BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcotts heavyweight wins


1947 joe louis

WOULDA, SHOULDA, COULDA!!!

ok then,


evander holyfield drew with a prime lennox lewis

Thats certainly right, Prime Lennox couldnt even deal with a past it shot Holyfield and scored a draw. And in the rematch Old man Holyfield BEAT Lewis not only close, but comfortably but no one ever talks about this controversy. And the Mercer fight was even more one sided, Mercer won about 8 rounds of that fight but yet again robbed with a decision loss.

RazorKO wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:WOULDA, SHOULDA, COULDA!!!

ok then,


evander holyfield drew with a prime lennox lewis

Thats certainly right, Prime Lennox couldnt even deal with a past it shot Holyfield and scored a draw. And in the rematch Old man Holyfield BEAT Lewis not only close, but comfortably but no one ever talks about this controversy. And the Mercer fight was even more one sided, Mercer won about 8 rounds of that fight but yet again robbed with a decision loss.

Razor

I'm not sure, it was close... I watched the fight again recently and thought Lewis won by 1 point but it was very close either way.

I think Holyfield was the best of that era.

Decagon wrote:Yeah, but Lewis ass-raped your boy, Ruddock. That was pretty funny.

Well seeing as Razor had already gone 19 rounds with Tyson which took a lot out of him, Lewis was facing a finished fighter. Not to mention how the crowd treated him during the bout which would put off any fighter.

Dont forget Ruddock in his career has been in wars and shown the heart to win, in the Weaver fight he was hit with one of the best left hooks Ive ever seen in the 4th round and Ruddock took all the punishment Weaver can throw and won a comfortable decision. In the Tyson rematch Ruddock fought 10 rounds with a broken jaw and still lasted the distance, but anytime Lewis was in dire trouble - he was knocked spark out. He was holding on for dear life against Shannon Freakin Briggs!

Ezzard wrote:

RazorKO wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
ok then,


evander holyfield drew with a prime lennox lewis

Thats certainly right, Prime Lennox couldnt even deal with a past it shot Holyfield and scored a draw. And in the rematch Old man Holyfield BEAT Lewis not only close, but comfortably but no one ever talks about this controversy. And the Mercer fight was even more one sided, Mercer won about 8 rounds of that fight but yet again robbed with a decision loss.

Razor

I'm not sure, it was close... I watched the fight again recently and thought Lewis won by 1 point but it was very close either way.

I think Holyfield was the best of that era.

Which fight are you talking about Ezzard? The Holyfield rematch was much closer than the Mercer fight in my opinion, but Holyfield did definetly win the match by outworking the grabbing slower Lewis.

However the Mercer fight was different as Mercer outjabbed, outpunched and outmanouvered the plodding Lewis for the entire match, when Lewis went to jab Mercer, he outjabbed him, when he tried to brawl with Mercer, Mercer outbrawled him. Mercer won at least 8 rounds of that fight and even Emmanuel Steward told Lewis he was going to loose unless he put a big effort in the 10th and final round to try and 'Sway' the judges.
But Lewis's reputation won him the fight and Mercer was robbed blindly - If the fight was scheleded for 12 rounds, Lewis would of been knocked out no question.

I agree that prime Walcott was pretty good, although not as good as prime Charles.

I reckon both the 1947 Walcott and the 1949 Charles would have beaten any verison of Marciano--especially the latter.

pundit wrote:I agree that prime Walcott was pretty good, although not as good as prime Charles.

I reckon both the 1947 Walcott and the 1949 Charles would have beaten any verison of Marciano--especially the latter.

marciano beat a prime walcott. walcott of the first louis fight wasnt much different than walcott of the marciano fight except legs. walcott was a tad faster in louis I, but walcott was stronger, more experienced, and he was MORE AGRESSIVE in marciano I. i might add walcott was still very fast in marciano I. walcott fought the best fight he could ever possibly fight against marciano in 1952. walcott could never fight a better fight than what he did vs marciano. walcott threw combinations and let his hands go in marciano I like he never did before. walcotts handspeed was incredible, his jab was stiff and fast, his boxing skills counterpunching were perfect that night. walcott and marciano both fought eachother at there peaks......the result stands as it is.

walcott-marciano I fight stands as it is

marciano KO 13 walcott


* walcott was by far the best fighter marciano ever fought. marciano beat a top 20 heavyweight of all time that night in 1952.


as for charles...... marciano did not fight a prime charles. however, charles never fought the peak 1951-52 marciano. marciano in 1951-52 was faster and had more fire in his fists than he did in 54. charles was faster, much sharper, better movement, better reflexes, and more fluid in 49 than 54, but the 1949 charles would never be able to stand up to the punishment the june 1954 charles took. charles had traits in 1954 that he didnt have in 1954. charles durability, heart, and will were at there absolute peak in june 1954 which is one of the reasons he did so well vs marciano and he still clearly lost. charles preformance in june 1954 would have toppled many champs. charles wouldnt be able to handle the power , pressure and punishment for 15 rounds from the 1951-52 faster more powerful version of marciano. charles even in 1947 has trouble with punching swarmer elmer ray who did a good number on charles in the inside in a very close fight.

charles does have a style to always trouble rocky and i can see him taking 1 off rocky......but rocky was death in rematches and he would get charles in 2 out of 3



3 fight series marciano 2-1

charles 15 unanimous

marciano KO 11

marciano KO 9


something like that

pundit wrote:I agree that prime Walcott was pretty good, although not as good as prime Charles.
:

the walcott of the first marciano fight or the first louis fight beats any version of charles. walcott was the better heavyweight than charles.


charles was the better fighter

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:I agree that prime Walcott was pretty good, although not as good as prime Charles.
:

the walcott of the first marciano fight or the first louis fight beats any version of charles. walcott was the better heavyweight than charles.


charles was the better fighter

No way, what you say is just not logical, Charles wins over Walcott far outweigh his defeats to him... Walcott koed a fading Charles and then outpointed a gunshy Charles... Ezzard could have regained the title from Walcott had he been more aggressive, as it was many thought he had done enough to win their last fight... also you cant discount Ezzards 9 defences of the world title, as well as his long string of impressive victories prior to winning the title, a faded Ezzard even did better than Walcott against Marcinao!... Ezzard was by far the better fighter and heavyweight... to say otherwise is to ignore all that facts...

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:I agree that prime Walcott was pretty good, although not as good as prime Charles.
:

the walcott of the first marciano fight or the first louis fight beats any version of charles. walcott was the better heavyweight than charles.


charles was the better fighter

No way, what you say is just not logical, Charles wins over Walcott far outweigh his defeats to him... Walcott koed a fading Charles and then outpointed a gunshy Charles... Ezzard could have regained the title from Walcott had he been more aggressive, as it was many thought he had done enough to win their last fight... also you cant discount Ezzards 9 defences of the world title, as well as his long string of impressive victories prior to winning the title, a faded Ezzard even did better than Walcott against Marcinao!... Ezzard was by far the better fighter and heavyweight... to say otherwise is to ignore all that facts...

far outweight his defeats against him? how? both went 2-2 vs eachother



how did walcott kayo a fading charles?? how was charles fading? walcott beat the exact same charles who 4 months earlier won a wide decision over walcott. walcott knocked charles out fair and square, no exuses.



outpoint a gunshy charles?? ok then charles outpointed a lack of aggresion walcott 2x, who didnt let his hands go enough. it works both ways.



8 defensed of world title? if u exclude his good title defenses vs walcott and louis..........charles defenses SUCKED. there were against absolute scrubs who had no business getting title shots. maybe if charles defended agaisnt 6 worthy opponents then i would rate him over walcott, but those other 6 opponents were not worthy of title shots. there were far better heavyweight contendes out there who charles didnt give title shots too.


walcotts cleaning out the division 1945-47 was better than charles title reign. walcott beat 8 top 10 ranked contenders during that period. charles only beat 2 out of 8 ranked heavyweight contenders during his title reign.


charles title reign


old joe louis- good win
jersey joe walcott- good win
joey maxim- maxim didnt really make a splash in the heavyweight division to warrant this title shot over say an archie moore
nick barone-
washed up lee oma
shot gus lesnevich
half blind pat valentino
freddie beshore



walcotts contender run 1945-47 he beat

jimmy bivins
lee Q murray
elmer ray
joey maxim 2x
joe baksi
tommy gomez
lee oma
hatchetman sheppard



walcott clearly beat the better depth

a faded Ezzard even did better than Walcott against Marcinao!...

ahh not really. walcott was winning after 12 rounds vs marciano on all 3 scorecards. marciano needed a KO to win the fight.

in comparison.........marciano clearly outpointed charles on all 3 judges scorecards.



also walcott fought a better version of marciano than charles did.

had charles defended his title vs


1949

Sid Peaks- instead of pat valentino

Archie Moore- instead of gus lesnevich



1950


rex layne- instead of freddie beshore

joe louis- good title defense

bob baker- instead of nick barone


1951

clarence henry- instead of lee oma

jersey joe walcott- good title defense

joey maxim- respectable title defense


KO by 7 to jersey joe walcott







then i would be very impressed with charles title reign......but fact is charles title reign is filled with unranked IBC controlled scrubs......



* marciano should have got a title shot in 1951 vs charles

Decagon wrote:So, why did Walcott suddenly get worse when he fought Ezzard Charles? He was great in 1947 and 1952, but between that time, he only got one clean win over Charles.

stop saying one clean win. walcott beat charles in 1952. charles caution in the late rounds lost him the fight. walcott was more effectivly aggresion and so he won the fight. this was not a robbery. it was a very close fight.





walcott didnt get suddenly worse. walcott simply fought much better in the 3rd and 4th fights. walcott was a great puncher. when he fought more aggresivly and let his hands go more in the 3rd and 4th fights.......he was too much for charles. even in the first 2 fights where walcott wasnt fighting aggresivly........every time he connected on charles u would see charles get shaken badly.


charles said walcott was the hardest puncer he ever fought . said "walcott hurt me every time he landed"

Decagon wrote:I didn't say that it was a robbery. I just said that it wasn't a clear win. Charles got two clear wins over Walcott. Walcott got ONE clear win over Charles.

thats true. though look at it this way. there series went 2-2 however walcott scored 1 KO and 1 dec win. charles scored 2 dec wins. 1 KO win and 1 dec win counts for more than 2 dec wins because the KO counts for more than a decision.

..once more with feeling....charles /walcott IV.....was a hoax and robbery from the beginning.....referee took away charles' body attack..let walcott hold when he wanted to..made charles break....etc etc etc.....judges....either dishonest or incompetent.....referee cheered walcott on during fight!!!!! easily heard at ringside and over tv.


not denying charles said walcott was hardest hitter he faced...just never heard that before. he told me satterfield was hardest puncher.

I have checked with HeadBasher....and indeed it does appear that a KO is worth more than a decision. So the impression that I have always had that a "win is a win" has now been discredited.

I am appealing to HeadBasher to allow for catagories of "cruel one-sided decisions that were not KO's due to the sadistic mood of the torturer".....Such as Ali-Terrel, In which it may be fair to allow as many points as a normal KO.

But is one ko worth 3 decisions???....
Other than Brock only Walcotts mother really thought he was the better fighter than Ezzard Charles!...

Walcott did manage to badly damage Charles legacy with his kayo win. It also makes Marciano's wins over Charles look less impressive than they might otherwise look.

walcott was the better heavyweight than charles. walcotts cleaning out the division 1945-47 was a better run than anything charles did at heavyweight

silkov wrote:But is one ko worth 3 decisions???....
Other than Brock only Walcotts mother really thought he was the better fighter than Ezzard Charles!...

walcott beat charles TWICE. dont forget that. walcott did win the 4th charles fight, walcotts late round aggresion won him the fight.


as it stands walcott 2-2 vs charles with a KO and a dec and charles only 2 dec


egde to walcott