Why was Ezzard Charles given a shot at Marciano?

[Longhhorn71]

Except for Bob Satterfield, Charles hadn't beaten a top
Heavyweight in 2-1/2 years.

Was the winner of Satterfield vs Charles fight guaranteed
a shot at the Rock?

[McGrain]

Charles beat Layne when Layne was ranked very highly, no? That was more recent than two and half years?

[Longhhorn71]

Didn't he lose to Valdez & Johnson after Layne?

Was the Satterfield ifight winner guaranteed a Rocky shot?

[McGrain]

Yeah, he sure did, I was just questioning your "2 and 1/2 years" claim. Layne was ranked #2 in Febuary of '53 and Charles beat him in April of that year. This was 13 months before he faced Rocky, rather than thirty.

[choklab]

charles was the #1 contender and a serious threat to marciano. he was coming off two spectacular knock out wins of rated contenders. in the previous year 1953 charles fought 6 rated contenders, imagine that?. since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch) a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win) and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him. Nobody but walcott (who he beat 2 times) had beat charles beyond dispute in over 50 fights since the war.
satterfield had iced cleveland big cat wiliams who was being groomed as a potential chalenger. coley walace was just as well thought of at that time. as well as beating marciano as an amatuer walace knocked out billy gilium who went the distance with charles and had beat nino valdes but charles iced him, dishiing out a master class that ruined walace for good. satterfield v charles would have been a big fight on the back of that.
charles had not been a popular champion coming after joe louis but with walcott gone and new hopes wiped out by veterans ezzard had put exciting wins together again. he decked jimmy bivins who was still rated, knocked out bernie renolds quicker than marciano, knocked out rated harrison, walace and satterfield. marciano v charles was a natural.

[Longhhorn71]

charles was the #1 contender and a serious threat to marciano. he was coming off two spectacular knock out wins of rated contenders. in the previous year 1953 charles fought 6 rated contenders, imagine that?. since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch) a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win) and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him. Nobody but walcott (who he beat 2 times) had beat charles beyond dispute in over 50 fights since the war.
satterfield had iced cleveland big cat wiliams who was being groomed as a potential chalenger. coley walace was just as well thought of at that time. as well as beating marciano as an amatuer walace knocked out billy gilium who went the distance with charles and had beat nino valdes but charles iced him, dishiing out a master class that ruined walace for good. satterfield v charles would have been a big fight on the back of that.
charles had not been a popular champion coming after joe louis but with walcott gone and new hopes wiped out by veterans ezzard had put exciting wins together again. he decked jimmy bivins who was still rated, knocked out bernie renolds quicker than marciano, knocked out rated harrison, walace and satterfield. marciano v charles was a natural.

Good summary.....sometimes the early 50's are hard to get a grasp on looking back 55 years.

[he grant]

charles was the #1 contender and a serious threat to marciano. he was coming off two spectacular knock out wins of rated contenders. in the previous year 1953 charles fought 6 rated contenders, imagine that?. since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch) a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win) and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him. Nobody but walcott (who he beat 2 times) had beat charles beyond dispute in over 50 fights since the war.
satterfield had iced cleveland big cat wiliams who was being groomed as a potential chalenger. coley walace was just as well thought of at that time. as well as beating marciano as an amatuer walace knocked out billy gilium who went the distance with charles and had beat nino valdes but charles iced him, dishiing out a master class that ruined walace for good. satterfield v charles would have been a big fight on the back of that.
charles had not been a popular champion coming after joe louis but with walcott gone and new hopes wiped out by veterans ezzard had put exciting wins together again. he decked jimmy bivins who was still rated, knocked out bernie renolds quicker than marciano, knocked out rated harrison, walace and satterfield. marciano v charles was a natural.

Well done.

[TheGreatA]

It was the Satterfield win as well as Charles being a former champion that got him the shot. The division also wasn't exactly packed with talent.

[MRBILL]

Marciano had to fight someone in '54..... The division was pretty shallow with marketable names at the time..... Buzzard Charles getting a shot would sell tixs.......

MR.BILL

[Lobotomy]

Something else that needs to be remembered is what a great fighting champion Ezz was. Not popular coming after Louis, but he defended the title at a blistering pace like the one Joe set before WW II, and he was also a great gentleman of exemplary conduct. He was hardly a precursor of Liston in how he was viewed by the public.

[GPater11093]

since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch)

Proof on that?

a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win)

What posters, whoever I have seen mention it has said it was a close fight that could have went either way.

and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him.

Again proof

[TheGreatA]

From what I've read the Layne loss may have been a bad decision but the Valdes decision was just. There were those who felt that Charles should have avenged his losses to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes before taking on Marciano, but since there wasn't all that much talent around and with Charles being the most well-known name coming off a recent win over Satterfield, he was given the shot.

The other two challengers who were considered for a title shot were Dan Bucceroni and Nino Valdes. Harold Johnson had the best recent success, but he was campaigning for a light heavyweight title shot. Hurricane Jackson went onto beat Bucceroni, and Valdes beat Jackson in an "eliminator". Cockell was given a title shot instead.

[McGrain]

Milwauke Journal:

"After the third round Valdes took charge and never let up...late in the fight Charles swung lefts and rights in a desperate attempt to land the KO blow, but Valdes kept pressing, taking and giving in return."

Nothing at all about a robbery.


The Spokesman Review:

"Charles...started out fast punching with solid left hooks and short rights to the head and body...and continued his attack in the second round.

"In the third round Valdes rushed Charles to the ropes and pumped lefts and rights into the body walking him around the ring and nailing him as he backed up. From then on Valdes took charge of the fight."


Again, nothng about a hometown decision.

[PetethePrince]

From what I've read the Layne loss may have been a bad decision but the Valdes decision was just. There were those who felt that Charles should have avenged his losses to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes before taking on Marciano, but since there wasn't all that much talent around and with Charles being the most well-known name coming off a recent win over Satterfield, he was given the shot.

The other two challengers who were considered for a title shot were Dan Bucceroni and Nino Valdes. Harold Johnson had the best recent success, but he was campaigning for a light heavyweight title shot. Hurricane Jackson went onto beat Bucceroni, and Valdes beat Jackson in an "eliminator". Cockell was given a title shot instead.

I read an article you posted that Charles could not get a rematch with Valdes. You also said this yourself. Not sure why you're shying from that sentiment now.

[TheGreatA]

I read an article you posted that Charles could not get a rematch with Valdes. You also said this yourself. Not sure why you're shying from that sentiment now.

I posted no such article.

Valdes's manager did want a big payday for a rematch but it's not the same thing as not being able to get one.

Regardless of whether he could have gotten a rematch or not, there were people who felt he should avenge his losses.

Jack Dempsey was one of them:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

I posted no such article.

Valdes's manager did want a big payday for a rematch but it's not the same thing as not being able to get one.

Regardless of whether he could have gotten a rematch or not, there were people who felt he should avenge his losses.

Jack Dempsey was one of them:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I'll try finding it but I definitely remembering reading about Charles wanting to get a rematch but having trouble. I read this from something you posted.

Yeah, Charles wanted to avenge his loss too according to the article I'm referring to. How can you avenge a loss if you can't get a rematch for it. I think Valdes is the only thing he could've avenged to further prove his claim. Being a former champion also helps too.

[choklab]

valdes was a cuban who fought in miami with obvious home advantage. I cant say charles was robbed, i have no proof that he was. I can say it was a close hometown loss since charles was the "away fighter" that night.
likewise with the 2nd layne fight. rex was a midwestern atraction fighting out of utah against charles in utah with jack dempsey (from the midwest) as ref..
last time layne fought charles ezzard caught up with him in the 11th round the rematch went but 10 rounds, it could have been the same fight second time without a round 11?

since the 3rd charles v layne fight went like this:

1953-04-01 : Ezzard Charles 187½lbs beat Rex Layne 203lbs by UD in round 10 of 10
Location: Winterland Arena, San Francisco, California, USA
Referee: Frankie Carter 59-51
Judge: Toby Irwin 59-51
Judge: Johnny Lotsey 60½-49½

"Charles scored knockdowns in rounds six, seven and ten with Layne out on his feet at the final bell. He also scored a left eye cut and a right eye puff in round six. Data Boxing reported the blows as Charles 154/450 34%, Layne 99/440 23%. Layne led in controls 103 to 99. The two split 50-50% in Events Per Round( Attempts + Controls) which were 109 for the bout, a moderately active total for heavyweights. "

I am confident charles had the measure of tough rex in the utah fight.

[McGrain]

valdes was a cuban who fought in miami with obvious home advantage. I cant say charles was robbed, i have no proof that he was. I can say it was a close hometown loss since charles was the "away fighter" that night.
likewise with the 2nd layne fight. rex was a midwestern atraction fightin.


But when you say that Valdes won a "home-town" decision, you imply certain things, as you know. Valdes beat Charles clean bu all the accounts I can find.

[choklab]

it is a home town loss. he was the away fighter and the fight was close. I said "home town loss" he lost in the other guys hometown. who wrote the reports home town press?

charles went on to beat beter guys, he beat guys who beat valdes, his weight was high, he wanted the rematch but did not get one so he did the next best thing by out shining valdes as a viable chalenger. even if valdes deserved the win he would go on to lose to guys charles would beat. charles losing to valdes was not a sighn he was slipping. merely he could lose and rebound as he did.

[McGrain]

I think Charles, at his peak, wouldn't lose to Valdes.

[snakeface]

because ezzard is a delicacy to maidana... something to feed the beast.

[choklab]

I think Charles, at his peak, wouldn't lose to Valdes.


I agree. having seen valdes agaisnt baker, moore, jackson,satterfield and london i think it must have been something like the fight of his life to edge charles when he did. charles fought 6 rated contenders that year and spread himself a bit thin. I think the charles who turned up for wallace would have had much too much for the valdes who showed up for satterfield, moore, baker and even jackson.

[OLD FOGEY]

I am not that high on Nino Valdes, but from what I have read, his victory over Charles was not controversial. He apparently won it cleanly.

The decision losses to Walcott and Layne in 1952, and to Johnson in 1953, however, were all close and controversial.


My own guess is that Charles was probably looking past Valdes. He might not have taken him seriously. There is little doubt that he would have taken Walcott, Layne, and Johnson seriously, and tried to be at the top of his game.

[McGrain]

I don't think you can call the Johnson loss controversial, personally, although it was certainly very close.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't think you can call the Johnson loss controversial, personally, although it was certainly very close.


I edited controversial out. These fights were close enough that many thought Charles won. I know the majority of the press thought Charles edged Walcott and Layne. I don't know how the press voted vis-a-vis Johnson.

[McGrain]

Fair enough.

At a guess the press would have greeted Charles-Johnson with a shrug. It could easily have gone either way and it went to Johnson. Like I said in that thread, I have it 5-5 but I like a Johnson win better than a Charles win.

[choklab]

I edited controversial out. These fights were close enough that many thought Charles won. I know the majority of the press thought Charles edged Walcott and Layne. I don't know how the press voted vis-a-vis Johnson.


this is the impresion i get also.

[GPater11093]

Choklab, you presume the Valdez fight was a homer, but what actual hard facts and proof is there to back that up?

[Unforgiven]

Layne's win over Charles was certainly controversial.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"The surprise of the decision, coming after 10 bruising rounds that were punctuated primarily by a powerful left hook used by the former heavyweight champion to punish Rowdy Rex, was indicated by the fact that virtually all ringsiders scoring the contest had Ezzard winning."

[mcvey]

Except for Bob Satterfield, Charles hadn't beaten a top
Heavyweight in 2-1/2 years.

Was the winner of Satterfield vs Charles fight guaranteed
a shot at the Rock?

Whilst its true Charles had lost decisions to Valdes ,and Johnson, he had come back from that, to ko Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield only 6 ,and 5 months before getting his title shot with Marciano.
Add to this he was a former Champ ,he was entitled to a shot, and more importantly the fans would turn out for it A very credible challenger which his stirring 15 rds challenge reinforced, imo.

[choklab]

Choklab, you presume the Valdez fight was a homer, but what actual hard facts and proof is there to back that up?


maybe i should have said "lost a close fight in valdes home town". its the truth after all. whilst it is said valdes smothered and outworked ezz it was a clsoe fight. valdes himself said charles hit him "some hard, hard punches". losing a close fight in someones hometown is not a decisive way to lose if the guy still knocks out rated guys who beat valdes. the reports were posibly hometown reports? remember as an ex champ charles was a guy who had already been there nobody would look to give him the benefit of the doubt against a home town boy.
charles either severly under estimated valdes or had a complete off night since he rebounded with much beter wins. gillium outpointed valdes and walace knocked out gillium. by knocking out big wallace charles did the next best thing to avenging his loss to valdes who he couldnt get to rematch. he also beat gillium as well who was just as big as valdes he also beat. losing to valdes isnt even a blot on charles's record when you weigh it all up.

[Bummy Davis]

charles was the #1 contender and a serious threat to marciano. he was coming off two spectacular knock out wins of rated contenders. in the previous year 1953 charles fought 6 rated contenders, imagine that?. since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch) a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win) and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him. Nobody but walcott (who he beat 2 times) had beat charles beyond dispute in over 50 fights since the war.
satterfield had iced cleveland big cat wiliams who was being groomed as a potential chalenger. coley walace was just as well thought of at that time. as well as beating marciano as an amatuer walace knocked out billy gilium who went the distance with charles and had beat nino valdes but charles iced him, dishiing out a master class that ruined walace for good. satterfield v charles would have been a big fight on the back of that.
charles had not been a popular champion coming after joe louis but with walcott gone and new hopes wiped out by veterans ezzard had put exciting wins together again. he decked jimmy bivins who was still rated, knocked out bernie renolds quicker than marciano, knocked out rated harrison, walace and satterfield. marciano v charles was a natural.

:good

[Minotauro]

What posters, whoever I have seen mention it has said it was a close fight that could have went either way.


He's right most do feel Charles beat Johnson, I've got the fight and had Charles ahead by a couple of points. Plus a clear knockdown in Charles favour wasn't counted by the ref for some reason. I know SuzieQ has also seen it and shares my opinion.

[PowerPuncher]

He's right most do feel Charles beat Johnson, I've got the fight and had Charles ahead by a couple of points. Plus a clear knockdown in Charles favour wasn't counted by the ref for some reason. I know SuzieQ has also seen it and shares my opinion.

I'm not sure KDs counted to the score back then though :huh

[Hookie]

charles was the #1 contender and a serious threat to marciano. he was coming off two spectacular knock out wins of rated contenders. in the previous year 1953 charles fought 6 rated contenders, imagine that?. since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch) a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win) and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him. Nobody but walcott (who he beat 2 times) had beat charles beyond dispute in over 50 fights since the war.
satterfield had iced cleveland big cat wiliams who was being groomed as a potential chalenger. coley walace was just as well thought of at that time. as well as beating marciano as an amatuer walace knocked out billy gilium who went the distance with charles and had beat nino valdes but charles iced him, dishiing out a master class that ruined walace for good. satterfield v charles would have been a big fight on the back of that.
charles had not been a popular champion coming after joe louis but with walcott gone and new hopes wiped out by veterans ezzard had put exciting wins together again. he decked jimmy bivins who was still rated, knocked out bernie renolds quicker than marciano, knocked out rated harrison, walace and satterfield. marciano v charles was a natural.


Nice post! Too many people just don't understand what an impressive run he had from 1946-1954. He went 53-8 in 61 fights during this time. Only Walcott and Marciano beat him decisively. He beat Walcott two out of four times and some feel 3 out of 4. He gave Marciano hell in two fights (the 98th and 99th of Charles' pro career)... L15 and LKOby8.

[TheGreatA]

Nice post! Too many people just don't understand what an impressive run he had from 1946-1954. He went 53-8 in 61 fights during this time. Only Walcott and Marciano beat him decisively. He beat Walcott two out of four times and some feel 3 out of 4. He gave Marciano hell in two fights (the 98th and 99th of Charles' pro career)... L15 and LKOby8.

He had a more impressive run from 1946 to 1951 though, 42-2.

[Hookie]

He had a more impressive run from 1946 to 1951 though, 42-2.

Very true... and 9-1 in World Title Fights.

[Minotauro]

I'm not sure KDs counted to the score back then though :huh

No but it would have possibly swung it his way in a close fight.

[choklab]

charles was a legitimate heavyweight when you weigh it up. he was as big as dempsey and beat a lot more rated heavyweight contenders than many other ATG champs. he beat them big, small good and bad. as hookie says only charles and marciano beat him decisivley.

[OLD FOGEY]

He had a more impressive run from 1946 to 1951 though, 42-2.

I have to say that the film of the Charles-Johnson fight has changed my opinion somewhat of Charles and how far he had gone back. A week ago I would have said he was clearly slipping. Now after watching the film of the Johnson fight and going back over Charles' record, I think the case for Charles slipping is not as strong as I thought.

1. I have my doubts if either the Walcott or Marciano fights can be used as convincing proof that Charles had gone noticably back. Marciano and Charles had seven common opponents--Layne, Beshore, Louis, Reynolds, Matthews, Walcott, and Moore--Marciano went 8-0 with 8 ko's against them. Charles went 10-4 with 4 ko's. Marciano was just a better heavyweight than anyone Charles had previously fought. As for Walcott, Charles did beat him the first two fights, the second in March 1951, before abruptly getting ko'd by Walcott in July. The 4th fight was a disputed decision, with 24 of 41 ringside reporters picking Charles. One of the judges even commented that the fight was "too close to take away a champion's title" rather than a clearcut win.

2. Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. In both he had three close decisions. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed. So were the 1952 fights with Walcott and Layne, and the 1953 fight with Johnson. The big difference is that Charles won 2 of 3 of his late 1940's disputed decisions, getting the nods over Moore and Maxim. He lost all three of his early 1950's disputed decisions, even though the press thought he deserved the fights with Walcott and Layne, and the film shows an extremely close fight with Johnson. One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were the equals of, or more than the equals of, Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

3. Charles did not seem to have lost his punch. Between 1949 and 1951, Charles had 15 fights and scored 8 knockouts. Two of these came beyond the 10th round. He stopped Freddie Beshore in 14 and Rex Layne in 11. Between 1952 and the Marciano fight he had 15 fights and scored 7 knockouts. All the '52 to '54 knockouts were by the 10th round or earlier, and he might well have stopped Layne in 1953 rather than in 1951 if the lengths of the two fights were reversed. He had Layne down several times late in the 1953 fight.

4. He certainly did not always look sharp off the films or news reports in the 1949 to 1951 period. The second-tier Valentino reached him a lot on film. He went 14 in a surprisingly close fight with Beshore. He was unimpressive for the most part against Barone and Oma. Charles seemed to often fight to the level of his opposition.

5. Two factors do bolster the image of Charles as an aging and slipping fighter---one was the loss to Valdes. Charles probably took Valdes very lightly, but after watching Valdes on film, it is still difficult to explain this loss. Perhaps the film of this fight will turn up.

6. Many extrapolate from the obvious slippage in 1955 and 1956 backwards to the 1952 to 1954 era.

Bottom line--Charles was exactly the same age going into the first Marciano fight as Ali was going into his fight with Foreman. Off the Johnson film, only months before facing Marciano, he was still a very formidable fighter capable of hanging with the best in the world. Common sense indicates he had gone back some, but how much certainly is a matter of dispute.