Page 2 of 2
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 12:16
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Ezzard wrote:This is an odd thread IMO. Charles fought some of the greatest names in boxing and beat them. Does anyone seriously think Charles would avoid a fight? He was already fighting above his best weight. It's as if someone thought - well he does have a great record but if I take these two date paramenters and look at what happened then he doesn't look so great.
no one suggested this
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 12:21
by Ezzard
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Ezzard wrote:This is an odd thread IMO. Charles fought some of the greatest names in boxing and beat them. Does anyone seriously think Charles would avoid a fight? He was already fighting above his best weight. It's as if someone thought - well he does have a great record but if I take these two date paramenters and look at what happened then he doesn't look so great.
no one suggested this
If he had held the title for 5-6 years and not fought any top contenders then fair enough. If the point is not to discredit Charles' reign then what is the point?
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 12:25
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Jaclem wrote:..first of all..it was the ibc who was making most of the matches in the period under discussion. joe louis had some say in the deals..he was responsible for the pat valentino (who was not half blind) match up.
charles did not opt to fight walcott for "the millionth time." this was a shady deal made by jake mintz whi had been..ah..."placed" into the charles camp as the elkus family was being eased out. the walcott folks gave mintz $10,000 to make the third walcott fight..for which no one, including those left from the original charles backers were aware of...until weeks after it was made.
if you consider, as i do and everyone but nat fleischer did..that charles won the title in the first match with walcott...look at the dates..that fight was on june 22, 1949...and he defended against lesnevich..ON AUGUST 14 OF THAT SAME YEAR.. the quickest first defense of a heavy title in boxing history..faster even than joe louis' record....and then again ..against pat velentino....on OCTOBER 14 OF THAT SAME YEAR.!!! These were fights made until a name opponent came to the fore. lesnevich had been built up as an opponent on the basis that his losses as a light heavy were because he was weight drained. plus, he a was popular in new york.
strictly for purses.
the real contenders were walcott and louis...who was winning again, after his loss to charles. as bad as he had looked in that fight, he was being rehabilitated .... with these wins and stories than he wsn't really in shape when he fought charles...plus his unmatched record in rematches...and he was still a box office draw.
as for charles's wins in 1948..before he fought walcott ....they were seven out of seven...and included his kayo over moore, his tragic kayo of baroudi...a kayo over elmo ray...another win over jimmy bivins....and his one sided battering over joe baksi....a tough and highly regarded heavyweight who had once been in line to challenge joe louis which never came about because he was erratic,accident prone and a little nuts....but big and tough and experienced.
niether lastarza or marciano were in the mix for challenging during the periods i have listed. there was no way al weill was going to put marciano in with charles at this stage of the latter's career. he hadn't yet proved himself, and certainly la starza hadn't.
the above paragraph has points that have already been made by others on this thread.
charles was a fighting champion...and the valentino, barone and beshore fights were made not INSTEAD of fighting better challengers, but in additiion to.
incidentally,the reason for the long long layoff for charles...all the way from..gasp....october of 1949 until august 15 of 1951.....gee ..nearly a year!!!.....was because he had an injured muscle leading to the heart and doctors insisted he take some time off.
while i am still here....in 1949 lee oma was listed as no. 2..under charles with "title vacant" in fleischerville...walcott , bivins and valentino were all rated above the number 10 guy..lastarza. in 1950 joe louis was the number one contender..maxim #3..walcott #7 and rocky marciano #10.
henry and bob baker were in the top 10........and good old lee oma was also still hanging around in the top ten.
this post has nothing to do with any other champions and their title defenses. just about charles and his.
the valentino match was because valentino (he with the long hair and 20/20 vision) had a west coast following and ezzard hadn't really been seen there.
Valentino was past his prime and had a bad eye when he fought charles.
I heard from a sourve that Valentino had 4 weeks to train for that fight and he was coming off of a year layoff following an eye operation Valentino got 5000$ for that fight and 7500$ for his next an exhibition against Louis in which he was kod in the 8th ,what many people dont know is that Valentino was blind in his right eye at the time of the Louis fight
.baker's camp wanted "more time" before they issued a challenge to charles.
when and where did bakers camp say this??
.rex layne..in the top ten had already lost to charles
layne didnt lose to charles until after charles was champion. while charles was champion, rex layne beat jersey joe walcott in 1950 and was a top contender yet rex layne never got a shot at the title and walcott did instead. surely layne deserved a title shot over nick barone!!!
why didnt charles give gene tiger jones, sid peaks title shots?? these guys deserved shots more than a shot lesnevich and beshore.
clarence henry was higher ranked than lee oma and a much better fighter. why did lee oma get a title shot instead of clarence henry??
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 12:27
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Ezzard wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Ezzard wrote:This is an odd thread IMO. Charles fought some of the greatest names in boxing and beat them. Does anyone seriously think Charles would avoid a fight? He was already fighting above his best weight. It's as if someone thought - well he does have a great record but if I take these two date paramenters and look at what happened then he doesn't look so great.
no one suggested this
If he had held the title for 5-6 years and not fought any top contenders then fair enough. If the point is not to discredit Charles' reign then what is the point?
well outside of louis and walcott title defenses, charles title reign was very piss poor. it would have looked much better if he could have added a lastarza, layne, baker, or henry as one of his victims
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 13:46
by Jaclem
...brockton buddy.. i stand corrected on when charles fought rex layne..and thanks for setting the record straight.
..when did baker's handlers say they wanted more time before fighting charles? well...duh..obviously during charles' title reign.
on everything else i stand by my statements. i've already spent more time than i have on this. i've wriiten much more in various places over the years on ezzard and i am not inclined to digest my own writings ..which covered a period if years. most are out of print..i don't even have all of them myself.
just look at the records, look at the ratings...as i suggested. it's all there.
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 15:06
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
ill take your word for the bakers camp comment.
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 16:28
by HomicideHenry
Brockton, forgive me, but I'm going to say one more thing about Marciano because I get sick and tired of people who say he was babied his career into title contention.
When Rocky Marciano was 3-0 he fought against prospect Bobby Quinn who was 15-1. Marciano was thought to be an easy set up for Quinn because 'This Marciano kid has got nothing. He can punch all right, but I've never seen a fighter so clumsy. He doesn't know what he's doing out there. Quinn won't have no trouble with him."
Rocky blasted Quinn out in the 3rd round.
When Marciano was 4-0 he fought against undefeated Eddie Ross who was 26-0 with 23 KO's. Again, everybody figured Marciano to be an easy fight for Ross. 'Ross was classy. I figured Rocky was bound to get beat, and Ross was the kid to do it. I threw Rocky in to give this kid another win."
Rocky pulverised Ross in one minute and 13 seconds of the first round.
Ask Sam Silverman who was a big promoter who admitted alot of times that he brought in fighters with the hope that they would beat Marciano:
"I thought Lowery was going to lick Rocky. Rocky's fights were all legit, good, hard fights. Alot of people were talking about how he was being ed setups. Marciano could have lost any number of times in his early fights."
There I said my piece.
Posted: 17 Oct 2006, 18:05
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
irish.......just leave it alone. it will do you no good. its just silky trolling with his anti marciano agenda again. he will never change his opinion on marciano so dont even bother with him.
- objective fans know that weill and goldman didnt even take charge of marciano till around his 15th pro fight, so marciano early on was used by promoter sam silverman as a setup to build up other prospects records, yet marciano somehow came out of his first 10 pro fights without a loss.
now back to the thread
Posted: 18 Oct 2006, 02:25
by Ezzard
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Ezzard wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
no one suggested this
If he had held the title for 5-6 years and not fought any top contenders then fair enough. If the point is not to discredit Charles' reign then what is the point?
well outside of louis and walcott title defenses, charles title reign was very piss poor. it would have looked much better if he could have added a lastarza, layne, baker, or henry as one of his victims
Like I said he held the title for about 2 years. He beat Walcott and Louis and 2 LHW champs. It's not 'piss poor'. It's not great either, but good enough.
So the purpose of this thread is what? 'Ezzard Charles had a piss poor reign as Heavyweight champion'????? Is that it? I'm trying to work out what your supposed insight or angle is on this.