BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
ezzard charles WAS NOT shot. did u even see the fight? charles was robbed, it was a win for ezzard charles. and thats besides the point because charles was defintley NOT shot.
not shot??? ok lets look at this logically. something you cant seem to do no matter what forum you post your nonsense on.
charles career began in 1940. he regularly fought an average of 6 times a year and moved up in weigth TWICE in his life. this takes a toll on any fighter. ask someone who knows what their talking about for once.
now by the time ezzard had foought johnson he was 77-9-1 (though from what i can tell he was actually 78-9-1 but i need to look into it some more). for those of us who can count thats 87 pro fights with 3 stoppages in between. combine those factors and compare his performances on film and charles was shot or more appropriately "horribly faded". there is no way johnson got his hands on any good version of ezzard charles.
just one year earlier charles fought walcott to a very close controversial decision that many thought charles won, and since then he had been destroying top contenders. 1 year AFTER he fought johnson, charles managed to take top 10 heavy of all time rocky marciano 15 gruelling rounds. charles would never be able to put up that battle vs rock if he were shot.
i believe your spinning more ghost tales here. first the decision was close but far from the "controversy" you try to make it out to be.
you havent seen the fight or the full reports so let me enlighten you. walcott took the lead in the early rounds by forcing the fight and beign aggressive. in the 5th he actually staggered charles and had him in survival mode for a good portion of the round. during the middle rounds charles began taking command as his counterpunches began to land with more frequency. the reason walcott got the decison is because charles laid back and played too cautiosly in the late rounds. ever heard of "you dont take the title by running away"? well charles learned that the hard way.
the fight was close but not a controversy. if you would actually get off the computer and do some real research besides google you would know these things.
on my scorecard ezz beat harold johnson 6 rounds to 3 1 even. CHARLES DID NOT LOOK SHOT ON FILM, film doesnt lie. charles looked awesome against johnson and he was still a very dangerous fighter, better than anyone johnson beat post 1955.
i can watch a fight and see someting totally different so you need to come up with a better argument than this. charles was on a steep decline. period. decision wins over the declining bivins the limited brion and the shopworn rex layne are hardly the mark of a "dangerous fighter". by contrast machen had defeated
wayne bethea
mike dejohn
pat mcmurtry
willi besmanoff
joey maxim twice
and went the distance with sonny liston
all within a span of three fornicating years. that my dear is the mark of a "peak" fighter. thats a hell of a better resume than ezzard charles could manage in his twilight years.
a shot clarence henry?
henry was 25 years old the # 3 rated heavyweight contender by RING MAGAZINE and coming into the johnson fight he had won his last 14 in a row.
now judging from the info i just gave u, its laughable to think henry was shot. in fact, henry was at his peak
weve been through this before. henry was on a decline by the time johnson faced him. he still held johnoson to a split decision. henry fougth for 15 more months winning only 3 more times out of 6 fights. this is not a fighter at his peak. he was mentally drained and thereefore shot. why did he get out of the game at such a young age?? because his HEAD wasnt in it anymore.
by the way you never answered my other question since you wanted to put me on ignore. joe louis was ranked highly in 1950. was he at his "peak"?? you seem to think that rankings and losses to your favoriets define a fighters "peak".
and your calling me laughable.
archie moore was special, very very special. all there 5 fights were close contested bouts.
but he never established dominance over moore. thats the point. he won one decision. and lost the other 4 times. got kod in the last fight. the fact that the cards were even means nothing here.
unless you want to explain to us how vitalis being ahead on the scorecards dont count but walcotts and johnsons do.
really? valdes was the # 1 rated contender by the RING magazine in 1953 and managed a huge upset win over ezz charles that year.
harold johnson shut out valdes 10 rounds to 0
well valdes was not ranked the number 1 contender in 1952 when johnson beat him. in fact valdes was not even fighting top competitors until 1953 when he was ranked #1. valdes was nothing special even then. he lost to every top comptetitor in 1953 until he faced agromonte who wasnt even ranked at the time he defeated him. then he defeated a faded ezzard charles and went on to
lose the only title shot in his career to archie moore.
actually bivins was on the decline, his wins over moore, henry, valdes, charles hold more water than his wins over bivins
you claim bivins was on the decline and charles was still great only because you want to make rocks victory over him seem better. but lets look at this shall we?
bivins fought johnson in 1949. after that fight he fought on until 1955. he fougth 19 more times winning 12. his victories include
ted lowry
willie bean
coley wallace
mike dejohn
12 wins out of 19 fights in 6 years seems a lot less like a decline to me.
id say that a fighter who "peaks" at his 21 year mark then promptly retires after suffering numerous losses fits the description of "decline" quite nicely.
you need to understand that a good win here or there means all of shit. he was consistently fighting and defeating top fighters after 1955.
please who are these top fighters he was facing?
eddie machen
tommy jackson
bert whitehurst
wayne bethea
eddie cotton
doug jones
willie pastrano
eddie machen? yea great win, but a win over archie moore, ezzard charles means more
how so? dont give me opinions.
bob satterfield? well johnson knocked out satterfield in the early 1950s and by the time johnson faced satterfield in 57, satterfield was over the hill
why dont you address the other fighters i mentioned?
once again, johnson beat far better competition pre 1955 than post 1955. THIS IS A FACT, not an opinion
right. you havent proven a thing. ive backed up my argument with facts and statistics. you just spout the same garbage you normally do.
thats a fact.
once again, johnson looks better on film in his mid 20s than he does post 1955.
so? no one cares how you think he looks. the bottom line is that his best wins were all AFTER 1955. and i think ive proven it nicely.
on the average a fighter peaks in his mid 20s, so why do u believe johnson was a better fighter in his 30s when most fighters are in decline then?
he had better wins after 1955. why do you base his peak off of defeating shot fighters and getting the snot kicked out of him by the ol mongoose?
why do u think harold johnson lost to pastrano? because harold johnson was far past it
this is irrelevent. we both know that johnosn was past it when he foguth pastrano. but pastrano gave johnson his
first defeat in 9 fornicating years. prove this wrong. i dare you.
go pop in tape of harold johnson post 1955, compared to pre 1955. the harold johnson pre 1955 looks faster, better reflexes. are u denying this?
this is a stupid argument. theres no fact here. try again.
