BILLY CONN VS EZZARD CHARLAS, JOE WALCOTT AND ROCKY MARCIANO

[Kalan]

No, 1951 there was no decline .... After the freak loss by kayo to JJW he easily dispatched of Rex Layne, Joey Maxim and Joe Kahut. Then he was FLAT OUT ROBBED against JJW in their 5th and final meeting. 21 reporters at ringside saw Charles winning, 18 had JJW winning, and 2 thought it was a draw .... No, 1952 is the decline year for Ezzard Charles.

It wasn't a freak KO loss to Walcott... Charles got hammered the entire fight and was well behind... He was having a "bad" day where he didn't feel good.. Charles and Walcott only fought 4 times I believe.. Being how Charles dominated a younger Walcott in his 2 earlier wins -- the fact 18 reporters thought (almost half) thought Walcott won shows that the fight was close enough to go either way depending on the selection of judges... Charles didn't dominate.

I really don't care about Rex Layne, Joey Maxim, and Joe Kahut. I don't see them as elite boxers. They were easy to hit and Charles with 50% of his skills and physicality should destroy them.... I would say the same thing about Nino Valdes. Very easy to hit which Moore proved -- and Ezzard should have been able to beat him every round by a wide margin.

The loss to Light Heavyweight Harold Johnson was a good fight for Charles... Charles knew Moore was beating Johnson with regularity... Ezzard was able to best prime Moore every time, and he wanted to beat Johnson very badly.. When the final bell rang he left it too close again.. More frustration, but Charles managed to clock the super chinny Satterfield.

I'm not big on Marciano like you are... I saw a small, short, light, stubby armed, awkward swinger who was wide open for counter punches... Rocky had heart and desire... He would absorb all the punches those little Light Heavyweights threw, and then run them over... He was able to do that to a badly diminished Charles.

Charles never gave up til the bitter end... He started losing much more than he won but refused to quit.. His last win was over Dave Ashley in a High School gym... Ashley lost 11 of his previous 12 fights while getting knocked out 8 times... Charles finally got him out in the 9th round after a monster effort... It was the last time he'd have his hand raised in victory.

[Ambling Alp II]

ALS is a rapid disease. Not a slow one. I'm tired of the lies that Ezzard Charles had ALS for over two decades. That's absolutely garbage.

Scott LeDoux had ALS, and died within three years after the diagnosis (diagnosed in 2008, died in 2011).

Charles stopped boxing in 1959, and was diagnosed with ALS in 1968, and died in 1975. Charles only started to decline in the year 1952, but was still the top contender all the way through 1955, and from that point on he severely declined as a boxer losing 13 times after the Marciano fights, only winning 10.

That is TOTAL BULLCRAP Henry .... Stephen Hawking was diagnosed with ALS before Charles was diagnosed.. Hawking can't move an eyeball anymore, but I believe he's still alive... Some people live very long with the disease... Some only a few years... It's a very aggressive disease with some people -- but it creeps along almost as slow as aging with others.

Charles didn't start declining in 1952... He started declining in 1951... Very slow at first, he'd have good and bad days... He lost to Liight Heavyweight Harold Johnson and to slow Heavyweight Nino Valdes in 1953... So after that I think he was more diminished than he was when Walcott knocked him out... He could still win a few fights ... but he kept getting worse,

Editor's note - Stephen Hawking died on March 14. It was pretty big news. Literally anyone who doesn't spend their entire waking life on the Boxrec Boxing History Website would know this.

We rejoin your regularly scheduled BS.

[BoxBuzz]

This is accurate.

[HomicideHenry]

It doesn't matter if you don't consider Rex Layne to be anything or not. It doesn't matter if you COMPLETELY dismiss Nino Valdes. They were top ten to top five Heavyweights at that time. Same with Bob Satterfield.

Other than Valdes, the point being is that Charles was beating them or being robbed on the scorecards. He didn't start dipping in any way shape or form until 1952 but was still the most feared man in the division until the end of 1955.

Robbed in the 5th Walcott fight.
Robbed blind in the Rex Layne fight.
Robbed in the Harold Johnson fight.

Period. He was better than the record shows at that time, even IF he was slipping. I know you HATE the 50s Heavyweight division and Marciano in general, but you need to look at CONTEXT and SUBTEXT of everything.

I'll get back to Layne, Satterfield, and Valdes later. Hell, even Kahut.

[Kalan]

ALS is a rapid disease. Not a slow one. I'm tired of the lies that Ezzard Charles had ALS for over two decades. That's absolutely garbage.

Scott LeDoux had ALS, and died within three years after the diagnosis (diagnosed in 2008, died in 2011).

Charles stopped boxing in 1959, and was diagnosed with ALS in 1968, and died in 1975. Charles only started to decline in the year 1952, but was still the top contender all the way through 1955, and from that point on he severely declined as a boxer losing 13 times after the Marciano fights, only winning 10.

That is TOTAL BULLCRAP Henry .... Stephen Hawking was diagnosed with ALS before Charles was diagnosed.. Hawking can't move an eyeball anymore, but I believe he's still alive... Some people live very long with the disease... Some only a few years... It's a very aggressive disease with some people -- but it creeps along almost as slow as aging with others.

Charles didn't start declining in 1952... He started declining in 1951... Very slow at first, he'd have good and bad days... He lost to Liight Heavyweight Harold Johnson and to slow Heavyweight Nino Valdes in 1953... So after that I think he was more diminished than he was when Walcott knocked him out... He could still win a few fights ... but he kept getting worse,

Editor's note - Stephen Hawking died on March 14. It was pretty big news. Literally anyone who doesn't spend their entire waking life on the Boxrec Boxing History Website would know this.

We rejoin your regularly scheduled BS.

You're the guy with BS up the ying yang... It wasn't big news because he was in poor health for a long time.. I always thought he was full of crap as did many in the scientific community, claiming there were multiple universes and other bs.... I knew he had ALS and was damned near a vegetable and whether he's here or gone makes little difference.

[HomicideHenry]

Umm.... It was big news.... It was all over every single social media platform and every major news syndicate around the world.

[Kalan]

It was not big news particularly... You didn't mention it... I heard about it, but it didn't register because I don't pay any attention to him except I remembered he had ALS forever and ever.

[HomicideHenry]

Rex Layne, from 1949 to 1951 prior to facing Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles, had a record of 34-1-2 (24) with wins over Jersey Joe Walcott, Bob Satterfield, Joe Kahut, Turkey Thompson, and Cesar Brion. Is it any wonder he was a 9-5 favorite over Marciano, considering the only "name" opponent Rocky faced until that time was Roland LaStarza and that itself was a controversial decision.

Unfortunately for Layne he was stopped. Some people thought it was a fluke, so he faces Ezzard Charles and loses by TKO in the 11th round. From 1952 onwards he went 16-14-1, losing to contenders Earl Walls and Bob Baker along the way. It can be said that his exposure was a bit like Wladimir Klitschko's following Corrie Sanders, but unlike Wladimir he never improved.

Bob Satterfield, certainly was one of the most inconsistent fighters of all time. He was either knocking guys out or he was getting knocked out. Among his victims at Heavyweight, though, were: Tommy Gomez, Lee Oma, Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, and Nino Valdes. Considering he was able to blow away Baker and Valdes, most still wonder if Marciano could have withstood his onslaught. Unfortunately, Satterfield as soon as he'd be going great, would go to rock bottom almost instantly. Kinda like Hasim Rahman.

Nino Valdes, at 6'3" and 215 pounds, was pretty sizeable for the era and pretty solid in skills and worth. Tommy Jackson, Heinz Neuhaus, James J. Parker, Ezzard Charles, Don Cockell, Joe Erskine, Mike DeJohn, Brian London, Dan Hodge, all lost to Valdes. No wonder Archie Moore became an unavoidable contender for Marciano, because he beat Valdes twice. His losses to Bob Baker kept him out of the running for the #1 spot.

[Kalan]

Rex Layne, from 1949 to 1951 prior to facing Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles, had a record of 34-1-2 (24) with wins over Jersey Joe Walcott, Bob Satterfield, Joe Kahut, Turkey Thompson, and Cesar Brion. Is it any wonder he was a 9-5 favorite over Marciano, considering the only "name" opponent Rocky faced until that time was Roland LaStarza and that itself was a controversial decision.

Unfortunately for Layne he was stopped. Some people thought it was a fluke, so he faces Ezzard Charles and loses by TKO in the 11th round. From 1952 onwards he went 16-14-1, losing to contenders Earl Walls and Bob Baker along the way. It can be said that his exposure was a bit like Wladimir Klitschko's following Corrie Sanders, but unlike Wladimir he never improved.

Bob Satterfield, certainly was one of the most inconsistent fighters of all time. He was either knocking guys out or he was getting knocked out. Among his victims at Heavyweight, though, were: Tommy Gomez, Lee Oma, Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, and Nino Valdes. Considering he was able to blow away Baker and Valdes, most still wonder if Marciano could have withstood his onslaught. Unfortunately, Satterfield as soon as he'd be going great, would go to rock bottom almost instantly. Kinda like Hasim Rahman.

Nino Valdes, at 6'3" and 215 pounds, was pretty sizeable for the era and pretty solid in skills and worth. Tommy Jackson, Heinz Neuhaus, James J. Parker, Ezzard Charles, Don Cockell, Joe Erskine, Mike DeJohn, Brian London, Dan Hodge, all lost to Valdes. No wonder Archie Moore became an unavoidable contender for Marciano, because he beat Valdes twice. His losses to Bob Baker kept him out of the running for the #1 spot.

Layne was obviously tough and could hit... His skills weren't that impressive...

Valdes was big but not strong. Liston's eye was closed by a thumb -- but not to worry, he wiped out Valdes like a sneeze in a hurricane... Bob Satterfield was outweighed worse than Patterson against Liston, but managed to out-slug Valdes, boss him for 10 and outpoint him - it gets a little rich when a slugger out-slicks you.. Charles was gone when he lost to Valdes.. With the reflexes, balance, speed, and driving power he had in 1949 ... Ezzard would have clobbered Valdes...

[HomicideHenry]

He obviously couldn't have been "gone" Because of the Valdes loss. He still was kicking ass and nearly regained the title (the nose cut). It's "easy" to say that had it been the 1949 version that he'd of won. Based on what? Him beating Lee Oma? Pat Valentino? The shell of Joe Louis? The fact that JJW was beaten trice when the fact is back in 1947 he was considered just another "Bum of the Month Club" member? Charles was underrated as a Heavyweight, yes, but I don't know if even the 1949 version could have beaten Rocky Marciano (who beat Charles 9 rounds to 5 in the first bout).

[Kalan]

Yeah, but whose asses was he kicking??? .... That's the question.

The 1949 version of Charles was working on a very long winning streak that went from '43 to '51 and 40 fights... ALL the newspapers said he won the Elmer Ray fight... Charles was rocking and rolling at that time.... Moore, Marshall, Bivins, Walcott - multiple wins over each guy... Ez had it going.

You'll tell me that Rocky won 49 straight... But Charles beat those guys when they were younger and at their best... and he was looking sharper and faster beating them... Whatever happened to him it was definitely a different Charles.

[HomicideHenry]

Of course he was a different guy. He was a shade or two slower. After 70+ fights you'd expect that to happen, especially at such a high level for such a long period of time. He maintained the majority of the skills and speed, though. Sorta like Ali in 1970 maintained the majority of speed and skills to defeat Quarry and Bonavena before losing to Frazier. Not the same, sure, but 85-90% the same as he was.

[Kalan]

Ali didn't fall off 10% at 28... He hadn't taken punishment and he hadn't had the competition that Charles had to that point beyond LHW Doug Jones... Liston was inactive, aging, and injured in their 1st fight. Their rematch was a farce.

Ali was more mature and stronger for the emotionally troubled Quarry... At 28 Ali retained all his speed. Bonavena was a small, clumsy, club-footed opponent who was easy to hit, no biggie. The Frazier fight was Ali's first major test against a guy who had the punch resistance and the weapon to beat him. The left hook which Ali had demonstrated was his Achilles’ Heel thudded into his head throughout. Frazier was wide open enough and small enough. Ali lacked the punching power to smash Joe into the canvas. Ali got run over by Frazier so you wonder what a young Mike Tyson would have done for him.

Ali didn’t have the multiple fights with Moore, Walcott, Bivins, and Marshall (who were peers of Charles, a natural Light Heavyweight) for his first 80 fights. With how often Charles fought he already had a lifetime of warring by the time he was 29. Ali was pretty fresh at that point. Frazier was his first physical drubbing at 29.

[HomicideHenry]

It must be noted that after the Marciano fights, Ezzard Charles started gunning for Archie Moore. Fortunately or unfortunately for him, he never got that match with the Ole Mongoose.

[Kalan]

Well that's interesting... Charles had a very sharp, downward arching overhand right that he could shorten or lengthen to catch guys like Burley who were super adept at slipping punches...

Moore had the cross-armed defense and would duck under taller fighters' rights like Frazier and come up with the left hook. Charles nailed him increasingly with the right throughout their 3 fights until he finally knocked him out... The right would slam into Moore's left temple and Charles would immediately follow with a smashing left hook to the chin, ear or temple. Charles flat out beat a prime Archie Moore into the canvas.

Moore was several years older than Charles, but he aged much better... His reflexes and speed were closer to his best days than was the case with Charles, who was deteriorating at a rapid pace... It would be interesting to see if Moore could have turned the tables on Charles like Walcott was able to do at age 37... Fighting a guy who you already beat 2 or 3 times can perk you up emotionally.. That's a fight you love because you already know how to beat him.

Charles had Walcott's number, but fell through his ass in their 3rd fight ... Charles-Moore 4 would be interesting.