BoxRec

One problem is that you want it both ways. You want to count Charles win over Joe Louis as a big deal and then use the past his prime excuses for Charles losses.
Louis was 36 and had not fought in two years when Charles beat him.
Jimmy Bivins had a pretty spotty record at heavyweight. Several losses to less than great fighters. Beating him was not really that big of a deal.
Lyle was a very good fighter and was better than that version of Joe Louis and Jimmy Bivins.
Peralta was no legend, but was a decent fighter. When Foreman beat him the first time, he had not been a pro for even a year. That's a pretty good win at that stage in someone's career.

Norton and Ray is debatable? Come on. Norton was a better fighter than Ray. Ray was also 36 and slipping by the time Charles beat him. Norton was in his prime when Foreman beat him.

Frazier fought a tremendous fight in the 3rd fight against Ali in their third fight at the age of 31.
Frazier had taken a lot more punishment at that stage of his career than Charles had at that age.

Another reason why using the past his prime excuse in 1952 looks silly is that Charles gave Marciano a tough fight in 1954. He was really declining by 1952, he would have been really declining by 1954. Which mean that Marciano should get ripped for not putting beating him a lot easier. Which tarnish Marciano's image and makes the 1950s heavyweights not look as good....

In fact Marciano was very crude and admitted it.. "I wasn't a good boxer. I fought many guys who were better boxers than me. Sometimes I was hurt and confused. When that happened I got really mad and went after them with everything I had. That always worked for me."

It always worked for Joe Frazier too.. until he met George Foreman.. Let's face it.. Marciano never faced anyone remotely as strong as Foreman or Liston. Two things to remember. When Nino Valdes beat Charles he was the number one contender for a while. Goldman didn't want Rocky to fight Valdes and the fight didn't happen. When Bob Baker beat Valdes in a fight where the winner got Marciano, Goldman said, "It was an elimination fight. Baker and Valdes were so bad they eliminated each other." He simply refused to fight Baker because he was "too bad." He accepted Don Cockell though. Goldman kept Rocky away from big guys, even if they were damned slow. Marciano was the most carefully managed and matched Heavyweight of all time.

Foreman had an aura of invincibility after the way he crushed Frazier and Norton.. Foreman relied too much on his strength and power, which he was obviously the strongest man in the game in the 70's.. Had he learned a little patience.. Had he how to box better in his first career, he would have had a much better chance of beating Ali and Young.. Foreman took losses very hard in his youth.. After the Ali fight he often stayed in bed for days at a time he was so depressed and out of it. After the Young fight he was much worse and just quit his career. It took him many years to work it out.

Going into the fight I don't see anything to indicate Ray was past his prime. He may have been past it subsequently but I don't see indications of decline prior to the fight. He was able to beat Sid Peaks afterwards who was a pretty good fighter.

Once again, you can't have it both ways.
Elmer Ray beat Sid Peaks? That is supposed to be proof that he wasn't past it when Charles beat him? Come on.
Ray was 37 when Charles beat him. We are supposed to believe that is a big deal. When Charles (at the age of 31) loses to Layne, we are supposed to believe he was over the hill. Even though he had decent results after that.

That's nonsense.

The manifestations of ALS are like a major crash in the stock market -- except the decline is complete and can last for 20 years.. You have days, weeks, or months when you will rally physically, only to sink lower then ever before.. Sufferers at first think it's age.. or exhaustion from working too hard.. or emotional trauma.. or your life style catching up with you.. But it's obvious the Charles of the first 2 Walcott fights wasn't the Charles of the last 2 Walcott fights.. He knew what he was doing. He had all the knowledge a boxer can have. He just couldn't execute at a very high level anymore.

Had Charles quit after his 77th professional fight---which was his 24th victory in a row---his record would be 71-5-1... And that should be 72-4-1 because every single sportswriter attending the fight had Charles beating Elmer Ray in their 1947 fight. They called it a laughable robbery.

From his 78th fight on Charles was 24-20 and struggled to beat good fighters. His winning streaks got shorter and his losses accumulated -- though he wasn't an old man.. He had a 9 fight winning streak in '52-'53, but looked decidedly slow and mediocre losing to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson in his next 2 fights. A couple wins over very chinny fighters followed and he secured the Marciano fights. He took many shots from Rocky that wouldn't have hit a prime Charles, and his days as a world class boxer were over. He tried for 5 more years to right the ship, going 10-13.

Archie Moore was performing well at 38 but at that age Ali looked awful against Holmes. We don't hold the Holmes loss against Ali just because fighters like Walcott and Moore were successful at that age in major fights.

Just one year after losing to Holmes in a great fight Ken Norton performed horrendously against the mediocre Scott LeDoux getting dropped twice. Does this mean Norton was totally shot going into the Holmes fight and thus the win means nothing? Using your logic regarding Charles-Ray Holmes should not get any credit for the win.

As far as the 50s heavyweights not looking good goes....Leon Spinks became undisputed heavyweight champion in the 1970s. I would say that is a far bigger indication of an era being weak than Marciano not beating Charles more thoroughly.

Spinks becoming champ wasn't an indication of a super weak era... You have to remember that Spinks was unranked and never deserved a title shot.

Holmes was the best Heavyweight, but Ali chose to ignored him... When Spinks was stripped Holmes beat Norton for the title... Ali continued to pretend Holmes didn't exist. Ali fought Spinks again and retired... Spinks was clobbered by every top Heavyweights from then on... He was clearly out of his depth.

That also happened to Michael Bentt.. He had about 10 fights when he upset Tommy Morrison. Then he was in big trouble. He was gonna get killed by any of the top Heavyweights.. It wasn't so much an indication the era was super weak -- so much as Bentt was never a legitimate challenger in the first place.

Kalan wrote:Spinks becoming champ wasn't an indication of a super weak era... You have to remember that Spinks was unranked and never deserved a title shot.

Its worth saying that Leon was a notorious party goer, poor trainer, drank heavily and took drugs. Like a lot of fighters he ruined his own career, I think he was even arrested for drug possession whilst HW champ. He had talent but never really fulfilled his true potential and maybe should've campaigned at CW as he wasn't the biggest guy.

Cruiser wasn't a legit option until he was already declined.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Cruiser wasn't a legit option until he was already declined.

ah yes, saying that I doubt he ever had the real dedication he needed to stay at the top

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Just one year after losing to Holmes in a great fight Ken Norton performed horrendously against the mediocre Scott LeDoux getting dropped twice. Does this mean Norton was totally shot going into the Holmes fight and thus the win means nothing? Using your logic regarding Charles-Ray Holmes should not get any credit for the win.

Well, no that isn't my logic.
Getting past your prime is generally a combination of aging and taking punishment.

Norton had a lot left going the Holmes fight. He looked good in that fight but that was the beginning of the end for him. Norton took a lot of punishment in the Holmes fight. That fight accerlated his decline. He also got crushed by Shavers before taking on LeDoux.
The combination of aging and punishment took it's toll on Norton.

Norton clearly was not the same fighter when he fought LeDoux as he once was. I vividly remember watching that fight and it was painfully obvious.
Ray was 37 when he fought Charles. Sure you can trot out Archie Moore, but almost ever fighter who ever lived had declined considerably by that age.
You aren't showing any evidence at all to show that Charles was past it when he lost to Rex Layne. He just magically became past his prime so you can use it as a excuse.

Controversial wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Cruiser wasn't a legit option until he was already declined.

ah yes, saying that I doubt he ever had the real dedication he needed to stay at the top

Agreed, he took some brutal beatings when he went to Cruiser. Including 'winning' a decision so putrid it makes the ones complained about now seem just; Jesse Burnett. Perhaps the most victimized fighter of the 40 years I've watched. Burnett is the perfect example of how watered down the current product is. Nearly a .500 fighter and he'd give every top guy from 68-75(probably sans ward) hell.

Ambling Alp II wrote:You aren't showing any evidence at all to show that Charles was past it when he lost to Rex Layne. He just magically became past his prime so you can use it as a excuse.

"The manifestations of ALS are like a major crash in the stock market -- except the decline is complete and can last for 20 years.. You have days, weeks, or months when you will rally physically, only to sink lower then ever before.. Sufferers at first think it's age.. or exhaustion from working too hard.. or emotional trauma.. or your life style catching up with you.. But it's obvious the Charles of the first 2 Walcott fights wasn't the Charles of the last 2 Walcott fights.. He knew what he was doing. He had all the knowledge a boxer can have. He just couldn't execute at a very high level anymore.

Had Charles quit after his 77th professional fight---which was his 24th victory in a row---his record would be 71-5-1... And that should be 72-4-1 because every single sportswriter attending the fight had Charles beating Elmer Ray in their 1947 fight. They called it a laughable robbery.

From his 78th fight on Charles was 24-20 and struggled to beat good fighters. His winning streaks got shorter and his losses accumulated -- though he wasn't an old man.. He had a 9 fight winning streak in '52-'53, but looked decidedly slow and mediocre losing to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson in his next 2 fights. A couple wins over very chinny fighters followed and he secured the Marciano fights. He took many shots from Rocky that wouldn't have hit a prime Charles, and his days as a world class boxer were over. He tried for 5 more years to right the ship, going 10-13."

If you watch the 4 Walcott fights he was getting worse with each one... The speed and accuracy, and his defense are the biggest items to be aware of.

If Ali had declined to the point where he could lose to someone like Spinks than I would have expected someone to have beaten him and taken his title prior to reaching that point.

He had been declining since the 3rd Frazier fight. He barely beat Shavers and didn't look good at all against Evangelista in his two fights prior to fighting Spinks.

Yes, ideally he should have called it a day after 'The Thrilla In Manila'. I agree.

And we can all agree that fighters seldom get out in their prime... Most believe they can recapture lost glory... But the smart ones just up and quit

Some of the exceptions are - Tunney... who claimed his last fight versus Heeney was his most complete and said he could have fought for several more years

Braddock... knew he wasn't very good, but he lucked out and won the title. He was inactive for 2 years and lost it to Louis. He got 1 more win and quit

Jofre... who won his last 25. Even though Jofre was 40 he said he could have continued boxing, but he wanted to get into politics.

Marciano... who had a very easy ride---but I don't think the youthful, speedy, and powerful Patterson was a match-up he felt he could survive.

Lewis... who quit when it became apparent the only opponent he was going to be allowed to fight was a rematch with Vitali Klitschko.

Mayweather... He looked around and saw undefeated killers Thurman and Brook demanding unification fights.. He fought cherry-picked Berto and quit

V. Klitschko... He was 41 and had a nagging injury to his left hand. He wanted to get into politics anyway so it seemed a good time to quit

6 of those 7 boxers quit when they still owned a World Title. They could have made substantially more money. It proves money isn't the God of everyone

I'm not questioning whether he had declined, I am merely pointing out that him remaining undisputed champion when he had deteriorated enough to lose to Spinks (who had only 7 pro fights) certainly is not indicative of a strong era.

Which 50s heavyweight champions would you pick Leon Spinks to beat?

Cojimar 1946 wrote:I'm not questioning whether he had declined, I am merely pointing out that him remaining undisputed champion when he had deteriorated enough to lose to Spinks (who had only 7 pro fights) certainly is not indicative of a strong era.

Which 50s heavyweight champions would you pick Leon Spinks to beat?

Walcott, Johansson, and Marciano... Charles and Patterson would likely beat him at their best -- but for Charles that wasn't a 50's version of him.

As far as 50s fighters vs 70s fighters go if we match the top 20 of each era the outcomes will probably depend on who we match up with who.

Someone like Eddie Machen might actually have a good shot against Foreman. He faced big hitters like Williams and Liston and managed a draw with Williams while giving Liston a better fight than anyone else in his prime. I think if he could survive the early rounds he might be able to take over as Foreman tires. Williams might also have a shot against Foreman since Foreman's defense is not the best.

I am also curious as to why the 70s in particular are singled out as a great era. I think most people would pick the Ali of the mid-60s to beat any heavyweight from the 70s (the 70s Ali would lose to the 60s version). Wouldn't that make the 60s superior to the 70s on a who beats who basis?

Cojimar 1946 wrote:As far as 50s fighters vs 70s fighters go if we match the top 20 of each era the outcomes will probably depend on who we match up with who.

Someone like Eddie Machen might actually have a good shot against Foreman. He faced big hitters like Williams and Liston and managed a draw with Williams while giving Liston a better fight than anyone else in his prime. I think if he could survive the early rounds he might be able to take over as Foreman tires. Williams might also have a shot against Foreman since Foreman's defense is not the best.

Eddie Machen nor Cleveland Williams have the strength nor the physical anatomy to beat a great heavyweight like George Foreman. I don't trust Machen's nor Williams' legs.