BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit stop avoiding this question
how many marciano fights have u seen? which ones?
I'm not reporting to you, mate - anyway, I've seen several Marciano fights, including against (old and slow) Louis, (old) Walcott, and (fatman) Cockell. Not (in full length) against (beyond peak) Charles and (old) Moore though.
u havnt seen his fights against (26 year old) roland lastarza, (23 year old 34-1) rex layne, or (29 year old undefeated past 9 years) harry kid mathews?
that old and slow louis your reffering to busted up 27 year old ezzard charles face badly in 1950 just 1 year prior to marciano fight. since then he won 8 in a row, 5 vs top 10 contenders
that old moore ur referring too beat 29 year old 6'3 210lb # 1 ranked nino valdes and 6'2 210lb 27 year old # 4 ranked bob baker
that old walcott ur referring too just beat ezzard charles twice in a row. the same ezzard charles who hadnt loss in 3 years and was heavyweight champion.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit stop avoiding this question
how many marciano fights have u seen? which ones?
I'm not reporting to you, mate - anyway, I've seen several Marciano fights, including against (old and slow) Louis, (old) Walcott, and (fatman) Cockell. Not (in full length) against (beyond peak) Charles and (old) Moore though.
u havnt seen his fights against (26 year old) roland lastarza, (23 year old 34-1) rex layne, or (29 year old undefeated past 9 years) harry kid mathews?
that old and slow louis your reffering to busted up 27 year old ezzard charles face badly in 1950 just 1 year prior to marciano fight. since then he won 8 in a row, 5 vs top 10 contenders
that old moore ur referring too beat 29 year old 6'3 210lb # 1 ranked nino valdes and 6'2 210lb 27 year old # 4 ranked bob baker
that old walcott ur referring too just beat ezzard charles twice in a row. the same ezzard charles who hadnt loss in 3 years and was heavyweight champion.
I've seen bits and pieces of the second LaStarza fight.
And Louis - come on. The Louis who was knocked out by Marciano was a shadow of the fighter of the late 30s and early 40s. Like Ali, Louis career was interrupted (due to military service) and after the break never quite reached the previous incredible high. And by 1951 he was well beyond it. You don't want to tell me that the 1951 Louis had more than a faint resemblance to the 1938 Louis.
I've seen bits and pieces of the second LaStarza fight.
And Louis - come on. The Louis who was knocked out by Marciano was a shadow of the fighter of the late 30s and early 40s. Like Ali, Louis career was interrupted (due to military service) and after the break never quite reached the previous incredible high. And by 1951 he was well beyond it. You don't want to tell me that the 1951 Louis had more than a faint resemblance to the 1938 Louis.
here are traits louis had in 1951
size- 6'2 215lb
ring experience- he had a solid 17 years of ring experience on his side. he knew the tricks of the trade
solid boxing skills- louis always had great boxing skills and he retained them later on. louis shutout good boxers in 50-51
jab- louis had the best jab in the heavyweight division of marcianos era. it was a weapon of mass destruction
power- louis still had power left, especially in his left hook. he knocked out lee savold(very durable) with 1 punch. louis was very heavy handed
some speed/reflexes left- louis still had good handspeed for any heavyweight even though his speed was nowhere near that of 1938. his reflexes were gone, but good enough to help make him a # 1 contender
- i would still pick a 1951 joe louis over a eddie machen or zora folley. a 1951 joe louis knocked out pundits boy nino valdes in an exihibition.
FACT- only ATGs like marciano and charles were able to defeat a comeback louis
do the logic, a peak louis is the greatest heavyweight of all time. so even a far past his prime louis is still a very good fighter
Decagon wrote:Ezzard Charles wasn't a great fighter in 1954. He gave a great effort, though. Really, Marciano was the type of fighter who made guys look good because of his weaknesses.
i disagree, ezzard charles had only dropped one "official loss" since walcott in 52. the valdes loss was a complete fluke, ala douglas-tyson.
throw out the johnson and layne robberies
- that would beat since losing controversially to walcott in 52, charles went 13-1 with one fluke loss to nino valdes.
entering the marciano fight, charles was coming off a spectacular one punch KO victory over bob satterfield and a knockout win over # 10 rated by ring magaine the big powerful underated colley wallace(looks good on film) in a spectacular preformance by charles.
papers and film confirm charles made one of the best showings of his career vs marciano, and that he fought better than he had in a couple years WHICH MAKES THE MARCIANO VICTORY OVER CHARLES RANK AS HIGH AS A VICTORY OVER A 51 CHARLES. charles even showed up a very trim 185lb for the match. only 4lb above 181lb which he weighed in 1949 when he beat walcott.
marciano beat a great fighter on june 17 1954, a man named ezzard charles who would have toppled many other champs on that night.
too bad we dont have the early rounds(except 1 and 4) of marciano-charles I, they are charles best rounds.
Decagon wrote:Ezzard Charles wasn't a great fighter in 1954. He gave a great effort, though. Really, Marciano was the type of fighter who made guys look good because of his weaknesses.
i disagree, ezzard charles had only dropped one "official loss" since walcott in 52. the valdes loss was a complete fluke, ala douglas-tyson.
throw out the johnson and layne robberies
- that would beat since losing controversially to walcott in 52, charles went 13-1 with one fluke loss to nino valdes.
entering the marciano fight, charles was coming off a spectacular one punch KO victory over bob satterfield and a knockout win over # 10 rated by ring magaine the big powerful underated colley wallace(looks good on film) in a spectacular preformance by charles.
papers and film confirm charles made one of the best showings of his career vs marciano, and that he fought better than he had in a couple years WHICH MAKES THE MARCIANO VICTORY OVER CHARLES RANK AS HIGH AS A VICTORY OVER A 51 CHARLES. charles even showed up a very trim 185lb for the match. only 4lb above 181lb which he weighed in 1949 when he beat walcott.
marciano beat a great fighter on june 17 1954, a man named ezzard charles who would have toppled many other champs on that night.
too bad we dont have the early rounds(except 1 and 4) of marciano-charles I, they are charles best rounds.
The weight of Charles means nothing. So what if he weighed only 4 pounds more when he fought Marciano the first time than when he beat Walcott in 1949. A totally shot Evander Holyfield weighed 215 1/2 against Larry Donald in his last fight; he was 215 against Tyson the first time around in 1996 and 217 in the rematch with Bowe in 1993. Does this mean that Holyfield wasn't shot against Donald? NO! The weight only means he trained hard and was in the best shape POSSIBLE. Same with Charles. Not that he was still as good or nearly as good as he was in '49.
charles defintley was not as good was 49, im not argueing that. i think a 49 charles vs a peak rocky would be a very interesting fight, and i can see charles taking one from rock in a 2 fight series
people dont realize the mental aspect of the game. charles realized this was his last chance, as he put it "this is a chance of a lifetime." so he trained harder than he had in years and got the motivation and confidence like he had when he was champion. all these are big factors in a game. when im confident and motivated i wrestle so much better, its the same with boxing. this was charles chance to prove all the boxing world who had been hating on him for years that he was a great fighter and true warrior. so charles trained hard and friends called him the "new ezzard charles." of course the papers didnt buy this calling the "new" charles just a fighter who is merely over the hill phyically. well in the marciano fight, charles proved he was more than that. he showed even with his declined physical abilities, he could give ATG marciano the toughest gruelling fight of his career. charles proved all the papers wrong. he earned more respect in this loss than any victory in his entire career. something kept charles on his feet that night, perhaps it was charles innerself who refused to let him fall. or perhaps it was an outterspirit. because 99/100 times, the 1954 charles gets knocked out by marciano. however this was that 1 time when charles laid everything on the line and showed he was a true warrior in every aspect of the game. how charles stayed on his feet that night we will never know. this fight certainly ruined charles, he aged dramatically afterward. if u take a look at his face after marciano, u can see why. marciano had that style to ruin fighters, he made a career out of ruining fighters.
the newspapers reported charles made one of the best showings of his career.now why would they say this? to praise marciano? i dont think so because the papers werent that high on marciano anyway. charles had to have fought the fight many newspapers think he fought. fact is charles best work was the early rounds and i have only rounds 1 and 4 of the early rounds, rounds were charles looks great and is up on his toes moving counterpunching, demonstrating great skill, etc. nwe dont have rounds 2, 3, 5, 7 some of charles best rounds to really judge his preformance on, so perhaps we should take the newspapers opinion more seriosely considering we dont have the full fight on tape. then if u go watch the later rounds 10 and 15, charles is no longer on his toes, hes slower, etc. why? well look at his face, he has taken a horrible beating and he is worn down. yet heart, and courage he never showed before kicked in and he managed to survive the fight on his feet. even in the 15th at one point the old charles shows up and he fires a fast 6 punch combination with everything he has left. however nothing is stopping the italian tank. you know people talk of charles declined abiltietes but in the early rounds(of which are on tape) charles shows me very good reflexes and speed, not what they once were, but still very good. he was in excellent shape.
a bunch of reporters were once belittlnig marciano making jokes at how crude he was and ezzard charles said to them "you know something, marcianos a lot better than you people think." i always remembered this, charles did not have to go out of his way to say this, but he did.
I've seen bits and pieces of the second LaStarza fight.
And Louis - come on. The Louis who was knocked out by Marciano was a shadow of the fighter of the late 30s and early 40s. Like Ali, Louis career was interrupted (due to military service) and after the break never quite reached the previous incredible high. And by 1951 he was well beyond it. You don't want to tell me that the 1951 Louis had more than a faint resemblance to the 1938 Louis.
here are traits louis had in 1951
size- 6'2 215lb
ring experience- he had a solid 17 years of ring experience on his side. he knew the tricks of the trade
solid boxing skills- louis always had great boxing skills and he retained them later on. louis shutout good boxers in 50-51
jab- louis had the best jab in the heavyweight division of marcianos era. it was a weapon of mass destruction
power- louis still had power left, especially in his left hook. he knocked out lee savold(very durable) with 1 punch. louis was very heavy handed
some speed/reflexes left- louis still had good handspeed for any heavyweight even though his speed was nowhere near that of 1938. his reflexes were gone, but good enough to help make him a # 1 contender
- i would still pick a 1951 joe louis over a eddie machen or zora folley. a 1951 joe louis knocked out pundits boy nino valdes in an exihibition.
FACT- only ATGs like marciano and charles were able to defeat a comeback louis
do the logic, a peak louis is the greatest heavyweight of all time. so even a far past his prime louis is still a very good fighter
Brockton: sometimes I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Of course even an old Louis, an old Walcott, an old Moore were formidable fighters. Of course Charles could give a good fight two, three years after his peak. You don't need to convince me of that. The question though is whether beating these fighters suffices to place Marciano with the best in the history of the sport; and here I can't quite get round to your view.
Last edited by pundit on 21 Apr 2006, 10:54, edited 1 time in total.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
the newspapers reported charles made one of the best showings of his career.now why would they say this? to praise marciano? i dont think so because the papers werent that high on marciano anyway. charles had to have fought the fight many newspapers think he fought. fact is charles best work was the early rounds and i have only rounds 1 and 4 of the early rounds, rounds were charles looks great and is up on his toes moving counterpunching, demonstrating great skill, etc. nwe dont have rounds 2, 3, 5, 7 some of charles best rounds to really judge his preformance on, so perhaps we should take the newspapers opinion more seriosely considering we dont have the full fight on tape. then if u go watch the later rounds 10 and 15, charles is no longer on his toes, hes slower, etc. why? well look at his face, he has taken a horrible beating and he is worn down. yet heart, and courage he never showed before kicked in and he managed to survive the fight on his feet. even in the 15th at one point the old charles shows up and he fires a fast 6 punch combination with everything he has left. however nothing is stopping the italian tank. you know people talk of charles declined abiltietes but in the early rounds(of which are on tape) charles shows me very good reflexes and speed, not what they once were, but still very good. he was in excellent shape.
a bunch of reporters were once belittlnig marciano making jokes at how crude he was and ezzard charles said to them "you know something, marcianos a lot better than you people think." i always remembered this, charles did not have to go out of his way to say this, but he did.
The press were overly hard on Ezzard Charles before he fought Marciano. They labeled him as boring and unwilling to take chances; a safety-first and cautious fighter. Charles didn't do anything against Marciano he hadn't done in other fights, he just showed the press that he had a warrior's heart and was willing to go to hell to come out on top. The press often confuses "career-best" performances with really, really gutsy performances.
