BoxRec

I would like everyone to respond to this please






charles was defintley not shot for the first fight. that fight was a symbol in charles career. the symbol of respect. throughout his career charles did not get the respect he deserved. charles in 53 showed up out of shape overconfident against the uninmpressive record of nino valdez. what happened? nino showed he was better than his record and took the ill prepared lack of determined charles and charles, suprised by nino outjabbing him lost the decision. Then, charles in his next fight takes on HOF harold johnson at his peak losing a close decision in a competitive fight. CHarles career seems to be going nowhere now. NOt since rex laayne I had charles had looked like his old self. Then in anticipation to get that one more title shot, charles impressively knocks out top 10 contenders colley wallace and bob satterfield. Now charles at 32, gets a shot at the title vs 30 year old rocky.

Well suddenly heres charles chance! his chance to earn the respect he never got. So, charles trained like he hadnt trained in years and got his motivation and confidence back to where it hadnt been since he was heavyweigt champion. ezz's friends were calling him the "new charles". He showed up to that fight at a trim ready 184lb. Charles eanred his true resppect by putting on one of the most gruelling heavyweight fights of all time! non stop 15 rounds the punched eachother. Charles looked INCREDIBLE from wat i read in early rounds and showed incredible speed, and inside and outside fighting skills. rocky was a little ring rusty but finally got started and totally wore charles who slowed down NOT BECUASE OF AGE but because of a hard punch to adams appple. marciano took over and won a clear decision. After, reporters loomed after how well charles looked. charles never showed that kind of heart, toughness, stamina before in his career. It was clear charles had more than winning on his mind. HE WANTED RESPECT! he was willing to take that beating in the late rounds and somehow stay on his feet to earn his respect and prove he was a warrior. A great force kept charles from going down late in that fight.

nat flesicher reported "no fighter in the world could have lasted 15 rounds wit ezzard charles that night, let alone with the decision."

Charles peak was at 175 in 1946-1948. Charles then seemed to decline after rex layne I. however, at 32 years of age, he had his last hurrah and got himself in best possible form at 32 and fought a hell of a fight. so though charles was not in his prime for the marciano fight, he was was a still very dangerous contender(at least the 1st fight) and marciano beat a very good version of charles in that 1st fight.



watch the 2nd fight, charles comes in 8lbs heavier and looks aged and shopworn. its clear he was not the same fighter of 2 months ago and hadnt recovered. ringsiders reporteed that charles looked slower and worse than his magnificant 1st fight.



i recentley studied and watched louis-charles I in 1950 when charles was 27. silkov said how younger charles could have danced outside the whole fight. well, i didnt see charles dance or fight on the outside of this fight that much. the whole fight, charles moslty fought a brilliant fight on the inside, and stood there beating louis to the punch.

fact is any verison of charles would have to fight rocky on the inside because rocky was too good at cutting off the ring, and would put too much pressure on ezzard.so IMO if any version of charles could beat rocky, it would be the 1948 175lb peak charles who was very special.


so its safe to say the 54 charles of the first marciano fight WAS NOT the same charles who recently lost to nino valdes and johnson.










So though I will say charles was past his prime, I am afraid its undeniable moore and walcott were in there prime. in walcotts case YES, his peak was joe louis I fight. HOWEVER, ur prime does not last one fight. YOUR PRIME is a span of your best years. walcotts best years and best preformances were 1947-52 and if I am sure you will not disagree with me. I also have many articles, newspapers, and historians stating walcott fought one of his best or his best fight againt marciano. It is a well known fact walcott did not even reach his best until the age of 33. he was a late bloomer who could have been better when he was younger if he been training with blackburn and had food on the table. In walcotts prior to fights before rocky, he twice beat hall of famer ezzard charles. One of the reasons walcott did better against charles and did so well against rocky is he became more AGGRESIVE. walcott packed a very hard punch in both hands, but often he would just run around doing cute slick moves rather and its what cost him his fight with louis. Well walcott started to take initiation more late in his career, so he started finding himself more knockout wins. Watch how aggresive walcott is in the 4th charle fight and marciano I, he was also a little bit stronger as well. so IMO walcotts prime lasted 1947-52. Though i thought his absolute peak was the louis fights, its clear he was at or near his best in the charles and marciano fights.

my grandad whos 97 and a former boxing writer said walcott's best fight was against louis, but if he had to pick his next best fights it would be marciano I or charles III. He told me though walcott was old, he got better with age and was at his best when he fought marciano. He told me the papers veiwed walcott as past his best when young upstart rex layne upset him, but that walcott proved them wrong by beating charles and giving marciano a hell of a fight. He said most ringsiders veiwed his preformance agaisnt the rock as one of his best.

why did walcott retire?? well let me ask u did he retire after the first marciano fight?? NO. they fought a rematch, and it was clear the last fight had taken everything out of him and that his age had finally caught up to him. he got knocked out quick in a incredible lackluster preformacne and he knew he didnt have it anymore and had to retire. once again, he retired after the 2nd fight, not the 1st fight.

would the walcott of 47 beat rocky?? possibly. but i think the 54 marciano matches up against walcott better than 52 slugger marciano. and i might add losing to the 47 walcott is no joke, whom i nearly rate in top 10 head to head.

and if walcott had beaten rocky in the first fight, would he have retired?? NO WAY!

max kellerman, a decent knolwedgable but clueless at time guy who studied tapes of a lot of fighters and isnt a big fan of rock and very unbia about marciano. kellerman said '"louis was shot vs marciano, charles was past his prime. but walcott was in his prime and moore was very legite contender into his 40s."


now moving on to moore, this was a man who had the longest prime of all time. I didnt notice signs of aging myself until after 1956. IMO his prime started around 1947 when he became a fully fledged light-H until after 1956 when he had a lackluster preformance vs patterson and then struggled outpointin bert whitehurst and howard king and had his near knockout loss to yvon durelle. But I watched moore on tape, and he looked to me at or near his best vs marciano. against marciano he was at the tail end of his prime but certainly in it.



Moore in his last 45 fights before fighting rocky was 45-1! Moore was coming off a knockout win over HOF harold johnson. you say he struggled with johnson unlike early 50s. Well i say to that harold johnson was still a little green and when moore foguht him the last time, johnson was at his peak which is why he gave moore such a tough fight. Moore right before marciano soundly outboxed nino valdez and knocked out top contender bob baker. Moore also entering the marciano fight was coming off a early KO win over bobo olsen, a preformance many consider his finest! Moore fought a hell of a fight vs rocky, and showed very quick reflexes, incredible defense, boxing skills, and power as well. Moore simply got worn out by marcianos punches which he admitted after the fight. rocky fought a great fight vs moore, his most polished preformance jaclem once said. as for moore, it was clear he was not past his best as u look at who he beat coming into the marciano fight. Some historians veiw moores preformance vs rocky as one of the best defensive preformances of all time! Also, right after marciano fight, archie went on to be light-H champ for the next 6 years and top 10 hevayweight contender for the rest of his career!



for those that say no one is in his prime at 40, my response is well archie moore was a freak of nature and he is the one exception. there are exceptions in life, and in boxing this is the one exception. there is no other archie moore, archie was a true freak of nature.




I tried to be as persuasive and UNBIAS as possible. So i hope you recieved the facts accordingly and did not feel unintelligent bias veiws were showed.





Finally, for thosse of you that will never believe marciano beat walcott, moore at or near there best, then u have to admit they were still very legit dangersous fighters.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I would like everyone to respond to this please






charles was defintley not shot for the first fight. that fight was a symbol in charles career. the symbol of respect. throughout his career charles did not get the respect he deserved. charles in 53 showed up out of shape overconfident against the uninmpressive record of nino valdez. what happened? nino showed he was better than his record and took the ill prepared lack of determined charles and charles, suprised by nino outjabbing him lost the decision. Then, charles in his next fight takes on HOF harold johnson at his peak losing a close decision in a competitive fight. CHarles career seems to be going nowhere now. NOt since rex laayne I had charles had looked like his old self. Then in anticipation to get that one more title shot, charles impressively knocks out top 10 contenders colley wallace and bob satterfield. Now charles at 32, gets a shot at the title vs 30 year old rocky.

Well suddenly heres charles chance! his chance to earn the respect he never got. So, charles trained like he hadnt trained in years and got his motivation and confidence back to where it hadnt been since he was heavyweigt champion. ezz's friends were calling him the "new charles". He showed up to that fight at a trim ready 184lb. Charles eanred his true resppect by putting on one of the most gruelling heavyweight fights of all time! non stop 15 rounds the punched eachother. Charles looked INCREDIBLE from wat i read in early rounds and showed incredible speed, and inside and outside fighting skills. rocky was a little ring rusty but finally got started and totally wore charles who slowed down NOT BECUASE OF AGE but because of a hard punch to adams appple. marciano took over and won a clear decision. After, reporters loomed after how well charles looked. charles never showed that kind of heart, toughness, stamina before in his career. It was clear charles had more than winning on his mind. HE WANTED RESPECT! he was willing to take that beating in the late rounds and somehow stay on his feet to earn his respect and prove he was a warrior. A great force kept charles from going down late in that fight.

nat flesicher reported "no fighter in the world could have lasted 15 rounds wit ezzard charles that night, let alone with the decision."

Charles peak was at 175 in 1946-1948. Charles then seemed to decline after rex layne I. however, at 32 years of age, he had his last hurrah and got himself in best possible form at 32 and fought a hell of a fight. so though charles was not in his prime for the marciano fight, he was was a still very dangerous contender(at least the 1st fight) and marciano beat a very good version of charles in that 1st fight.



watch the 2nd fight, charles comes in 8lbs heavier and looks aged and shopworn. its clear he was not the same fighter of 2 months ago and hadnt recovered. ringsiders reporteed that charles looked slower and worse than his magnificant 1st fight.



i recentley studied and watched louis-charles I in 1950 when charles was 27. silkov said how younger charles could have danced outside the whole fight. well, i didnt see charles dance or fight on the outside of this fight that much. the whole fight, charles moslty fought a brilliant fight on the inside, and stood there beating louis to the punch.

fact is any verison of charles would have to fight rocky on the inside because rocky was too good at cutting off the ring, and would put too much pressure on ezzard.so IMO if any version of charles could beat rocky, it would be the 1948 175lb peak charles who was very special.


so its safe to say the 54 charles of the first marciano fight WAS NOT the same charles who recently lost to nino valdes and johnson.










So though I will say charles was past his prime, I am afraid its undeniable moore and walcott were past there prime. in walcotts case YES, his peak was joe louis I fight. HOWEVER, ur prime does not last one fight. YOUR PRIME is a span of your best years. walcotts best years and best preformances were 1947-52 and if I am sure you will not disagree with me. I also have many articles, newspapers, and historians stating walcott fought one of his best or his best fight againt marciano. It is a well known fact walcott did not even reach his best until the age of 33. he was a late bloomer. In walcotts prior to fights before rocky, he twice beat hall of famer ezzard charles. One of the reasons walcott did better against charles and did so well against rocky is he became more AGGRESIVE. walcott packed a very hard punch in both hands, but often he would just run around doing cute slick moves rather and its what cost him his fight with louis. Well walcott started to take initiation more late in his career, so he started finding himself more knockout wins. Watch how aggresive walcott is in the 4th charle fight and marciano I, he was also a little bit stronger as well. so IMO walcotts prime lasted 1947-52. Though i thought his absolute peak was the louis fights, its clear he was at or near his best in the charles and marciano fights.

my grandad whos 97 and a former boxing writer said walcott's best fight was against louis, but if he had to pick his next best fights it would be marciano I or charles III. He told me though walcott was old, he got better with age and was at his best when he fought marciano. He told me the papers veiwed walcott as past his best when young upstart rex layne upset him, but that walcott proved them wrong by beating charles and giving marciano a hell of a fight. He said most ringsiders veiwed his preformance agaisnt the rock as one of his best.


max kellerman, a decent knolwedgable but clueless at time guy who studied tapes of a lot of fighters and isnt a big fan of rock and very unbia about marciano. kellerman said '"louis was shot vs marciano, charles was past his prime. but walcott was in his prime and moore was very legite contender into his 40s."

now moving on to moore, this was a man who had the longest prime of all time. I didnt notice signs of aging myself until after 1956. IMO his prime started around 1947 when he became a fully fledged light-H until after 1956 when he had a lackluster preformance vs patterson and then struggled outpointin bert whitehurst and howard king and had his near knockout loss to yvon durelle. But I watched moore on tape, and he looked to me at or near his best vs marciano. against marciano he was at the tail end of his prime but certainly in it.

why did walcott retire?? well let me ask u did he retire after the first marciano fight?? NO. they fought a rematch, and it was clear the last fight had taken everything out of him and that his age had finally caught up to him. he got knocked out quick in a incredible lackluster preformacne and he knew he didnt have it anymore and had to retire. once again, he retired after the 2nd fight, not the 1st fight.

and if walcott had beaten rocky in the first fight, would he have retired?? NO WAY!

Moore in his last 45 fights before fighting rocky was 45-1! Moore was coming off a knockout win over HOF harold johnson. you say he struggled with johnson unlike early 50s. Well i say to that harold johnson was still a little green and when moore foguht him the last time, johnson was at his peak which is why he gave moore such a tough fight. Moore right before marciano soundly outboxed nino valdez and knocked out top contender bob baker. Moore also entering the marciano fight was coming off a early KO win over bobo olsen, a preformance many consider his finest! Moore fought a hell of a fight vs rocky, and showed very quick reflexes, incredible defense, boxing skills, and power as well. Moore simply got worn out by marcianos punches which he admitted after the fight. rocky fought a great fight vs moore, his most polished preformance jaclem once said. as for moore, it was clear he was not past his best as u look at who he beat coming into the marciano fight. Some historians veiw moores preformance vs rocky as one of the best defensive preformances of all time! Also, right after marciano fight, archie went on to be light-H champ for the next 6 years and top 10 hevayweight contender for the rest of his career!



for those that say no one is in his prime at 40, my response is well archie moore was a freak of nature and he is the one exception. there are exceptions in life, and in boxing this is the one exception. there is no other archie moore, archie was a true freak of nature.








I tried to be as persuasive and UNBIAS as possible. So i hope you recieved the facts accordingly and did not feel unintelligent bias veiws were showed.

Wow!! You've got Rocky like stamina, that's for sure!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I would like everyone to respond to this please






charles was defintley not shot for the first fight. that fight was a symbol in charles career. the symbol of respect. throughout his career charles did not get the respect he deserved. charles in 53 showed up out of shape overconfident against the uninmpressive record of nino valdez. what happened? nino showed he was better than his record and took the ill prepared lack of determined charles and charles, suprised by nino outjabbing him lost the decision. Then, charles in his next fight takes on HOF harold johnson at his peak losing a close decision in a competitive fight. CHarles career seems to be going nowhere now. NOt since rex laayne I had charles had looked like his old self. Then in anticipation to get that one more title shot, charles impressively knocks out top 10 contenders colley wallace and bob satterfield. Now charles at 32, gets a shot at the title vs 30 year old rocky.

Well suddenly heres charles chance! his chance to earn the respect he never got. So, charles trained like he hadnt trained in years and got his motivation and confidence back to where it hadnt been since he was heavyweigt champion. ezz's friends were calling him the "new charles". He showed up to that fight at a trim ready 184lb. Charles eanred his true resppect by putting on one of the most gruelling heavyweight fights of all time! non stop 15 rounds the punched eachother. Charles looked INCREDIBLE from wat i read in early rounds and showed incredible speed, and inside and outside fighting skills. rocky was a little ring rusty but finally got started and totally wore charles who slowed down NOT BECUASE OF AGE but because of a hard punch to adams appple. marciano took over and won a clear decision. After, reporters loomed after how well charles looked. charles never showed that kind of heart, toughness, stamina before in his career. It was clear charles had more than winning on his mind. HE WANTED RESPECT! he was willing to take that beating in the late rounds and somehow stay on his feet to earn his respect and prove he was a warrior. A great force kept charles from going down late in that fight.

nat flesicher reported "no fighter in the world could have lasted 15 rounds wit ezzard charles that night, let alone with the decision."

Charles peak was at 175 in 1946-1948. Charles then seemed to decline after rex layne I. however, at 32 years of age, he had his last hurrah and got himself in best possible form at 32 and fought a hell of a fight. so though charles was not in his prime for the marciano fight, he was was a still very dangerous contender(at least the 1st fight) and marciano beat a very good version of charles in that 1st fight.



watch the 2nd fight, charles comes in 8lbs heavier and looks aged and shopworn. its clear he was not the same fighter of 2 months ago and hadnt recovered. ringsiders reporteed that charles looked slower and worse than his magnificant 1st fight.



i recentley studied and watched louis-charles I in 1950 when charles was 27. silkov said how younger charles could have danced outside the whole fight. well, i didnt see charles dance or fight on the outside of this fight that much. the whole fight, charles moslty fought a brilliant fight on the inside, and stood there beating louis to the punch.

fact is any verison of charles would have to fight rocky on the inside because rocky was too good at cutting off the ring, and would put too much pressure on ezzard.so IMO if any version of charles could beat rocky, it would be the 1948 175lb peak charles who was very special.


so its safe to say the 54 charles of the first marciano fight WAS NOT the same charles who recently lost to nino valdes and johnson.










So though I will say charles was past his prime, I am afraid its undeniable moore and walcott were in there prime. in walcotts case YES, his peak was joe louis I fight. HOWEVER, ur prime does not last one fight. YOUR PRIME is a span of your best years. walcotts best years and best preformances were 1947-52 and if I am sure you will not disagree with me. I also have many articles, newspapers, and historians stating walcott fought one of his best or his best fight againt marciano. It is a well known fact walcott did not even reach his best until the age of 33. he was a late bloomer. In walcotts prior to fights before rocky, he twice beat hall of famer ezzard charles. One of the reasons walcott did better against charles and did so well against rocky is he became more AGGRESIVE. walcott packed a very hard punch in both hands, but often he would just run around doing cute slick moves rather and its what cost him his fight with louis. Well walcott started to take initiation more late in his career, so he started finding himself more knockout wins. Watch how aggresive walcott is in the 4th charle fight and marciano I, he was also a little bit stronger as well. so IMO walcotts prime lasted 1947-52. Though i thought his absolute peak was the louis fights, its clear he was at or near his best in the charles and marciano fights.

my grandad whos 97 and a former boxing writer said walcott's best fight was against louis, but if he had to pick his next best fights it would be marciano I or charles III. He told me though walcott was old, he got better with age and was at his best when he fought marciano. He told me the papers veiwed walcott as past his best when young upstart rex layne upset him, but that walcott proved them wrong by beating charles and giving marciano a hell of a fight. He said most ringsiders veiwed his preformance agaisnt the rock as one of his best.


max kellerman, a decent knolwedgable but clueless at time guy who studied tapes of a lot of fighters and isnt a big fan of rock and very unbia about marciano. kellerman said '"louis was shot vs marciano, charles was past his prime. but walcott was in his prime and moore was very legite contender into his 40s."

now moving on to moore, this was a man who had the longest prime of all time. I didnt notice signs of aging myself until after 1956. IMO his prime started around 1947 when he became a fully fledged light-H until after 1956 when he had a lackluster preformance vs patterson and then struggled outpointin bert whitehurst and howard king and had his near knockout loss to yvon durelle. But I watched moore on tape, and he looked to me at or near his best vs marciano. against marciano he was at the tail end of his prime but certainly in it.

why did walcott retire?? well let me ask u did he retire after the first marciano fight?? NO. they fought a rematch, and it was clear the last fight had taken everything out of him and that his age had finally caught up to him. he got knocked out quick in a incredible lackluster preformacne and he knew he didnt have it anymore and had to retire. once again, he retired after the 2nd fight, not the 1st fight.

and if walcott had beaten rocky in the first fight, would he have retired?? NO WAY!

Moore in his last 45 fights before fighting rocky was 45-1! Moore was coming off a knockout win over HOF harold johnson. you say he struggled with johnson unlike early 50s. Well i say to that harold johnson was still a little green and when moore foguht him the last time, johnson was at his peak which is why he gave moore such a tough fight. Moore right before marciano soundly outboxed nino valdez and knocked out top contender bob baker. Moore also entering the marciano fight was coming off a early KO win over bobo olsen, a preformance many consider his finest! Moore fought a hell of a fight vs rocky, and showed very quick reflexes, incredible defense, boxing skills, and power as well. Moore simply got worn out by marcianos punches which he admitted after the fight. rocky fought a great fight vs moore, his most polished preformance jaclem once said. as for moore, it was clear he was not past his best as u look at who he beat coming into the marciano fight. Some historians veiw moores preformance vs rocky as one of the best defensive preformances of all time! Also, right after marciano fight, archie went on to be light-H champ for the next 6 years and top 10 hevayweight contender for the rest of his career!



for those that say no one is in his prime at 40, my response is well archie moore was a freak of nature and he is the one exception. there are exceptions in life, and in boxing this is the one exception. there is no other archie moore, archie was a true freak of nature.








I tried to be as persuasive and UNBIAS as possible. So i hope you recieved the facts accordingly and did not feel unintelligent bias veiws were showed.

But if you watch Charles against Louis then against Marciano surely you can see the difference in Charles reflexes and his legs. In the run up to the Rocky fight Charles was given little chance because his recent form had been poor and he had looked gunshy in his last fight with Walcott.
Charles trainer Ray Arcel says in a article I have that he thinks Charles was already in the early stages of his later illmess at this point of his career. As to Charles and indeed Walcott fighting perhaps their greatest fights against Marciano I don't disagree, both put up epic performances but it is like ALI in Zaire, or Manila, either could be classed as his greatest night/performance but he was still past his prime as a fighter.
As for Moore, he put up a great performance too against Rocky and was an amazing fighter, but the Moore of '47 or 48 or indeed '52 would have faired better. Most historians agree that Moore won the title after his peak and fought Marciano even further after his peak... this was generally accepted and often mentioned at the time... the fact that Moore carried on as champion and a contender for a further several years doesn't change this.

you make good points. i think charles started to get the disease shortly after the 2nd marciano fight and notice after the marciano fights how he immediately becomes SHOT losing to tomato cans, which was due to being spent aafter the wars and the disease.


yes, charles was a top contender when he fought marciano but weill took the fight more becausse charles was a name fighter and a bigger draw than a guy like valdes, baker (who were losing to much anyway). i am sure weill, and even rocky did not expect charles to put on that kind of fight. they expected the first fight to go like the 2nd fight but charles proved them horribly wrong.

like cus D amato said,

"all great fighters have once last great fight in them".


i agree with the ali-foreman fight in reference to charles but not walcott becuase walcott hadnt shown any signs of aging and was still at or near his best.

notice how nothing changed about walcott. his weight was the same as 5 years earlier.


even if moore fought marciano a little younger at his peak, rememer that marciano totally dominated a near best moore besides the knockdown knocking him down 4 times and battering moore. marciano was well ahead on the cards at time of stopage.

i believe in rounds i had it 6-2-1 for marciano with 4 knockdowns.


i might add moore was more inconsistent in 47,48 losing to leonard morrow, and henry hall guys that were not even contenders.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:you make good points. i think charles started to get the disease shortly after the 2nd marciano fight and notice after the marciano fights how he immediately becomes SHOT losing to tomato cans, which was due to being spent aafter the wars and the disease.


yes, charles was a top contender when he fought marciano but weill took the fight more becausse charles was a name fighter and a bigger draw than a guy like valdes, baker (who were losing to much anyway). i am sure weill, and even rocky did not expect charles to put on that kind of fight. they expected the first fight to go like the 2nd fight but charles proved them horribly wrong.

like cus D amato said,

"all great fighters have once last great fight in them".


i agree with the ali-foreman fight in reference to charles but not walcott becuase walcott hadnt shown any signs of aging and was still at or near his best.

notice how nothing changed about walcott. his weight was the same as 5 years earlier.


even if moore fought marciano a little younger at his peak, rememer that marciano totally dominated a near best moore besides the knockdown knocking him down 4 times and battering moore. marciano was well ahead on the cards at time of stopage.

i believe in rounds i had it 6-2-1 for marciano with 4 knockdowns.


i might add moore was more inconsistent in 47,48 losing to leonard morrow, and henry hall guys that were not even contenders.

Walcott in '52 didn't have the stamina and legs that'd he'd had in '47.... the '47 Walcott would surely had stood a better chance of lasting the distance with Rocky than he did in '52... thats why the fights has often been prrayed as one of the greatest battles of youth and strength against skill and wisdom ever seen in the ring. Many of Moores ealr defeats came when he took fights where he could get them and often when he wasn't 100% ready and I think the hall and Morrow fights probably come into this catagory, though those guys were probably very good fighters who never got the breaks and have been largely forgotten... they must have had something to have beaten Moore in any shape.

Walcott in '52 didn't have the stamina and legs that'd he'd had in '47....

what makes u say this??


walcott recentley outpointed charles over 15 rounds, then fought at an incredible pace in the rocky fight, more than louis fight.


walcotts best rounds besides the 1st round were the 11th and 12th round, in fact walcott totally dominated 12th round.

it was walcott who looked the stronger of the two in the championship rounds.




silkov, ur prime does NOT last for 1 fight.


ur prime is a span of ur best years 47-52.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Walcott in '52 didn't have the stamina and legs that'd he'd had in '47....

what makes u say this??


walcott recentley outpointed charles over 15 rounds, then fought at an incredible pace in the rocky fight, more than louis fight.


walcotts best rounds besides the 1st round were the 11th and 12th round, in fact walcott totally dominated 12th round.

it was walcott who looked the stronger of the two in the championship rounds.




silkov, ur prime does NOT last for 1 fight.


ur prime is a span of ur best years 47-52.

BB, because Walcott was 38 YEARS OLD and had been through many ring wards and had some wear and tear. No 38 yr old will have the legs he had at 33 or even 35. You mention Walcott-Charles IV but that fight was a snooze-fest and does not indicate anything about Walcott being in his prime. He was in INCREDIBLE shape for his age and a marvel, but he was still past his prime by 1951. His 'prime' wasn't in older age b/c he got magically got better with age . . .he just was unlucky and didn't get proper management and a stable form of food and income until late in his career. Dare I say it, and I'm a huge Louis fan, but if Walcott had gotten some big-time backing earlier in his career, Louis may have lost his title before the war to a Jersey Joe truly in his prime.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Walcott in '52 didn't have the stamina and legs that'd he'd had in '47....

what makes u say this??


walcott recentley outpointed charles over 15 rounds, then fought at an incredible pace in the rocky fight, more than louis fight.


walcotts best rounds besides the 1st round were the 11th and 12th round, in fact walcott totally dominated 12th round.

it was walcott who looked the stronger of the two in the championship rounds.




silkov, ur prime does NOT last for 1 fight.


ur prime is a span of ur best years 47-52.

No way has Walcott got the stamina or speed at 38 that he had at 33... the big difference between Marciano and Walcott was Rockys youth... when Walcott fought Charles he was fighting someone of his own age range... the two thing Marciano had over Walcott was his youth and strength... that is why I belive the Walcott of 47 would have beaten Marciano...

when Walcott fought Charles he was fighting someone of his own age range

charles was 28-30 years old, walcott was 36-38 years old

yeah but would the walcott of 1947 beat the 1954 swarmer marciano??


walcott matches up much better against the 1952 slugger marciano


- once again, walcott had the exact same stamina, his work rate was higher in marcian fight than louis fightt.




would the 1972 norton outpoint holmes? that is if the 1978 norton didnt already beat holmes




there is no difference between walcott of marciano fight and norton of holmes fight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yeah but would the walcott of 1947 beat the 1954 swarmer marciano??


walcott matches up much better against the 1952 slugger marciano


- once again, walcott had the exact same stamina, his work rate was higher in marcian fight than louis fightt.




would the 1972 norton outpoint holmes? that is if the 1978 norton didnt already beat holmes



there is no difference between walcott of marciano fight and norton of holmes fight

You love to have a dig at Holmes at every opportunity don't you Brocky? So, let's hear how YOU scored the Holmes - Norton bout. And try not to get it mixed up with any other fight as is often your wont these days. Give me your round by round score if you like and your observations. Be as long-winded as you like but try to stick to just this fight as I am getting a bit bored with the (unconvincing and ) repetetive essays about whose prime was when.

Collins2000 wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yeah but would the walcott of 1947 beat the 1954 swarmer marciano??


walcott matches up much better against the 1952 slugger marciano


- once again, walcott had the exact same stamina, his work rate was higher in marcian fight than louis fightt.




would the 1972 norton outpoint holmes? that is if the 1978 norton didnt already beat holmes





there is no difference between walcott of marciano fight and norton of holmes fight

You love to have a dig at Holmes at every opportunity don't you Brocky? So, let's hear how YOU scored the Holmes - Norton bout. And try not to get it mixed up with any other fight as is often your wont these days. Give me your round by round score if you like and your observations. Be as long-winded as you like but try to stick to just this fight as I am getting a bit bored with the (unconvincing and ) repetetive essays about whose prime was when.

how is this a dig at holmes?? i was actually making a good accurate comparison to put silkov on the spot since he thinks norton was at his best vs holmes but he doesnt think walcott was at or near his best vs rocky. thats a double standard my friend.





dempsey fire wrote

, but he was still past his prime by 1951

dempsey ur telling me the year walcott won the title he was past his prime???

- so suddennly he beats ezzard charles TWICE after a YOUNGER walcott lost to charles twice and he is past his prime ?


i might add charles dominated the 2nd walcott fight winning a clear points decision. ONLY 4 months later, it was walcott who outboxed then magnifisantly knocked out charles, so using the charles "aging" arguement wont help ur case.


reporters never thought walcott would be a champion because he simply was too much a cutie in early 30s and would rather dance around then throw punches. its when he started becoming more aggresive he got results.


walcotts prime 1947-52

walcotts peak 1947

Easy way to solve this argument. Go out and buy a copy of Titlebout Championship Boxing for the PC and have these guys duke it out. :)

Cap

I remember what some wag wrote about Lennox Lewis. Something like:

Birthplace : England

Parents from : Jamaica

Learnt to Box : Canada

Chin : China