BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:we can only go by whats on film,


and walcotts best fights on film are louis I, marciano I and charles III


did walcott look over the hill in these fights? HELL NO

Since when does what's filmed matter to you? You've watched LaMotta/Cerdan, yet still insist that LaMotta
A- almost koed Cerdan in the first round(which is a laughable notion, completely discredited by viewing the footage)
B- Jake had only one usable hand(again, completely and totally untrue. A look at the footage shows LaMotta using both hands during the whole fight, while Cerdan uses one).

You ignore film and whatever other damaging evidence is thrown at you.

So, does anyone else think that Rocky Marciano shouldn't be "in the top 20 heavies"...

Since Rocky fought "weak opposition"...

Where do you boys place Walcott, Charles and Moore in the grand scheme of things...

poor Louis wasnt ready for this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofpq9ZVB ... h=marciano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKZr3wYO ... h=marciano

good clips here, I dont know how Cockell was still up when it ended!

People say Walcott was old when Marciano stopped him. But What's never mentioned is that Walcott fought the best fight of his life for 12 rounds in his first fight with Marciano. Regarding Walcott's age, Nat Fleischer, the founder of The Ring Magazine, said he became a better fighter in his mid to late thirties. Joe Louis also said the same thing. "The Brown Bomber" should know; Walcott was his sparring partner at one time and they fought twice. Why is it so easy for some to believe Lennox Lewis improved with age, but not Jersey Joe?



i think the walcott marciano faced was better than the 1954 ezzard charles, what does everyone else think?

Brock,
The reason is very simple,just be honest for once,rock was so bad,he really did make walcott look good,another round and a half and walcott would have won that fight,i watch that fight every so often,and walcott was so superior,at 37 years old no less.

tigerpomfret wrote:Brock,
The reason is very simple,just be honest for once,rock was so bad,he really did make walcott look good,another round and a half and walcott would have won that fight,i watch that fight every so often,and walcott was so superior,at 37 years old no less.

if he was so superior how come he lost?



do u not realize marciano lost 3 rounds due to blindness? it would have been a different fight if marciano werent blinded

I think the another important thing to mention wold be that many heavyweights were known to overlook their competion, thinking it would be an easy fight, it is very possible that many of the peole your say rocky would not have a chance against, could also beleive this, allowing a well trained rocky to suprise some people.

i wouldn't pick Rocky to beat many fighters in the top 10

but i guess anything COULD happen.....he could give Ali a tough fight like pressure fighter Doug Jones did, and knock him down like Henry Cooper did

it's all speculation and doesn't mean a thing

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:no way the walcott of 45-46 beats ezzard charles.


ezzard charles was by far better than anyone he faced in 1945-46 and a 1951-52 walcott BEAT charles!


once again, the elmer ray loss was not disputed. new york times scored it for elmer ray. was elmer ray in the class of ezzard charles or rocky marciano? answer me please



are u implying a 1946 walcott beats ezzard charles and rocky marciano?

Exactly, Ezzard Charles would have whupped Walcott anytime they fought, like he did before.....he completely outboxed Walcott. The fact the Walcott beat Charles shows that he fought Charles at the right time (ie. Charles was tired and losing his edge).

Do you know what disputed means? It means some people think he won, some people thought he lost. Thats what happened with his loses to Ray and Maxim. Ray was top 4 in the world from 1945 to 1947 and he was a class fighter and KO puncher. Walcott beat him in the return.

Walcott beat more top fighters in 1945-1947 than he did later. Louis was past it, and Charles was tired and on the decline.

For the record I am a big Marciano fan. He is one of the greatest heavyweights and a credit to boxing. He deserves credit for retiring undefeated and not coming back, like so many do.

BUT

He had his limitations and was lucky to be in the era he was. He mainly fought below-par oposition, was lucky to win in some fights and fought fighters at the end of their careers. He also didn't study the marquis of queensbury rules and would propbably have been disqualified if he were about today.

Exactly, Ezzard Charles would have whupped Walcott anytime they fought, like he did before.....he completely outboxed Walcott. The fact the Walcott beat Charles shows that he fought Charles at the right time (ie. Charles was tired and losing his edge).

then explain to me why after charles desisevley outpointed walcott, only 4 months later walcott knocked him out.

if u expect me to believe that wasnt the same charles walcott faced even though charles was only 4 months older than ur wrong my friend.


charles was not tired thats bullshit. he may have had to go a lot of rounds with people but they were EASY fights, hardly the gruelling wars that take the life out of you. also charles was in excellent shape so he could handle going 10-15 soft and easy rounds with the likes of nick barone, lee oma, freddie beshore joey maxim.


walcott beat the same ezzard charles that he lost too, walcott simply got better with age and fought much more aggresively which is why he won the 3rd fight.

He had his limitations and was lucky to be in the era he was

disagree

He mainly fought below-par oposition

old louis
jersey joe walcott
roland lastarza
ezzard charles
archie moore


sub par???

was lucky to win in some fights

the only close controversial fight he ever had was lastarza I and still there is no film and many think rocky won.


* lowry did not deserve to win the marciano fight, so stop spreading bullshit. i have talked to many about this fight, lowry just fought to survive.



but if u want to play that game then fine

ali was lucky to beat doug jones, jimmy young, ken norton

joe louis was lucky to beat walcott, godoy I, adolp wiater

joe frazier was lucky to beat bonavena

larry holmes was lucky to beat spoon, norton, williams,



etc etc etc

and fought fighters at the end of their careers.

look what fighters did BEFORE they fought marciano rather than after

i have a question for boxrec,


who was the best heavyweight rocky ever beat?



IMO no question the walcott of first marciano fight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Exactly, Ezzard Charles would have whupped Walcott anytime they fought, like he did before.....he completely outboxed Walcott. The fact the Walcott beat Charles shows that he fought Charles at the right time (ie. Charles was tired and losing his edge).

then explain to me why after charles desisevley outpointed walcott, only 4 months later walcott knocked him out.

if u expect me to believe that wasnt the same charles walcott faced even though charles was only 4 months older than ur wrong my friend.


charles was not tired thats bullshit. he may have had to go a lot of rounds with people but they were EASY fights, hardly the gruelling wars that take the life out of you. also charles was in excellent shape so he could handle going 10-15 soft and easy rounds with the likes of nick barone, lee oma, freddie beshore joey maxim.


walcott beat the same ezzard charles that he lost too, walcott simply got better with age and fought much more aggresively which is why he won the 3rd fight.

So you think Walcott was a better fighter than Charles? Of course not. Walcott was a stand-in opponent for Charles, who was thought to be an easy payday for the champ after completley outboxing Walcott twice before. Walcott had lost his last two fights when he got his title chance against Charles so he was harldy deserving.

Since losing to Charles four months before Walcott had not fought again. Charles on the other hand, had squeezed in a 15 round fight against Maxim, and by fighting Walcott was having his 7th fight in 11 months. By all accounts he didn't train as hard for the Walcott fight because it was meant to be a certain win. Walcott snatched the title with a great KO win.

Charles trained much harder for the rematch and was thought by many to be unlucky in losing the decision. This shows how much Charles had lost, in fact just 3 months later Charles would be outpointed by Layne, a fighter he stopped only a year previous.

Charles was by far a much better fighter than Walcott ever was, and on his day would not have lost to him. The fact he did says more for Charles' decline than Walcotts ability.

Decagon wrote:I really think that Walcott faced an unprepared Charles in their third fight, and got a lucky decision in the fourth. Charles was the better fighter.

Thank you, someone with some sense. Charles was tired and underprepared, brocktonblockbuster49 will never believe this because to do so would again highlight the fact that Marciano fought old or past it fighters.

Charles, on his day, was always a far better fighter than Walcott would ever be.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Exactly, Ezzard Charles would have whupped Walcott anytime they fought, like he did before.....he completely outboxed Walcott. The fact the Walcott beat Charles shows that he fought Charles at the right time (ie. Charles was tired and losing his edge).

then explain to me why after charles desisevley outpointed walcott, only 4 months later walcott knocked him out.

if u expect me to believe that wasnt the same charles walcott faced even though charles was only 4 months older than ur wrong my friend.


charles was not tired thats bullshit. he may have had to go a lot of rounds with people but they were EASY fights, hardly the gruelling wars that take the life out of you. also charles was in excellent shape so he could handle going 10-15 soft and easy rounds with the likes of nick barone, lee oma, freddie beshore joey maxim.


walcott beat the same ezzard charles that he lost too, walcott simply got better with age and fought much more aggresively which is why he won the 3rd fight.

Ok Brock ... time to relax and take a deep breath. When you get defensive you start spewing out falsehoods to back up your claims. Charles did not have easy fights against all of his challengers. Although he beat Jersey Joe decisively the first two times, they were still tough fights, as was his win over Maxim in '49 (an eliminator). He had a war with Pat Valentino and Nick Barone and took a terrible amount of punishment against Joe Louis even though he outpointed him easily. I'm not really sure about the second fight with Maxim, but it went 15 rounds so I'm sure he took some shots.

So from 2-28-1949 to 3-7-1951 he was 79 tough rounds with the likes of Maxim, Valentino, Barone, Louis, and Walcott. From 2-28-1949 to 5-30-1951 he had already competed in 125 rounds, an amazing amount. If you do research on brain damage and puglistica dementia, it is pretty much a rule of thumb that fighters with a career spanning more than 300 rounds are a lock for some sort of brain trauma. Charles fought nearly half that amount in only 15 months!!! He fought another 167 rounds from when he fought Walcott the third time to right before his challenge of Marciano, so that is a total of 292 rounds from 2-28-1949 to 1-13-1954, less than a 5 year span!!! He was definitely damaged by the time he fought Marciano and definitely worn out by the time he fought Walcott the third time.

Yeah, so what he fought Walcott four months prior and had a second fight with Maxim two months earlier, he was WORN OUT. He was one of the most active heavyweight champions ever, if not the most active, defending his title about every two months. Add the fact that he was training consistently without a break since he got out of the military and resumed his career in 1946 to when he fought Walcott for the third time and had so many tough fights inbetween and it makes my point stand out even more.

That span includes three fights with Archie Moore, two fights with Lloyd Marshall, three fights with Jimmy Bivins, two fights with Elmer Ray, two fights with Walcott, one with Joe Louis, and two wars with Pat Valentino and Nick Barone. I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but that was just from '46 to '51 when he lost to Walcott. Quite a resume.

As you can see, Charles was an "old" 29 when he lost the title. Same thing happens to all fighters who have a lot of tough fights. They age faster. It is a credit to his ability that he was able to come back and lose a disputed decision to Walcott in the fourth fight and give Marciano his toughest battle.

Fight that never happened that would have filled in some blanks here would have been Walcott-Moore. Archie likely wins that one my friends and along with the Harold Johnson outcomes shifts the Charles/Moore discussion into a different gear.

I liked Jersey Joe I really did but I think he had some good luck along the way. He was as unpredictable as his style would dictate. But he could have some bad nights, too many in my book to be considered better than Charles.

However that fight never happened.

BoxBuzz wrote:Fight that never happened that would have filled in some blanks here would have been Walcott-Moore. Archie likely wins that one my friends and along with the Harold Johnson outcomes shifts the Charles/Moore discussion into a different gear.

I liked Jersey Joe I really did but I think he had some good luck along the way. He was as unpredictable as his style would dictate. But he could have some bad nights, too many in my book to be considered better than Charles.

However that fight never happened.

Charles was still better than Moore. He was a better light heavyweight & heavyweight and he beat him three times. He also gave Marciano a hellacious fight while Moore got a battering. Moore struggled with Johnson a few times while Charles won the fight but got shafted by the judges.

Simply put, Charles was just in another class.

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Exactly, Ezzard Charles would have whupped Walcott anytime they fought, like he did before.....he completely outboxed Walcott. The fact the Walcott beat Charles shows that he fought Charles at the right time (ie. Charles was tired and losing his edge).

then explain to me why after charles desisevley outpointed walcott, only 4 months later walcott knocked him out.

if u expect me to believe that wasnt the same charles walcott faced even though charles was only 4 months older than ur wrong my friend.


charles was not tired thats bullshit. he may have had to go a lot of rounds with people but they were EASY fights, hardly the gruelling wars that take the life out of you. also charles was in excellent shape so he could handle going 10-15 soft and easy rounds with the likes of nick barone, lee oma, freddie beshore joey maxim.


walcott beat the same ezzard charles that he lost too, walcott simply got better with age and fought much more aggresively which is why he won the 3rd fight.

Ok Brock ... time to relax and take a deep breath. When you get defensive you start spewing out falsehoods to back up your claims. Charles did not have easy fights against all of his challengers. Although he beat Jersey Joe decisively the first two times, they were still tough fights, as was his win over Maxim in '49 (an eliminator). He had a war with Pat Valentino and Nick Barone and took a terrible amount of punishment against Joe Louis even though he outpointed him easily. I'm not really sure about the second fight with Maxim, but it went 15 rounds so I'm sure he took some shots.

So from 2-28-1949 to 3-7-1951 he was 79 tough rounds with the likes of Maxim, Valentino, Barone, Louis, and Walcott. From 2-28-1949 to 5-30-1951 he had already competed in 125 rounds, an amazing amount. If you do research on brain damage and puglistica dementia, it is pretty much a rule of thumb that fighters with a career spanning more than 300 rounds are a lock for some sort of brain trauma. Charles fought nearly half that amount in only 15 months!!! He fought another 167 rounds from when he fought Walcott the third time to right before his challenge of Marciano, so that is a total of 292 rounds from 2-28-1949 to 1-13-1954, less than a 5 year span!!! He was definitely damaged by the time he fought Marciano and definitely worn out by the time he fought Walcott the third time.

Yeah, so what he fought Walcott four months prior and had a second fight with Maxim two months earlier, he was WORN OUT. He was one of the most active heavyweight champions ever, if not the most active, defending his title about every two months. Add the fact that he was training consistently without a break since he got out of the military and resumed his career in 1946 to when he fought Walcott for the third time and had so many tough fights inbetween and it makes my point stand out even more.

That span includes three fights with Archie Moore, two fights with Lloyd Marshall, three fights with Jimmy Bivins, two fights with Elmer Ray, two fights with Walcott, one with Joe Louis, and two wars with Pat Valentino and Nick Barone. I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but that was just from '46 to '51 when he lost to Walcott. Quite a resume.

As you can see, Charles was an "old" 29 when he lost the title. Same thing happens to all fighters who have a lot of tough fights. They age faster. It is a credit to his ability that he was able to come back and lose a disputed decision to Walcott in the fourth fight and give Marciano his toughest battle.

My point exactly. Brocktonblockbuster49 doesn't realise how exhausting having that amount of bouts in such a short space would be. There is no way Walcott would have ordinarly beat Charles, Charles was worn out, and over-confident....he had boxed rings around Walcott twice before and Walcott was getting on in years and had lost his 2 previous fights....hardly someone to fear.

evndrbsn wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Fight that never happened that would have filled in some blanks here would have been Walcott-Moore. Archie likely wins that one my friends and along with the Harold Johnson outcomes shifts the Charles/Moore discussion into a different gear.

I liked Jersey Joe I really did but I think he had some good luck along the way. He was as unpredictable as his style would dictate. But he could have some bad nights, too many in my book to be considered better than Charles.

However that fight never happened.

Charles was still better than Moore. He was a better light heavyweight & heavyweight and he beat him three times. He also gave Marciano a hellacious fight while Moore got a battering. Moore struggled with Johnson a few times while Charles won the fight but got shafted by the judges.

Simply put, Charles was just in another class.

That aint neccassarily so.

BoxBuzz wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Fight that never happened that would have filled in some blanks here would have been Walcott-Moore. Archie likely wins that one my friends and along with the Harold Johnson outcomes shifts the Charles/Moore discussion into a different gear.

I liked Jersey Joe I really did but I think he had some good luck along the way. He was as unpredictable as his style would dictate. But he could have some bad nights, too many in my book to be considered better than Charles.

However that fight never happened.

Charles was still better than Moore. He was a better light heavyweight & heavyweight and he beat him three times. He also gave Marciano a hellacious fight while Moore got a battering. Moore struggled with Johnson a few times while Charles won the fight but got shafted by the judges.

Simply put, Charles was just in another class.

That aint neccassarily so.

But it might be.

controversial u know nothing of that era so please stop trying to make it look like u studied ezzard charles and jersey joe walcotts career. u are just making exuses for ezzard charles


u are only "guessing" that charles was tired and worn out. u have no evidence to back it up. controversial even goes as far to say layne beat charles, when every intelligent boxing fan knows that fight was a robbery.

if ur going to call charles tired, then call larry holmes, joe louis tired. so that means louis almost lost to conn because he was tired. holmes almost lost to witherspoon because he was tired.


if charles was so worn out and tired, then why did he outpoint walcott 4 months prior to getting flattened by walcott?

if charles was so tired, then why AFTER he lost to walcott did he knock out rex layne in one of his best preformances on film


i have studied the film of the 3rd fight , charles is the exact same fighter he was 4 months prior when he outpointed walcott.



i will post something grand later on walcottt charles fights. but let me inform you guys walcott did a lot better in the 3rd and 4th fights because he fought much more aggresive and let his hands go more. walcott got better with age


o, and i will post FACTS, not bullshit exuses like controversial does. controversial is all guesses "perhaps he was tired" "all those fights in that amount of time, hes definetley tired" "charles took him lightly" THOSE ARE ALL EXUSES. GO WATCH THE FILM.


charles the better fighter? DEFINTLEY

charles the better heavyweight? probably not


joe louis said walcott was better than charles





controversial the only reason why people are agreeing with you is because boxrec is an incredibly pro ezzard charles forum. its very bias. the posters who agreed with you don't know dipshit about the walcott-charles series, they simply agreed with u because they are ezzard fans. take decagon, he used to rate jersey joe walcott # 17 light-H of all time even though walcott never fought at 175lb(except when 18 ). so how can we take dec serioesly when it comes to jersey joe walcott?


i want to see some hard evidence that charles was tired or overconfident in the 3rd walcott fight. i want quotes, newspapers reports, historians opiniions, etc. you havnt proved one of ur ridiculous theories yet controversial

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial u know nothing of that era so please stop trying to make it look like u studied ezzard charles and jersey joe walcotts career. u are just making exuses for ezzard charles


u are only "guessing" that charles was tired and worn out. u have no evidence to back it up. controversial even goes as far to say layne beat charles, when every intelligent boxing fan knows that fight was a robbery.

if ur going to call charles tired, then call larry holmes, joe louis tired. so that means louis almost lost to conn because he was tired. holmes almost lost to witherspoon because he was tired.


if charles was so worn out and tired, then why did he outpoint walcott 4 months prior to getting flattened by walcott?

if charles was so tired, then why AFTER he lost to walcott did he knock out rex layne in one of his best preformances on film


i have studied the film of the 3rd fight , charles is the exact same fighter he was 4 months prior when he outpointed walcott.



i will post something grand later on walcottt charles fights. but let me inform you guys walcott did a lot better in the 3rd and 4th fights because he fought much more aggresive and let his hands go more. walcott got better with age


o, and i will post FACTS, not bullshit exuses like controversial does. controversial is all guesses "perhaps he was tired" "all those fights in that amount of time, hes definetley tired" "charles took him lightly" THOSE ARE ALL EXUSES. GO WATCH THE FILM.


charles the better fighter? DEFINTLEY

charles the better heavyweight? probably not


joe louis said walcott was better than charles





controversial the only reason why people are agreeing with you is because boxrec is an incredibly pro ezzard charles forum. its very bias. the posters who agreed with you don't know dipshit about the walcott-charles series, they simply agreed with u because they are ezzard fans. take decagon, he used to rate jersey joe walcott # 17 light-H of all time even though walcott never fought at 175lb(except when 18 ). so how can we take dec serioesly when it comes to jersey joe walcott?


i want to see some hard evidence that charles was tired or overconfident in the 3rd walcott fight. i want quotes, newspapers reports, historians opiniions, etc. you havnt proved one of ur ridiculous theories yet controversial

Why don't you just read what I wrote on the previous page for some pretty telling information? Maybe you don't agree with it but I can guarantee the 300 rounds bit is well supported; ie Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Bobby Chacon, etc etc.

He was definitely damaged by the time he fought Marciano and definitely worn out by the time he fought Walcott the third time.

funny how hes not damaged by the time he fought walcott the 2nd time, which was ONLY 4 months prior to walcott III

films dont lie, notice how in the 1st- 2nd fights, walcott is far more cautious and less aggresive than in the 3rd and 4th fights. thats a big reason why walcott did much better.

walcott was a great puncher, when he decided to stand and throw his fists (ala charles III marciano I) he was deadly.

evndrbsn wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

evndrbsn wrote: Charles was still better than Moore. He was a better light heavyweight & heavyweight and he beat him three times. He also gave Marciano a hellacious fight while Moore got a battering. Moore struggled with Johnson a few times while Charles won the fight but got shafted by the judges.

Simply put, Charles was just in another class.

That aint neccassarily so.

But it might be.

I get damn sick and tired of the Non Believers....

Amazing what a few bad nights with Floyd, The Rock and Ezzard can do to an otherwise sterling reputation.

KO power with both hands, one punch or grind you down KO's take your pick, a career that spanned the length of more than two typical careers, More accumulated KO's than three of most of these guys put together COMBINED with first class ring generalship. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet.

Floyd The Rock and Ezzard would have gotten NOWHERE without the kryptonite that Lex Luthor stuffed in their gloves....

Wait hold on.......damn I forgot my Meds....give me a few I'll be OK.