considering Joe Louis is arguably the greatest puncher of all time.

Louis was extremely over the hill. Just watch that fight and the fight he had with Charles. He is obviously a shell of his once glourious self. The fact that he was still top ten demonstrates how thin the division was at the time.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Feb 2006, 19:26

Cripes the slander never stops.....Archie never got old. He just retired.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:00

Rufus, where do you get your info, mate? It's fekkin tosh!

First you reckoned it was legal to hit a man who was one one knee.

Now you claim Moore took a dive against Patterson.

I think you should spend a bit of time learning about the fight game before coming out with this sort of baloney.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:08

this kind of thread is bound to stir up controversy which has been beaten to death and I don't feel like saying anything more about it, so I will leave this thread with this new process of thought

- he beat 3 great fighters in Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles who were also the 3 best heavyweights of his era

- He beat 3 very good dangerous top contenders Old Joe Louis, Roland Lastarza, Rex Layne

- he beat 2 good top ten contenders in Cockell, Mathews

- He beat a top notch list of journeyman/young prospects

- he did not beat a good list of quality depth of contenders/fringe contenders

Marciano lacked a resume full of depth and fringe contenders. in terms of beating solid depth, marciano has amongst the worst quality of depth of the heavyweight greats. however one must note however marciano had virtually no amatuer experience and was immediatelly in his first 10 fights thrown into the wolves and somehow he made it out with a loss. after he started training with goldman, rocky needed a lot more experience before he was to be sent against a top contenders. also, weill protected marciano a lot more during his pre title run than when he won the title.

Marcianos biggest problem was he didnt beat a long line of depth some of the other champions beat. marciano could have fought some baker, valdes, walls, jackson,henry, satterfield, etc. however marciano didnt need to fight these guys because rocky beat the best fighters out there pre title and championship days so he wouldnt have gained anything by beating these guys.

marcianos management was smart, they made sure rocky beat the very best contenders out there so if he beat them, he wouldnt have to have marciano fight 5-10 times against dangerous but less rated contenders.

weills thought process was........... beat the 1 and 2 contenders so then u dont have to take on the 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 rated contenders.

of course it was not that simple as there were other reasons(like marciano getting injured in louis bout) why weill didnt send marciano in against some of the dangerous less rated contenders rather than risk injury.

the only big blot weill made where for the only time he became too protective of marciao was when he threw marciano in against lee savold. marciano by now was healed and the # 1 contender and was looking to take on another contender before getting his title shot. this was the perfect time for weill to send marciano in agaisnt a satterfield, henry, lastarza rematch, etc but instead to protect marcianos # 1 status weill threw marciano in against a 34 year old battle worn lee savold who was now over the hill coming off a 1 year layoff and brutal beating by old louis. savold wasnt even rated in the top 10 anymore. weill had no business choosing lee savold. Weill chose savold and avoided fighting clarence henry, lastarza rematch, neuhas. all 3 challengers were in the top 10 and were interested in fighting marciano. instread weill took the D amato route. that was the one time where Al fucked up.

I would have loved to see a rocky marciano vs clarence henry bout in 52

in marciano case, there are many reasons why he didnt fight a long list of contenders which im too lazy to get into but hes a guy you have to look at in terms of quality of opposition.

i will always take quality over quantity anyday

overall marciano beat very good quality. he beat the best quality pre title and the best quality during his reign.

one thing im a big advocate of is rematching in close or controversial fights. i love the way how in every close or controversial fight, both marciano and louis rematched and not only won, they won in brutal and convinsing fashion.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:10

moore should have got a rematch vs floyd. he did not go into that fight well prepared.

also moore was pitching a shutout on the judges scorecard before patterson knocked him out.

a rematch would have been a close fight, but i favor patterson who i feel matches up very well vs moore.

i rate patterson top 20 heavyweights and moore in my top 35 heavyweights

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:28

moore should have got a rematch vs floyd. he did not go into that fight well prepared.

also moore was pitching a shutout on the judges scorecard before patterson knocked him out.

Moore was ahead on two of the scorecards. It was only the 5th round. Finally, your two sentences above contradict each other. If Moore was doing so well until Patterson knocked him out with that devastating left hook, how was not well prepared? He didnt do enough jaw excercises before the fight?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:31

He was old. He was without a doubt in my mind the greatest light heavy of all time. But I believe alot of other heavyweight champs would have beat him at the stage he was when he fought the Rock.

disagree

charles was only 32 years old.

fact is people like "the one" look at charles record before he fought rocky and see that he lossed to valdes, johnson, and layne and automatically assume he was well over the hill.

of course theone doesnt bother to read into the reports or watch the films and find for himself that both the harold johnson and rex layne losses were robberies and the valdes loss was a case of a overweight(193lb) , ill prepared charles taking it lightly on a unknown journeyman nino valdes who proved he was a lot better than his record indicated and he scored a huge upset over # 1 rated charles. \

the only fight he "really" lost since he lost the title to walcott was nino valdes in a huge upset where charles showed up out of shape and took the unkown cuban lightly.

the harold johnson and rex layne losses were robberies. i watched the fight for the first time the other week and thought charles defintley won the harold johnson fight.

if charles could beat johnson whos a great fighter, then wut makes u think he wasnt still a great fighter? harold johnson shut out nino valdes over 10 and also beat eddie machen. if charles could beat johnson, it shows u how much charles had left.

so charles had suffered only really one loss(where he was ill prepared and took an unkown lightly) since he lost the title to walcott.

right before charles fought marciano, charles knocked out top contender bob satterfield in devastation fashion.

charles had his confidence at his peak as he entered the marciano bout.

also u forget that ezzard charles fought perhaps the finest fight of his career in the first marciano fight. never before had charles showed heart, chin, and stamina like he did in that first fight. those categories must not be overlooked. charles was light on his feet also in the early rounds, and didnt slow down to flat footed until rocky wore him down.

the version of charles marciano beat in the 1st fight was a damm good version of charles and charles though not prime, was still a great fighter.

"charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his career"-wilfred smith of the chicago tribute reported on 1st marciano fight

"no fighter in the world could have lasted those 15 rounds with ezzard charles that night let alone with the decision" - boxing and wrestling news 1954

"ezz was a very good, smart fighter, who still employed he had as a middleweight" - ruby goldstein who refereed the 1st marciano-charles fight

I think charles was just a bit past his prime but was still a great fighter and the charles of june 17, 1954 would have toppled many other champions.

charles aged DRAMATICALY and i mean dramatically after rocky fights. though charles did have one last "incredible preformance" apparently when he outpointed charley norkus right after he fought marciano. Apparently, it was an awe inspiring shutout preformance by ezzard.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:41

heres a nice little thing on ezzard charles jaclem will like

"I have never kidded myself. Fighting has been my profession and though I have fought great fighters and great punchers, I have never been hurt. I have been boxing, as amateur and professional since 1937 and know my strength and my limitations.
I have always vowed not to make the mistakes of some of the champions who preceded me. I have always said that I would not fight if I didn't have the faith in myself anymore.
I not only have faith, I feel that I am now a better fighter than I have been in some years. I felt it when I fought Coley Wallace and I knew I had it when I came off some terrific wallops by Bob Satterfield to knock him out in the second round.
I have faith in the knowledge that in Tom Tannas and Jake Mintz and my trainer, Jimmy Brown, I have three men who have my interests at heart. They will not push me forward for the sake of money. They have faith in me. It helps. I have found myself for the first time in a long time and I know where I am headed if I get the chance.
I have seen Marciano fight. He is strong and is a much better fighter than they give him credit for being. I have fought strong men before. I have fought great punchers before."

I Believe by Ezzard Charles-The Ring April 1954

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:48

I beleive Harold Johnson got the better of Ezzard in there go rounds, and of course Archie got the better of Harold. And damnit Rocky got the better of both Archie and Ezzard.

How would the Rock have done against the third guy out? Johnson?

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 20:55

Hey Brock, if you have espn classic, their giving Moore title winning fight against Maxim right now. Just a heads up if you dont own the fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 21:09

Louis was extremely over the hill. Just watch that fight and the fight he had with Charles. He is obviously a shell of his once glourious self. The fact that he was still top ten demonstrates how thin the division was at the time.

disagree,

louis proved he wasnt shot by winning his last 8 fights in a row before he fought rocky. they were all one sided wins for louis and some of those guys he beat were rated in the top 10. Louis clearly established himself the # 1 contender again in 1951.

Joe Louis had other skills in 2nd comeback that he didnt have in his earlier years like.......

experience/ring smarts- this is a BIG aspect to have to ur fight game and louis had plenty of it, which enabled him to be too smart for some of the young contenders

Louis was also bigger in 1951. Louis was not fat. he was in fact muscular. he naturally filled out to a 215lb.

even in louis prime 1942, he was 207lb . so he was just 7lb heavier

fact is louis still had a great jab, boxing skills, experience, ring smarts, and had still had a powerful left hook when he fought rocky. it was his speed and reflexes that were gone. but louis still had his jab nearly 100% and he had perhaps the best jab in the division at the time. louis combination of experience and good boxing skills made him very difficult to outbox which is one of the reasons why he won his last 8 in a row.

and believe me, louis power was not gone. he still had some of it. remember your power is the last thing that goes. fact is, louis timing and speed which were crucial were gone. If Louis connected flush even in his comeback there was good force behind it. but louis chose to sit back and box and not let his hands go and only showed flashes of his former offense like against savold.

i will admit louis right hand was gone during his comeback, but louis still had good power in his left hook which accounted for both of his knockouts.

if u dont think louis still had power, then check out his one punch KO of lee savold. savold was a very durable guy and u dont knock a guy like that out with one punch unless u have some power left.

also i got first hand newspaper accounts and if u read newspaper reports prior to marciano fight, u will find louis was great shape and was knocking out sparring parnters in his trainig camp.

only greats like charles and marciano could beat louis in his comeback.

u say the division was thing but i say louis even at that stage was better than most contenders.

Ill take the 1950 version of louis over nino valdes or bob baker. too much ring smarts, experience, boxing skills, and a still lethal jab.

ill even give the 1950 version of louis even money with 1990s version of foreman.

after all, didnt foreman lose to axel shulk, alex stewart?

even the 1950 version of louis was a better boxer than stewart, shulz. and both those guys outboxed george. in a 10 round fight, louis winning a decision is not unlikely.

bottom line: marcianos win over joe louis counts as a good win. a lot more than holmes win over alis and johnsons win over jeffries. louis unlike those guys, proved he was still a dangerous top contender.

the 1950s version of joe louis is a defintley good win to have on ur resume IMO

- even in his lost to a peak ezzard charles, charles face was badly busted up after the fight, and louis remained competitive with marciano during the fight and the scorecards were close.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 21:13

i myself used to not give marciano enough credit to the louis victory until i realized louis even at that stage of his career was a formidable fighter with a 1st class jab, sound boxing skills, and a lot of ring smarts and experience.

hey the one, thanx for the heads up on moore-maxim!

i thought charles beat harold johnson 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 21:22

hey the one, thanx for the heads up on moore-maxim!

No problem. Ive seen this fight before. Its okay, but definitely more historically significant than entertaining.

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 21:28

the one,

if u were to compare that version of louis to a fighter who would it be?

do u think that version of louis was as good as a zora folley or perhaps nino valdes?

Very good question. I know it may sounds sillybut I compare that Louis to Foreman during his final years. Bigger, slower, reflexes all but gone, but still dangerous if you stand right in front of them.
I think the Louis who fought Marciano was better than Folley or Valdez.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 21:46

theone wrote:
the one,

if u were to compare that version of louis to a fighter who would it be?

do u think that version of louis was as good as a zora folley or perhaps nino valdes?
Very good question. I know it may sounds sillybut I compare that Louis to Foreman during his final years. Bigger, slower, reflexes all but gone, but still dangerous if you stand right in front of them.
I think the Louis who fought Marciano was better than Folley or Valdez.

better than folley?

well jeeez for a man who seemed to totally degrade a win over a 1950s joe louis, ur defintley saying marciano beat a good fighter because zora folley is a good fighter and u think louis was better.

thats why its funny when people talk about marcianos win over louis, because they say louis was well well past his prime. and then they leave it at that.

however then they will go on saying liston beat a dangerous top contender zora folley.

now even though u believe that version of louis was just as good or better than folley, u made it sound like folley was a much better fighter than louis because u didnt mention how louis was still a good fighter.

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 22:00

Louis being a shell of himself is still better than Folley. I never thought much of Folley or Valdez.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 28 Feb 2006, 23:02

I don't agree with theone's assumption Don Cockell was a bum. He beat Farr, LaStarza, and Harry Kid Matthews---and gave Marciano a hard time. The man was also a British champion I think.

After Marciano, nah the man wasn't anything. But Marciano had that effect on guys---he ended Walcott and Louis.

Charles, though older, in my opinion was greater than most champions in recent years---the first Marciano bout was dangerously close---and the 2nd was as well (via Marciano had a split nose).

Walcott I think is more over-looked than over-rated, not it took years and years before he made his mark---but mind you the man worked as a garbage man while he was a fighter, so he prolly never got to train full time for a fight. It was his conditioning and skill and longetivity that helped him gain the title and have classic wars with Charles.

Louis, though his reflexes were gone, had that punch and had so much experience---it carried him over to become a top contender for the Heavyweight title. Yes Charles made him look awful, but Charles was fast and Louis always had problems with movers---inactivity was what made Louis look so awful. And as Blockton said, Charles was visably hurt as well---despite the wide points loss.

Mind you this as well---Louis had to have been great because 2 out of his 3 losses were AFTER his prime, the rest of the men outside of Marciano and Charles he beat 8-0 (3).

As far as the Moore dive against Patterson, I saw several friends and relatives of the "Mongoose" on ESPN CLASSIC special on Moore ask Moore if he ever went into the tank against Patterson---but Moore never said Yes or No---so really its all speculation.

You can say Moore was washed up as a Heavyweight, but he continued on fighting til 1963 and was so good he held onto the Light Heavy crown for another decade after the Marciano loss---hell the last man he fought was 6'8" and 300+ pound Mike DiBiase a professional wrestling champion and even though Moore was well passed 40 he blew away DiBiase in 3 rounds. It wasnt that Moore was getting too damn old, the man was supernatural, he just couldn't take the punches of Marciano.

*********************************************************

I would like to think of Marciano as a man who fought the best of his time, so there was nothing left really to prove. Sure he could have faced more men, but truthfully in all sincerity---look back on it and do you sincerly think any of them could have beat the "Rock"? No. So really there is no purpose or point.

AND...Collins2000 YOU WATCH THE DEMPSEY WILLARD FIGHT...and YOU tell ME if Dempsey didnt hit Willard down everytime he got up on his knee---there was no NEUTRAL CORNER rule then ffs you could stand over a fallen fighter back then.

WATCH THE TAPE...and you tell me if I am wrong.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Mar 2006, 00:17

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I don't agree with theone's assumption Don Cockell was a bum. He beat Farr, LaStarza, and Harry Kid Matthews---and gave Marciano a hard time. The man was also a British champion I think.

After Marciano, nah the man wasn't anything. But Marciano had that effect on guys---he ended Walcott and Louis.

Charles, though older, in my opinion was greater than most champions in recent years---the first Marciano bout was dangerously close---and the 2nd was as well (via Marciano had a split nose).

Walcott I think is more over-looked than over-rated, not it took years and years before he made his mark---but mind you the man worked as a garbage man while he was a fighter, so he prolly never got to train full time for a fight. It was his conditioning and skill and longetivity that helped him gain the title and have classic wars with Charles.

Louis, though his reflexes were gone, had that punch and had so much experience---it carried him over to become a top contender for the Heavyweight title. Yes Charles made him look awful, but Charles was fast and Louis always had problems with movers---inactivity was what made Louis look so awful. And as Blockton said, Charles was visably hurt as well---despite the wide points loss.

Mind you this as well---Louis had to have been great because 2 out of his 3 losses were AFTER his prime, the rest of the men outside of Marciano and Charles he beat 8-0 (3).

As far as the Moore dive against Patterson, I saw several friends and relatives of the "Mongoose" on ESPN CLASSIC special on Moore ask Moore if he ever went into the tank against Patterson---but Moore never said Yes or No---so really its all speculation.

You can say Moore was washed up as a Heavyweight, but he continued on fighting til 1963 and was so good he held onto the Light Heavy crown for another decade after the Marciano loss---hell the last man he fought was 6'8" and 300+ pound Mike DiBiase a professional wrestling champion and even though Moore was well passed 40 he blew away DiBiase in 3 rounds. It wasnt that Moore was getting too damn old, the man was supernatural, he just couldn't take the punches of Marciano.

*********************************************************

I would like to think of Marciano as a man who fought the best of his time, so there was nothing left really to prove. Sure he could have faced more men, but truthfully in all sincerity---look back on it and do you sincerly think any of them could have beat the "Rock"? No. So really there is no purpose or point.

AND...Collins2000 YOU WATCH THE DEMPSEY WILLARD FIGHT...and YOU tell ME if Dempsey didnt hit Willard down everytime he got up on his knee---there was no NEUTRAL CORNER rule then ffs you could stand over a fallen fighter back then.

WATCH THE TAPE...and you tell me if I am wrong.

Rufus, me old mate, you are confused because of the bad refereeing in that fight.

Dig out any documentation on what the rules were and you will find it was a foul to hit a man who was on one knee. A man on one knee was deemed to be down. That is in the rules. Look it up.

The new rule introduced after that fight was that the standing fighter couldn't hover over the fallen fighter and strike him the moment he was deemed NOT to be down. There was no change to the definition of what constituted being down.

A fighter is down when any part of his body other than his feet is touching the canvas. That was the rule then and it's the rule now.

Look it up, mate.

A man on one knee is considered down. Fact.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 00:20

out of all the top ten contenders marciano faced, i felt cockell was the worst.

lastarza was washed up when he fought cockell. lastarza was never the same fighter after that 1953 beating he took from rocky which left permanent damge to him. just take a look at his record after 1953.

prime lastarza takes cockell to school

harry kid mathews was on the downcline when don cockell beat him

even still, cockell was a good fighter. I rate him a top 10 british heavyweight of all time.

most people dismiss cockell because he looks like a fat telatubee(which of course was due to his condition). but cockell was still in very good shape at 210lb. his condition made him look out of shape but in reality he wasnt. But despite being a fat 5'11 212lb, he was able to become a top heavyweight because he had remarkable handspeed and good boxing skills. cockell was also strong and was a very tough englishman. cockells handspeed and boxing skill to go along with his size make him one of the better british heavies of all time. he soundily outpointed a very good british heavy champ in johnny arthur.

cockell was the # 2 contender, but he only got his title shot vs marciano because weill wanted to test marcianos nose before he sent rocky in vs a dangerous fighter like moore or valdes. plus cockell was the british champ so he had drawing value and a high enough rating.

I think cockell could have been one of the best british light-H of all time had he not got his condition.

when he lost to turpin, the effects of his condition had already started kickcing in and he was badly weight drained for that fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 03:09

Decagon wrote:Being one of the 10 best British heavyweights of all time isn't too hard, I guess. Danny Williams'll probably be in someday.

ok ill give u that one

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 01 Mar 2006, 03:23

...and the bleat goes on. i'm not a marciano fan, but he fought the guys with the reputations and the ratings whom they put in front of him...and beat them....and that's really the only fact we have. it's all conjecture as to how good they were...and this actually started when he was still champion.

thanks, buster, for the charles quote. within it is a hint as to why he lost so badly to valdez....he listened to his corner too much. they thought when he fought big guys he should come in heavier himself..always a mistake. get him to far over 185 and he lost his snap. look at his weight difference in the two marciano fights...and the difference in his ability...marciano wsn't big but he was strong and they thought the extra weight would help ezzard in that department...plus add to his power. wrong on both counts.

back to corner advice stuff...he had walcott ready for a kayo in the seventh round of their first fight....but his corner had told him to be cautious throughout...and he backed off. (i'll add though that others in the charles camp thought it the baroudi syndrome coming into play.) walcott was still feeling the effects in the eighth..was very tired...but again..charles didn't go for the kayo.

archie a dive against patterson? foolish. archie just got outsped. like jack johnson, he'd just as soon have you believe he tanked it rather than gotten beat legit....strange kind of pride. he got smacked and hit the canvas hard....both feet flew out from under him.

archie taking the title from maxim.....a good example of the youthful archie....only 36!...and the speed he still had then. able to leap in on the clever maxim....extending from a crouch to upright. hey..this one is more that just historical interest....great to watch a great stylist beat a very good one. plus one of the many examples of referee harry kessler's mysterious bias against archie...i'm not referring to the points taken for the low blows....i'm talking about his scoring...archie by two points in a near shutout.

..oh dear..i feel like walcott in that seventh round i mentioned....is there any post in this thread i haven't commented on? rhetorical question...i don't really want to know.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 03:34

back to corner advice stuff...he had walcott ready for a kayo in the seventh round of their first fight....but his corner had told him to be cautious throughout...and he backed off. (i'll add though that others in the charles camp thought it the baroudi syndrome coming into play.) walcott was still feeling the effects in the eighth..was very tired...but again..charles didn't go for the kayo.

very interesting, too bad its not on film. i have only rounds 14 and 15 on film.

jaclem, do u believe charles lost his firepower or killer instinct after baroudi?

right after he the tragic baroudi fight, he knocked out elmer ray perhaps charles put it behind him. i once read baroudis family convinced charles to go on and charles called the baroudis all the time. ezz was such a classy guy.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 01 Mar 2006, 05:36

Ok...from most everyone's opinions...Marciano's opponents could be rated as this:

Joe Louis: Likened to George Foreman (1987-1997)

Ezzard Charles: All-Time great, a little slower, little older, came in heavier---but no doubt he gave Marciano a run for his money easy.

Walcott: Experience, skill, longetivity, as well as having a good punch, carried him over through the division---was first to knock down Marciano, was ahead on all cards---then the knock out. The rematch showed that Walcott seriously had nothing left---either it be rapid aging or a bruised ego, Walcott was never the same.

Don Cockell: Top Ten Heavyweight British Fighter of all time. Could have been a greater fighter hadn't it been not for his condition. Great brawler and good boxer and tough as nails.

Myself, with everyone's opinions, judging by those statements, and other details---how could you say Marciano fought over-the-hill guys, when all the comparisons and facts show that ALL these men were great and dangerous (?)