BoxRec

boxrec........


are we in full agreement the only heavyweight who could beat a peak 1951-52 rocky marciano in the 1950s is sonny liston???

silkov wrote:Well Dempsey was a far sight younger than Charles, Walcott and Moore... and Louis!...

both dempsey and charles were 32, how is dempsey a far sight younger than charles?



dempsey may have been younger than louis, walcott, moore.....but walcott, louis, moore werent the ones coming off 3 year layoffs like dempsey was.


in fact dempsey had fought only twice in the last 6 years prior to the tunney fight

About Earl Walls...

He was scheduled to fight “Young” Jack Johnson on August 9, 1955 in Vancouver, but I never heard any more about him following the snip talking about the fight.

A friend of mine, a boxing memorabilia dealer, who lives pretty close by told me a few months ago he believed that Walls had ended up working at a service station in Coburn, Virginia, which is also fairly close to where I live and that he was suppose to still be there.

I tried to find out and had planned to try to look him up, but then I read that he had died in 1996. My friend said that he was pretty sure that it was Earl Walls that he was thinking about, but it was most likely a different fighter as I had never heard about Walls ever being in Virginia.

I do know that Walls is a member of the Etobicoke Sports Hall of Fame, which has a small thumb-sketch about him, but it just states that he just retired in 1955 without giving any reason. The sketch in the HOF page about him makes me believe that my friend was definately thinking about a different fighter than Earl Walls because I don’t think Walls had ever been anywhere near Coburn, Virginia.

I’ll see if I can track something down in Ring about his retirement. Walls could certainly bang with the best of them...several first round knockouts! The HOF sketch states that he retired in June of 1955, but the article that I read giving his scheduled bout with Johnson was in a July 1955 newspaper then the article at eastside states that he was scheduled to fight the 7' 2" guy from South Africa, though I haven't came across any mention of that.



http://etobicokesports.ca/2001/walls_earl.html

There’s also a short article about Walls at eastside:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=183&more=1

"
A massive man "that used to box" came to visit my church youth group one stormy Fall 1980 Friday night. Being a budding boxing fan - and an active amateur pugilist during that period - I felt obliged to blow-off my Friday night workout in favor of meeting this former Canadian Heavyweight Champion.

Walls was an affable, charismatic speaker. He was dressed in a conservative business suit, always wearing a pleasant smile, and casting an ominous shadow where ever he went. He spoke for about 30 minutes, recalling his childhood exploits, his ability to discombobulate any farmhand between Toronto and Newmarket - as a young and oversized teen - and his strong belief in God. All the while he spoke, the smile never left his face. It was clear that Walls loved young people and had a playful spirit.

He spoke of his non-sanctioned fistic ability with a distinct gleam in his eye - as though all of it was just play, in a pursuit the Lord better equipped him to participate in. He went on to indicate that he had been encouraged to make money off of fighting, thus his introduction to the fight game.

He spoke of sparring sessions with "the best in the world", and how he held his own. "Not bad for a farmboy with oversized feet" he quipped at one point.

The rest of the meeting was dedicated to encouraging we young people to find an interest and make every effort to pursue it. And to thank God each day for the privaledge of doing it.

After, I managed to get a moment alone with this well-dressed behemoth. I explained that I was an amateur and that I fought at 156 but was always struggling to make weight. He grabbed my right hand, turned it over and asked me to make a fist. One quick look and he said in all seriousness "work harder, you have the hands of a welterweight".

He then shook my hand, winked and trudged-off for the refreshment table, leaving me at a complete loss for words."- rubber warrior

No disrespect to the question but I think Rocky's record answers it perfectly...49-0

Well the fact that he only fought through half of the 50s shouldnt be forgotten... and just as the new wave of contenders started coming through he retired!... if his name was Vitali we'd probably start coming up with nicknames other than 'the Rock' 8)

silkov wrote:Well the fact that he only fought through half of the 50s shouldnt be forgotten... and just as the new wave of contenders started coming through he retired!... if his name was Vitali we'd probably start coming up with nicknames other than 'the Rock' 8)

A little obsessed with Vitali, eh??

..john l... the way i see it silkov'spost is less obsessed with vitali than the marciano drum beaters are with rocky...

let us agree that marciano was unbeatable in the last part of the fifties....as it is impossible to beat a fighter who dies not step into the ring...

people dont realize that even in 1955 marciano was 32 and started showing signs of aging. he was not the same deadly force of 1951-52. by 1956 he was really on the downslide.

boxrec........


are we in full agreement the only heavyweight who could beat a peak 1951-52 rocky marciano in the 1950s is sonny liston???

I'll actually agree with you Brockton.

Walcott and Charles were on the brink of beating Marciano, so Marciano was certainly not unbeatable.

pundit wrote:Walcott and Charles were on the brink of beating Marciano, so Marciano was certainly not unbeatable.

walcott came close to winning. charles was not. charles was clearly outpointed in the first fight and in the 2nd fight was utterly dominated and lost every round before being knocked out in the 8th. charles came close to winning on a horrible cut, but he didnt actually come close to BEATING marciano.

marciano is unbeatable in the 1950s outside of liston.

Seamus wrote:I'll actually agree with you Brockton.

thats all im saying is i dont think anyone outside of sonny liston in the 1950s can beat a peak 1951-52 rocky marciano. some would give him very tough fights....but marciano was a ATG, he wins the big fights.

i mean guys.........archie moore utterly dominated the likes of clarence henry, nino valdez and bob baker and then moore runs into marciano and gets completley dominated and beaten into submission by marciano.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:Walcott and Charles were on the brink of beating Marciano, so Marciano was certainly not unbeatable.

walcott came close to winning. charles was not. charles was clearly outpointed in the first fight and in the 2nd fight was utterly dominated and lost every round before being knocked out in the 8th. charles came close to winning on a horrible cut, but he didnt actually come close to BEATING marciano.

marciano is unbeatable in the 1950s outside of liston.

Didn't you just say Walcott came close.... ?

Btw, I find your distinction between "winning" and "beating" interesting. I know other cases where it could be applied with benefit.

yes walcott did come close to winning. walcott fought a terrific fight, as did marciano. one of the greatest in heavyweight history. however marciano setup walcott for the perfect punch and he landed the greatest puncher in history.....no exuses for either man......marciano won.



* charles cut marciano with an accidental elbow. under todays rules, if the fight was stopped marciano wins a technical decision.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yes walcott did come close to winning. walcott fought a terrific fight, as did marciano. one of the greatest in heavyweight history. however marciano setup walcott for the perfect punch and he landed the greatest puncher in history.....no exuses for either man......marciano won.



* charles cut marciano with an accidental elbow. under todays rules, if the fight was stopped marciano wins a technical decision.

Correction: it was a left hook/uppercut. It is clearly visible in film. Do you want me to dig up the picture again of the damaging punch? I'll put it up again if anyone wants to see.

Anyway, it wasn't an elbow. Stop bending history to fit your points. By the way, I believe the ref in Marciano-Charles II ruled the cut caused by a punch. If he had ruled it an accidental elbow, wouldn't it have still gone to the cards in 1954?

Decagon wrote:It was an elbow. Gloved fists don't split a man's nose in two.

exactley!!! there is no way a glove could make that kind of cut.


you expect us to believe that charles is the only boxer in history that could slice a mans nose open with a punch?


it had to be an elbow. i have sources that say it was an elbow

...so...then a glove couldn't have caused the down-to-the-bone cut vitaly got against lewis.

nonsense...the marciano nose cut was caused by a left hook..coming up at an angle that almost made it an uppercut...

Jaclem wrote:...so...then a glove couldn't have caused the down-to-the-bone cut vitaly got against lewis.

nonsense...the marciano nose cut was caused by a left hook..coming up at an angle that almost made it an uppercut...

Thank you. I was going to argue it more myself but you put it perfectly. "I have inside sources that say it was an elbow" is bull. I have two eyes and saw the punch on the tape. Marciano himself on the commentary of the Main Events version states it was a punch also. It is a moot point anyway, it doesn't detract from Marciano's legacy. If anything, it makes it better that he was that close to a legitmate loss when he pulled the W out of his ass.

Here is a screenshot of the punch:

http://www.freewebs.com/riddickbowe/mar ... arles2.png

Look at the angle of the shot. Ezzard Charles was one of the most accurate and pinpoint punchers in the history of the game in my opinion. Is it so hard to believe that a hybrid left hook/uppercut sliced open the tip of a cut prone man's nose?

Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.

Ezzard wrote:Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.

Oh yes. A younger Walcott might have beaten Maricnao, too.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yes walcott did come close to winning. walcott fought a terrific fight, as did marciano. one of the greatest in heavyweight history. however marciano setup walcott for the perfect punch and he landed the greatest puncher in history.....no exuses for either man......marciano won.

Now suppose Walcott would have decided to sidestep Marciano rather than trying to beat him to the punch -- isn't it rather plausible that he would have ended the bout and won the decision? If so, how can Marciano be considered "unbeatable"? Walcott could have beaten him - he did not, but he could have.

Ali in the late 60s looked unbeatable, as did Louis in the late 30s and perhaps Johnson in the late 1900s. Otherwise no "unbeatable" heavyweight comes to my mind.

Rocky Marciano had a style that WAS beatable. He had such a small reach and no great hand speed and foot speed. His style was to get inside and try and get his man on the ropes. Would take one to give one, take four, five, six to land one.

He was always a slow starter, would lose the first few rounds and then rally back to ultimately destroy his opponent. He would batter the arms, head, neck, body, anywhere he could hit you to wear you down, break bones, and knock them out.

What alot of people don't really realise is, Marciano had a way to get inside without really catching alot of punishment---from ringside it looked like he was getting hit with combinations, but if you look at those punches out of [let's say] a 6 punch combination his opponent would throw at him, only one or two would land.

He would charge in, bull his opponent against the ropes, and all the while they were backpedaling to get away from him and throwing punches to keep him off, which most would land on his arms as he would swat his opponents meager attempts at defense away to the side.

The best fight he had as a champion, in my opinion, was when he faced Charles the first time. It wasn't Marciano's knockout blows, wasn't his power that helped him win, it was everything else. Marciano won a decision over arguably THE most gifted fighter at the weight. The rematch was more of the same until Charles split Marciano's nose [either with an elbow or punch will always be debated] and Marciano had to forget technique and just went in.

Charles might as well of had LAMB LEAD TO SLAUGHTER tattooed on his forehead because Marciano blew him away the following round. It is my belief, that hadn't Charles of cut Marciano that it would have went the distance, Marciano was just fighting for his life, his pride and his title with all he had when the cut happened.

After he defeated Walcott, Moore, Charles and British champion Cockell, the only remaining men left to fight were: Satterfield, Baker, Jackson, a young Patterson and Valdes. Those were generally the top men of the time, and of course Earl Walls and a few others.

Had Marciano of not retired I do believe he would have stopped Satterfield, Baker, Jackson and Valdes [all in tough fights] and then crowned it off with a win over Floyd Patterson.

Unbeatable? His style was beatable, but not the man himself. AFter disposing of the three big ones: Moore, Charles and Walcott, I do think he would have been unbeatable. There was nobody who could have stood up to him, whether it be because they weren't on the caliber of Walcott, Moore or Charles, or they just couldn't take the punches [Patterson].

I vote for being unbeatable. The only man in my mind who would have given Marciano a great deal of trouble would have been Johansson, because Marciano would have been older, and Liston, again because Marciano would have been older.

Guys with Marciano's style often burn out by the time they reach 33 years old, but I think Marciano, with all his great training prowess, much like the old bare-knuckle fighters, who could fight for 40 or 70 rounds, I think he could have fought on until 1958-1959 and remain unstoppable.

There just wasn't anyone there left to give him a hard fought battle.