BoxRec

columbo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:His offense was dynamic and fluid then. My point was that he wouldn't be able to beat Lennox by jabbing him and trying to hold him.

No doubt. It could of either been a fun fight with Wlad pushing the action or an absolute stinker, physical chess type match where both guys were scared to commit so absolutely nothing happens.

HomicideHenry wrote:Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano


At the time the win was considered something of a national calamity, and that Louis was this shell of a man who had no business being in the ring, etc. but as time has passed since then--- there have been arguments, debates, as to whether how far gone, or how good Louis was at that stage. Many people forget, Louis only took the Marciano fight because he was in debt--- but he was the #1 contender for the heavyweight championship. Louis, older, slower, etc. was still good enough, capable enough to be the top contender for Walcott. People forget this. So, I think, in a sense, the win for Marciano over Louis has gained a measure of respect over the years.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano


At the time the win was considered something of a national calamity, and that Louis was this shell of a man who had no business being in the ring, etc. but as time has passed since then--- there have been arguments, debates, as to whether how far gone, or how good Louis was at that stage. Many people forget, Louis only took the Marciano fight because he was in debt--- but he was the #1 contender for the heavyweight championship. Louis, older, slower, etc. was still good enough, capable enough to be the top contender for Walcott. People forget this. So, I think, in a sense, the win for Marciano over Louis has gained a measure of respect over the years.

Substitute Charles for Marciano and you're onto something.

HomicideHenry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano


At the time the win was considered something of a national calamity, and that Louis was this shell of a man who had no business being in the ring, etc. but as time has passed since then--- there have been arguments, debates, as to whether how far gone, or how good Louis was at that stage. Many people forget, Louis only took the Marciano fight because he was in debt--- but he was the #1 contender for the heavyweight championship. Louis, older, slower, etc. was still good enough, capable enough to be the top contender for Walcott. People forget this. So, I think, in a sense, the win for Marciano over Louis has gained a measure of respect over the years.

Substitute Charles for Marciano and you're onto something.

I disagree, because, as the 'Rocky Marciano, Via The Punch Stat' thread shows, Charles had a rather remarkable win/loss record prior to facing Marciano--- I don't see on paper, or on film, which proves in any way, shape or form that Charles was this old man that fans/historians want to push down the throats of would be boxing fans. If I am not mistaken, off the top of my head, Charles had only one or two losses and over 20 wins in the two-three years prior to facing Marciano. So, to me it doesnt add up.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
You obviously didn't even understand the comment to disagree with. Think about it. If you substitute Charles for Marciano who is Ezzard fighting? Could it be Joe Louis? Maybe? Perhaps?

HomicideHenry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
You obviously didn't even understand the comment to disagree with. Think about it. If you substitute Charles for Marciano who is Ezzard fighting? Could it be Joe Louis? Maybe? Perhaps?

Ah, Charles/Louis...

Interesting fight in alot of ways, considering the BBBC had Lee Savold as its world champion at the time, that is until Charles defeated Louis. Very interesting time in boxing when a dominate champion retired, and every promoter/organisation in the sport had their hands in the cookie jar. It's a shame that poor Ezzard (still to this day) doesn't quite get the credit he's due as a heavyweight champion, because of all the politics involved, and of course, the stigma that he fought an old Joe Louis who had nothing left.

gilgamesh wrote:Charles doesn't get his just due as a fighter period. For the most part it's up to you as a fan to research him and find out just how good he was. For the most part you don't hear a lot about him, even in Boxing Magazines and sh*t.

He definitely deserves to be remembered and discussed more than he is. His resume is one of the very best in the sports history.

I remember in the Dream Fights issue of Ring Magazine. In their mythical Roy Jones Jr. vs Ezzard Charles matchup they picked Roy to win by 15th round KO.

BoxBuzz wrote:Four fluke wins over Archie Moore would put anyone in the legend category.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Wladimir Klitschko would not have a shoot-out with Lennox Lewis. He couldn't even survive a mild bout of fisticuffs with Corrie Sanders. If you've got no chin & can't nail Sanders with the big one inside two rounds, then you're not likely to even see the second round versus Lennox Lewis.

man wrote:i always liked wlad, but lewis vs him back then
could have easily looked like lewis vs golota.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It definitely would look like that with the current version.

gilgamesh wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Four fluke wins over Archie Moore would put anyone in the legend category.

You beat a guy 3 times, and he never beats you. It's not a fluke.

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It definitely would look like that with the current version.

OTOH the younger, more aggressive Wlad was easier to hit so in my mind he gets blown out real quick. But you are right that the younger version would have a better chance of catching Lewis because he actually threw with conviction without having to spend 8 or 9 rounds on an Ernie Terrel impersonation before throwing actually fighting.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It definitely would look like that with the current version.

OTOH the younger, more aggressive Wlad was easier to hit so in my mind he gets blown out real quick. But you are right that the younger version would have a better chance of catching Lewis because he actually threw with conviction without having to spend 8 or 9 rounds on an Ernie Terrel impersonation before throwing actually fighting.

Yeah, for the record I have Lewis inside of 3 rounds either way. It was mainly just a commentary on how many people think Wlad has improved so much. To me he's just made adjustments to make himself less vulnerable to lesser fighters. If he tried to peck away and make sweet love to Ron Lyle with hugs and kisses in a clinch he'd be in a world of pain.

BoxBuzz wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Four fluke wins over Archie Moore would put anyone in the legend category.

You beat a guy 3 times, and he never beats you. It's not a fluke.

Or is it?

gilgamesh wrote:Buzz I have the utmost respect for Archie Moore, and I'm not trying to cut him down. He's a Legendary Fighter and unquestionably one of the very best Light Heavyweights of all time, but you're being ridiculous here.

Ezzard beat him three times dude. Once by KO. He was just better than him man, that's all there is to it.

Next thing you'll be telling me Danny Lopez could've kicked Salvador Sanchez's ass if only he got a 3rd crack at him.