Ezzard Charles Title Reign 1949-51

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Oct 2006, 15:06

I commented on this before. Its a very obscure title reign. Outside of Walcott and Joe Louis, i feel none of those opponents deserved shots at the title. Most of them were unranked B level fighters.

There was a dangerous young crop of heavyweight contenders out there 1949-51 like Roland lastraza, Rocky Marciano, bob baker, Clarence henry, rex layne, gene tiger jones, omelio agramonte, sid peaks, yet none of these guys got shots at the heavyweight title and far less fighters got shots instead. these guys would have been much more dangerous than some of the shot fighters and B level journeyman charles fought instead.

Freddie Beshore, half blind pat valentino, old lee oma, nick barone, old gus lesnevich, lightheavyweight joey maxim......these guys were very pathetic challengers who had no business getting title shots.

So i ask, I know the IBC had total control of charles during the title reign. was it the IBC that forced charles to fight these ham and eggers or was it charles manager jake mintz avoiding certain contenders??

the only world class top ranked heavyweight fighters chalres fought during his title reign were joe louis and jersey joe walcott.

so how come bob baker, clarence henry, roland lastarza, rocky marciano, rex layne none of these guys got title shots vs ezzard charles?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 15 Oct 2006, 21:17

I think every champion, no matter who it was or in what era, always had a 'gimme' or two in their title reigns. Sometimes its unavoidable, such as Joe Louis' title reign, as many of the guys Louis fought were dubbed 'The Bum of the Month'.

In Charles case I think after all the years of not getting a shot at MW or LHW, that he 'deserved' to actually keep his HW title as long as he could, so throw in some cheap easy money fights against the likes of Lesnevich and Valentino.

I always heard the rumor that the reason why Charles fought Walcott so many times was because there was a lack of competition that could draw in enough money...I will say this, from the time Charles became champion, til the time Marciano retired, it wasn't a bad era, but it certainly wasn't top flight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Oct 2006, 22:27

Decagon wrote:Joey Maxim was a huge light heavyweight by the standards of the day, weighing up to 190 pounds in his heavyweight title bouts. You're also ignoring the fact that the World Light Heavyweight Champion was often considered the default #1 contender for the title. Very few men have held the World Light Heavyweight Championship without facing off against the World Heavyweight Champion.

And, you can't bitch about Bob Statterfield being a heavyweight that Lloyd Marshall beat, while ignoring that Joey Maxim beat him as well, helping establishing himself as a heavyweight contender. You're also ignoring that light heavyweight wins offen affected heavyweight rankings. Take a look at how Maxim and Patterson were ranked after their matchup.

joey maxim beat no heavyweight contenders leading up to the charles fight. was maxim beating rex layne, rocky marciano, jimmy bivins, roland lastarza, bob baker, joe louis, clarence henry??? was joey maxim beating these guys??

lets say for a minute maxim was an acceptable defense, lets throw maxim out of the equation for a 2nd.

that leaves charles with 5 horrific title defenses vs piss poor opponents like shot lesnevich, half blind valentino, C level beshore and barone, old lee oma.

surely a rocky marciano, rex layne, bob baker, clarence henry, roland lastarza, gene tiger jones, sid peaks should have got a shot over those 5 ham and eggers!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Oct 2006, 22:31

I always heard the rumor that the reason why Charles fought Walcott so many times was because there was a lack of competition that could draw in enough money

thats bullshit. there were plenty of dangerous top contenders out there. these guys simply werent giving a chance to fight for the title.

there wasnt a lack of competition. in 1951, rocky marciano, archie moore, bob baker, rex layne, clarence henry were ALL out there. charles should have fought at least one of these guys. these guys are all very dangerous competition. its not like walcott was the only one out there!!!

rex layne beats walcott, but walcott gets the title shot instead of layne??

bob baker was undefeated top heavyweight contender 6'2 220lb in 1951 and was being highly touted by the newspapers. is he suddenly not dangerous enough???

clarence henry was a top ranked contender, who possed all around skill, power and talent of a champion. he was being compared in the same class as charles and walcott in 1951 by the papers. yet henrys not dangerous enough to get a title shot??

marciano undefeated top heavyweight contender with knockout wins over layne and louis, not dangerous enough to warrant a title shot by charles??

lastarza 40-1 master boxer top 10 ranked contender. hes not dangerous enough to warrant a title shot yet , freddie beshore, and nick barone are???

big hard punching heavyweight sluggers gene tiger jones and sid peaks arnt good enough to warrant title shots but a shot lightheavyweight and C level journeyman are??

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 15 Oct 2006, 22:33

joey maxim beat no heavyweight contenders leading up to the charles fight. was maxim beating rex layne, rocky marciano, jimmy bivins, roland lastarza, bob baker, joe louis, clarence henry??? was joey maxim beating these guys??

Who did Roy Jones beat at HW to face John Ruiz? Who did Stanley Ketchell defeat at HW to face Jack Johnson? Nobody. Yet they got the title shots. I think it's safe to say that a champion from another weight class could get a shot at a champion in another weight class, as history has done this time and time again.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Oct 2006, 22:40

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
joey maxim beat no heavyweight contenders leading up to the charles fight. was maxim beating rex layne, rocky marciano, jimmy bivins, roland lastarza, bob baker, joe louis, clarence henry??? was joey maxim beating these guys??
Who did Roy Jones beat at HW to face John Ruiz? Who did Stanley Ketchell defeat at HW to face Jack Johnson? Nobody. Yet they got the title shots. I think it's safe to say that a champion from another weight class could get a shot at a champion in another weight class, as history has done this time and time again.

ruiz wasnt linear champion.

johnsons heavyweight title reign sucked

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 16 Oct 2006, 00:09

Yea, but Jones never fought at HW. What gave him the right to face off with Ruiz, lineal champion or not? Title is a title, isn't it?

As far as Jack Johnson's title reign 'sucks' I do think Johnson could have taken on a few of the black fighters as a champion, but the money was facing against 'white hopes' and black fighters back then were paid much less than white fighters...so sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Sure Charles could have defended his title against others, but then again, I think alot of it was a money issue, making money taking 'easy' ones and then going up against THE best of the bunch in Walcott who was older, so it was a bit safe.

If I was not given shots at MW and LHW and knew I was the best and finally won a HW title, I'd do the same thing, to hold on to my much deserved title as long as I can.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Oct 2006, 00:21

As far as Jack Johnson's title reign 'sucks' I do think Johnson could have taken on a few of the black fighters as a champion, but the money was facing against 'white hopes' and black fighters back then were paid much less than white fighters...so sounds like a no-brainer to me.

that arguement doesnt hold any water because jack johnson didnt even fight the best white hopes during his title reign

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 16 Oct 2006, 00:42

Well in one case you're right. But ur also wrong.

He never did face Luther McCarty, because 'Lucky' died, and he was considered the best of the white hopes. Nor did he face Jefferies in his prime, but by and large the public still considered him to be the true champion.

Mind you they ran 'great white hope' tournaments all the time throughout Johnson's reign, so the men Johnson did face, with the exception of Ketchell, were the winners of those tournaments or at least close seconds.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 16 Oct 2006, 01:34

..it's late and i'm tired..but brockton boy knows there is no way i'm going to let this one go by...but i'll get to it later...for know, there are a lot of reasons why these guys got title shots, and they have nothing to do with the "contenders" my boy lists.

while you are waiting anxiously for my comments, just take a look at ezzard's record on box rec..and look how quickly and how often he defended the title. these were mostly matches to keep busy and make some money until legit gate attractions appeared...beynd the promising stage. i don't wan to repeat my in depth story of the facts behind the third walcott defense, but if i have to i will.

in the meantime.....yawn....see you later.

well..before i doze off....joe louis was the number one contender for a rematch with charles...but the kayo by walcott put louis on the shelf...until another walcott match.

walcott froze the title ...so some of the young guys who were coming in line for title shots would have no doubt got them if the always buzy charles hadn't lost the title to the jersey man.

..dammit.....i'm zzzzzzz

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Oct 2006, 05:51

Its a bit rich really to be criticising Charles opposition when he beat a huge number of top fighters which far outweigh Marcinaos opposition... Marcinaos top world class opponents you could count on one hand, Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore... and out of them Louis was completely shot, and Charles, Walcott and Moore were past their best... I think you're obsession with Marcinao is taking you to new depthes Brock...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Oct 2006, 11:36

Anyway, here are the year end rankings Ring magazine put out for 1950, with the fighters Ezzard Charles (or defended against, depending on your point of view) in red:
Quote:
Ezzard Charles, Champion

1. Joe Louis
2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4. Clarene Henry
5. Bob Baker
6. Rex Layne
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10. Rocky Marciano

hmmmm funny how old # 9 ranked lee oma and # 7 walcott gets a title shots in 1951 over # 4, # 5, baker, henry, layne?

1950 brought a whole new era of young dangerous heavyweights like lastarza, layne, henry, baker, marciano yet none of these guys got title shots vs ezzard charles in 1950 or 1951 like they deserved.

clarence henry and bob baker were highly ranked and being highly touted by the papers, but ezzard didnt give them shot. you think manager jake mintz perhaps had cold feet?

ezzard charles made sure he didnt give rocky marciano a title shot in 1951, and he made sure when he lost the title in 1951 to walcott that he didnt run into marciano to ruin his promised rematch with walcott.

On top of that, he fought Rex Layne in his first fight after losing the title to Walcott, and eventually got into the ring with Marciano twice.

yea after marciano had given rex layne a brutal beating and exposed him.

the point is irrelevent though, fact is in 1950 rex layne was 30-1 with 25 KO and beat top ranked jersey joe walcott in a clear decision, YET walcott gets a title shot and NOT rex layne? layne clearly deserved a title shot but didnt get one.

Oh, and it's dumb of you to complain that Lee Oma was old, but go on and on about how Jersey Joe Walcott was in his prime when he lost the title to Marciano, or how Schmeling was in his prime in 1938. I'm still waiting for your reasoning on that one

bad logic,

every fighter primes differently. schmeling and walcott had different primes than oma. lee omas prime was the mid 1940s. charles fought oma in 1951, and if u watch the film oma looks AWFUL. hes fat, hairy, noticeably soft and his dull reflexes of 36 year old are evident on film. lee oma was much worse than a bob baker and clarence henry and was ranked lower, yet oma got a title shot over baker and henry???

Aaaah, but wasn't Archie Moore a light heavyweight? I thought you didn't like the idea of light heavyweights fighting for the title? Anyway, Charles had already beaten Moore three times. What use would it have been for him to beat Moore a fourth time?

charles had already beaten maxim three times, what use would it have been for him to beat maxim a fourth time?

unlike maxim, moore was at least beating top HEAVYWEIGHT contenders and earned the right to challenge for the HEAVYWEIGHT title far more than maxim!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Oct 2006, 11:48

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Anyway, here are the year end rankings Ring magazine put out for 1950, with the fighters Ezzard Charles (or defended against, depending on your point of view) in red:
Quote:
Ezzard Charles, Champion

1. Joe Louis
2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4. Clarene Henry
5. Bob Baker
6. Rex Layne
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10. Rocky Marciano

hmmmm funny how old # 9 ranked lee oma and # 7 walcott gets a title shots in 1951 over # 4, # 5, baker, henry, layne?

1950 brought a whole new era of young dangerous heavyweights like lastarza, layne, henry, baker, marciano yet none of these guys got title shots vs ezzard charles in 1950 or 1951 like they deserved.

clarence henry and bob baker were highly ranked and being highly touted by the papers, but ezzard didnt give them shot. you think manager jake mintz perhaps had cold feet?

ezzard charles made sure he didnt give rocky marciano a title shot in 1951, and he made sure when he lost the title in 1951 to walcott that he didnt run into marciano to ruin his promised rematch with walcott.

On top of that, he fought Rex Layne in his first fight after losing the title to Walcott, and eventually got into the ring with Marciano twice.

yea after marciano had given rex layne a brutal beating and exposed him.

the point is irrelevent though, fact is in 1950 rex layne was 30-1 with 25 KO and beat top ranked jersey joe walcott in a clear decision, YET walcott gets a title shot and NOT rex layne? layne clearly deserved a title shot but didnt get one.

Oh, and it's dumb of you to complain that Lee Oma was old, but go on and on about how Jersey Joe Walcott was in his prime when he lost the title to Marciano, or how Schmeling was in his prime in 1938. I'm still waiting for your reasoning on that one
bad logic,

every fighter primes differently. schmeling and walcott had different primes than oma. lee omas prime was the mid 1940s. charles fought oma in 1951, and if u watch the film oma looks AWFUL. hes fat, hairy, noticeably soft and his dull reflexes of 36 year old are evident on film. lee oma was much worse than a bob baker and clarence henry and was ranked lower, yet oma got a title shot over baker and henry???

Aaaah, but wasn't Archie Moore a light heavyweight? I thought you didn't like the idea of light heavyweights fighting for the title? Anyway, Charles had already beaten Moore three times. What use would it have been for him to beat Moore a fourth time?
charles had already beaten maxim three times, what use would it have been for him to beat maxim a fourth time?

unlike maxim, moore was at least beating top HEAVYWEIGHT contenders and earned the right to challenge for the HEAVYWEIGHT title far more than maxim!

You seem to forget that Charles pratically cleaned up the division before he won the title and wasnt babied to a title shot like Marciano was... comparing their two reigns Charles comes out as far more impressive imo...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Oct 2006, 11:57

You seem to forget that Charles pratically cleaned up the division before he won the title and wasnt babied to a title shot like Marciano was... comparing their two reigns Charles comes out as far more impressive imo...

charles cleaned up the division before he won the title??

ur telling me going 1-1 with 38 year old elmer ray, beating jimmy bivins and stopping joe baksi is cleaning up the division??? i dont think so. there were many heavyweights charles missed out on fighting.

jersey joe walcotts run 1945-47 is an example of cleaning up the division pre title.

* i have a couple newspaper reports that state the charles-ray I fight was not a bad decision and that rays effective aggresion and hard punches on the inside made the fight very close, a fight that could have gone either way. no robbery.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Oct 2006, 12:00

You seem to forget that Charles pratically cleaned up the division before he won the title and wasnt babied to a title shot like Marciano was... comparing their two reigns Charles comes out as far more impressive imo...

this thread is not about marciano. its about ezzard charles. since your so fond of being marciano up in every post in this thread, why dont u make another thread comparing marciano-charles.

but please stick to the subject, dont try to avoid the fact charles fought 5 ham and eggers in title defenses

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 16 Oct 2006, 13:23

If you're discussing the period from when Charles won the title until March of 1951 when he gave Walcott a rematch, then here is what you'll find.

-Moore had yet to defeat any notable HWs, and was still campagining as a light HW (and unlike Ketchel or Jones Jr, was not enough of an attraction to get promoters to leap him in with the HW champ)

-Baker and Henry, while both possesing good records, had not defeated anyone of note by that time. It wasn't really until they faced each other the following year that you could pump up Henry for a title shot. Unless you count a KO victory over a completely shot Turkey Thompson as warranting a title shot

- Ditto with Marciano. He had face LaStarza in a fight between contenders but in the eyes of many had lost and he was not regarded as a major threat until the Layne KO victory, also months after Ezzard rematched Walcott.

Were Charles's title opposition more deserving??? No, but to say that the likes of Henry and Baker were being ducked when they had yet to face other top contenders is pushing it. The likes of Lesnevehich and Beshore were not top flight, but they were experienced. More than could be said for the fighters you mention during that period.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 16 Oct 2006, 14:58

I come to Marciano's defense on this, though this is an Ezzard Charles thread. He was not 'babied' into a title shot. If anyone truly reviews Rocky's career he practically fought guys who were more experienced than he was virtually from the beginning. He skipped passed the 'middle' division and went straight for the top guys, and won those fights. He took risks, he defeated those higher ranked than himself, and he earned his title shot at Walcott.

And I get sick and tired of people saying Joe Louis was completely shot. He was the NUMBER ONE phucking contender ffs when he made his return to the ring. He was to get a shot at Ezzard Charles for a second time, but ended up facing Marciano who was simply too strong, and too tough for Joe [though the fight was practically even on the cards before the KO], because Charles opted to fight Walcott again for the millionth time [sarcasm].

Louis was almost 'Formanesque' in his return, beating guys like Jimmy Bivins with relative ease. He wasn't shot, though his reflexes and hand speed wasn't the same, but he did retain alot of it. The Joe Louis who fought Marciano could beat Wladimir Klitschko and Sergei Liakhovich all on the same night.

Now back to Charles...

As far as saying a few of his opposition was not worthy, I look at it this way, let's take Lesnevich for example. He was a former LHW champion, and had lots of experience, though he was now on the downside. It's a NAME, much like when Holyfield fought both Foreman and Holmes, credible fighters but it's the name value, and it's a sure fire victory cus it's a safer fight and because Lesnevich was a former champion there's the marquee value.

Why risk your title in a hard fight for [example] $10,000 when you can fight a safer opponent with a 'name' for the same amount of money? Sounds simple enough for me.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 16 Oct 2006, 17:13

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I come to Marciano's defense on this, though this is an Ezzard Charles thread. He was not 'babied' into a title shot. If anyone truly reviews Rocky's career he practically fought guys who were more experienced than he was virtually from the beginning. He skipped passed the 'middle' division and went straight for the top guys, and won those fights. He took risks, he defeated those higher ranked than himself, and he earned his title shot at Walcott.

And I get sick and tired of people saying Joe Louis was completely shot. He was the NUMBER ONE phucking contender ffs when he made his return to the ring. He was to get a shot at Ezzard Charles for a second time, but ended up facing Marciano who was simply too strong, and too tough for Joe [though the fight was practically even on the cards before the KO], because Charles opted to fight Walcott again for the millionth time [sarcasm].

Louis was almost 'Formanesque' in his return, beating guys like Jimmy Bivins with relative ease. He wasn't shot, though his reflexes and hand speed wasn't the same, but he did retain alot of it. The Joe Louis who fought Marciano could beat Wladimir Klitschko and Sergei Liakhovich all on the same night.

Now back to Charles...

As far as saying a few of his opposition was not worthy, I look at it this way, let's take Lesnevich for example. He was a former LHW champion, and had lots of experience, though he was now on the downside. It's a NAME, much like when Holyfield fought both Foreman and Holmes, credible fighters but it's the name value, and it's a sure fire victory cus it's a safer fight and because Lesnevich was a former champion there's the marquee value.

Why risk your title in a hard fight for [example] $10,000 when you can fight a safer opponent with a 'name' for the same amount of money? Sounds simple enough for me.

Make your mind up, mate. You were bleating about Larry Holmes putting money before legacy in another thread...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Oct 2006, 18:39

Collins....consistency and/or logical integrity is not always required. Indeed sometimes sports fans have eclectic tendencies that can not be quantified in that manner.

Take for example my turnaround from Calzaghe detractor to full props within the course of a year. Hey it aint math 2 and 2 don't have to equal 4 all the time.

Oh and I find sometimes people just like to have a good old fashioned donnybrook for no particular reason....at least at the bars I used to visit. In fact conflict itself was the goal at a few of those joints. But since I've become a father I can no longer patronize such establishments. The Mrs thinks it could put my daughters future patriarchal parenting at risk.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 16 Oct 2006, 19:32

BoxBuzz wrote:Collins....consistency and/or logical integrity is not always required. Indeed sometimes sports fans have eclectic tendencies that can not be quantified in that manner.

Take for example my turnaround from Calzaghe detractor to full props within the course of a year. Hey it aint math 2 and 2 don't have to equal 4 all the time.

Oh and I find sometimes people just like to have a good old fashioned donnybrook for no particular reason....at least at the bars I used to visit. In fact conflict itself was the goal at a few of those joints. But since I've become a father I can no longer patronize such establishments. The Mrs thinks it could put my daughters future patriarchal parenting at risk.

Buzzy, the two posts I refer to where made on the same day.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Oct 2006, 02:34

..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.
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. 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.....baker's camp wanted "more time" before they issued a challenge to charles...rex layne..in the top ten had already lost to charles...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.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Oct 2006, 02:50

... a few words about joe baksi....he was in line to fight louis but dropped a decision in a fight he was supposed to be a cinch to win to the awkward ollie tanberg. at another time he lost out on the match because he cut himself with an ax while chopping wood. most interesting fellow. in his match with charles....which many in new york thought he would win because he was so much bigger..he started cursing and yelling at his corner...radio announcer....dunphy i, think. said...."I've never seen baksi so mad. he's yelling that he can't land a blow on charles and is getting cut to ribbons." finally he had to quit because he couldn't see.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:38

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I come to Marciano's defense on this, though this is an Ezzard Charles thread. He was not 'babied' into a title shot. If anyone truly reviews Rocky's career he practically fought guys who were more experienced than he was virtually from the beginning. He skipped passed the 'middle' division and went straight for the top guys, and won those fights. He took risks, he defeated those higher ranked than himself, and he earned his title shot at Walcott.

And I get sick and tired of people saying Joe Louis was completely shot. He was the NUMBER ONE phucking contender ffs when he made his return to the ring. He was to get a shot at Ezzard Charles for a second time, but ended up facing Marciano who was simply too strong, and too tough for Joe [though the fight was practically even on the cards before the KO], because Charles opted to fight Walcott again for the millionth time [sarcasm].

Louis was almost 'Formanesque' in his return, beating guys like Jimmy Bivins with relative ease. He wasn't shot, though his reflexes and hand speed wasn't the same, but he did retain alot of it. The Joe Louis who fought Marciano could beat Wladimir Klitschko and Sergei Liakhovich all on the same night.

Now back to Charles...

As far as saying a few of his opposition was not worthy, I look at it this way, let's take Lesnevich for example. He was a former LHW champion, and had lots of experience, though he was now on the downside. It's a NAME, much like when Holyfield fought both Foreman and Holmes, credible fighters but it's the name value, and it's a sure fire victory cus it's a safer fight and because Lesnevich was a former champion there's the marquee value.

Why risk your title in a hard fight for [example] $10,000 when you can fight a safer opponent with a 'name' for the same amount of money? Sounds simple enough for me.

Louis was shot, try watching the fight mate!... and Marcinao was one of the most babied fighters there were on his way to the title and to say otherwise is just avoiding reality...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Oct 2006, 09:02

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.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Oct 2006, 12:15

silkov wrote:
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I come to Marciano's defense on this, though this is an Ezzard Charles thread. He was not 'babied' into a title shot. If anyone truly reviews Rocky's career he practically fought guys who were more experienced than he was virtually from the beginning. He skipped passed the 'middle' division and went straight for the top guys, and won those fights. He took risks, he defeated those higher ranked than himself, and he earned his title shot at Walcott.

And I get sick and tired of people saying Joe Louis was completely shot. He was the NUMBER ONE phucking contender ffs when he made his return to the ring. He was to get a shot at Ezzard Charles for a second time, but ended up facing Marciano who was simply too strong, and too tough for Joe [though the fight was practically even on the cards before the KO], because Charles opted to fight Walcott again for the millionth time [sarcasm].

Louis was almost 'Formanesque' in his return, beating guys like Jimmy Bivins with relative ease. He wasn't shot, though his reflexes and hand speed wasn't the same, but he did retain alot of it. The Joe Louis who fought Marciano could beat Wladimir Klitschko and Sergei Liakhovich all on the same night.

Now back to Charles...

As far as saying a few of his opposition was not worthy, I look at it this way, let's take Lesnevich for example. He was a former LHW champion, and had lots of experience, though he was now on the downside. It's a NAME, much like when Holyfield fought both Foreman and Holmes, credible fighters but it's the name value, and it's a sure fire victory cus it's a safer fight and because Lesnevich was a former champion there's the marquee value.

Why risk your title in a hard fight for [example] $10,000 when you can fight a safer opponent with a 'name' for the same amount of money? Sounds simple enough for me.
Louis was shot, try watching the fight mate!... and Marcinao was one of the most babied fighters there were on his way to the title and to say otherwise is just avoiding reality...

why do u keep bringing marciano into this thread? you got some sick obsession we dont know about??

stick to the subject of the thread you fool.

PS no fighter was more babied on his way up than baby george foreman