Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? - Page 2

Manassa · 03-22-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boucher

I've allways understood the nose split was caused by a wayward elbow.

Wasn't talking about the second fight (nose fight) mate, I meant the first and much more memorable battle of the two; in that one, Marciano said Charles hurt him more than any other fighter. From what I remember, he described actual pain. Charles lost the fight but from their faces it looked dead even.

[IMG]********fightbeat.com/images/article_images/905.jpg[/IMG]

Manassa · 03-22-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRBILL

Combinations and accuracy? YES! Charles was great... Power? So-So at 200 pounds... That's fair...

MR.BILL

But he wasn't 200lbs. He was lighter than that, and sometimes outweighed.

Manassa · 03-22-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boucher

I've allways understood the nose split was caused by a wayward elbow.

Nah, I meant the first fight. Marciano described actual pain and said fighting Charles was hellish, or something along those lines. Charles lost the fight but he left Marciano in a bit of a state.

This is weird. I just made a post like this but it didn't register

Boucher · 03-22-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

Nah, I meant the first fight. Marciano described actual pain and said fighting Charles was hellish, or something along those lines. Charles lost the fight but he left Marciano in a bit of a state.

This is weird. I just made a post like this but it didn't register

I've allways understood the nose split was caused by a wayward elbow.

Ground Hog Day

Manassa · 03-22-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boucher

I've allways understood the nose split was caused by a wayward elbow.

Ground Hog Day

You do realise I was talking about the first fight then? I'm confused. Mostly by the site today... Posts don't seem to be registering

Stonehands89 · 03-22-2011, 10:52 AM

He was a wicked puncher and that was confirmed again and again.

-However, that was before Baroudi. Looking at the % of KOs and the % of early KOs before that fight and afterwards suggests that something changed, although of course, he was getting older and was fighting bigger men. I find it interesting that he never again fought in his natural division after Baroudi. There could well be more than one reason for this. Liebling watched him in the early 50s and saw an "intuitive aversion to violence that set in like ice on a pond."

I think that Charles was one of the great punchers in history, and he had the potential to become of the greatest, but the Baroudi tragedy set him on a different course.

Boucher · 03-22-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

You do realise I was talking about the first fight then? I'm confused. Mostly by the site today... Posts don't seem to be registering

Yes I got that. Facial damage is misleading imo.Look at post fight photos of Louis v Charles, they might incline you to make it a draw,when in fact ,Charles won handily.
I'm not saying Charles was not a very good puncher,but I would not put him among the top echelon myself.
For example , did he hit harder than Walcott ?

The Kurgan · 03-22-2011, 11:22 AM

Yes, in terms of technique; no, in terms of power. I don't think he was naturally powerful at all, but his brilliant textbook punching methods and punch choice made him a very fearsome opponent.

Duodenum · 03-22-2011, 03:24 PM

His knockout of Satterfield replays over and over in my mind as I read this thread. Few who saw him prior to Baroudi's death would have questioned his firepower.

McGrain · 03-22-2011, 03:41 PM

An excellent puncher in terms of power, but boxing is full of those.

In composite terms, you could make a grand old argument but not in terms of pure power, no.

choklab · 03-22-2011, 03:50 PM

this looks like a great puncher to me...

[ame]***********.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PutDflPYo[/ame]

PetethePrince · 03-22-2011, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

Wasn't talking about the second fight (nose fight) mate, I meant the first and much more memorable battle of the two; in that one, Marciano said Charles hurt him more than any other fighter. From what I remember, he described actual pain. Charles lost the fight but from their faces it looked dead even.

[IMG]********fightbeat.com/images/article_images/905.jpg[/IMG]

Misquote there Manassa. I believe Marciano said "I really knew what pain was in those fights." Or something like "I learned the most about pain in those fights." Marciano afterwards actually noted that he didn't sting him as hard as Walcott (Punch) but noted that they were grueling, bloody fights. I read that in Sullivan's biography of Rocky Marciano: The Brockton Blockbluster. Charles, also noted that he didn't believe Marciano punched that hard. Said he thought Walcott hit harder... interesting.

doug.ie · 03-23-2011, 05:54 AM

why wasnt he able to get a shot at the light-heavy title ?

Boucher · 03-23-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Misquote there Manassa. I believe Marciano said "I really knew what pain was in those fights." Or something like "I learned the most about pain in those fights." Marciano afterwards actually noted that he didn't sting him as hard as Walcott (Punch) but noted that they were grueling, bloody fights. I read that in Sullivan's biography of Rocky Marciano: The Brockton Blockbluster. Charles, also noted that he didn't believe Marciano punched that hard. Said he thought Walcott hit harder... interesting.

Some might argue that, because Walcott dropped Louis 3 times in 2 fights ,and Marciano, in their 1st fight. Walcott was a heavier puncher than Charles.
Video, kindly provided by Boxari.
[ame]***********.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2BEE8Ce70&feature=related[/ame]

Manassa · 03-23-2011, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Misquote there Manassa. I believe Marciano said "I really knew what pain was in those fights." Or something like "I learned the most about pain in those fights." Marciano afterwards actually noted that he didn't sting him as hard as Walcott (Punch) but noted that they were grueling, bloody fights. I read that in Sullivan's biography of Rocky Marciano: The Brockton Blockbluster. Charles, also noted that he didn't believe Marciano punched that hard. Said he thought Walcott hit harder... interesting.

Yeah, it's along those lines. Didn't mean to imply Marciano thought Charles hit the hardest, but by his accounts (got them in a book, will have to re-read) Charles was just, like you said, gruelling to fight.

03-22-2011, 10:52 AM	#21
Stonehands89 Champion East Side Guru Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,149 vCash: 1000	Re: Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? He was a wicked puncher and that was confirmed again and again. -However, that was before Baroudi. Looking at the % of KOs and the % of early KOs before that fight and afterwards suggests that something changed, although of course, he was getting older and was fighting bigger men. I find it interesting that he never again fought in his natural division after Baroudi. There could well be more than one reason for this. Liebling watched him in the early 50s and saw an "intuitive aversion to violence that set in like ice on a pond." I think that Charles was one of the great punchers in history, and he had the potential to become of the greatest, but the Baroudi tragedy set him on a different course.
Top

03-22-2011, 11:22 AM	#23
The Kurgan Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,229 vCash: 576	Re: Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? Yes, in terms of technique; no, in terms of power. I don't think he was naturally powerful at all, but his brilliant textbook punching methods and punch choice made him a very fearsome opponent.
Top

03-22-2011, 03:24 PM	#24
Duodenum Champion East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 5,794 vCash: 1000	Re: Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? His knockout of Satterfield replays over and over in my mind as I read this thread. Few who saw him prior to Baroudi's death would have questioned his firepower.
Top

03-22-2011, 03:41 PM	#25
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 34,759 vCash: 1000	Re: Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? An excellent puncher in terms of power, but boxing is full of those. In composite terms, you could make a grand old argument but not in terms of pure power, no.
Top

03-22-2011, 03:50 PM	#26
choklab Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: bad to the bone and sexy Posts: 3,972 vCash: 500	Re: Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? this looks like a great puncher to me... [ame]***********.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PutDflPYo[/ame]
Top

03-23-2011, 05:54 AM	#28
doug.ie broadcasting from a shed East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: sligo, ireland Posts: 5,477 vCash: 75	Re: Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers? why wasnt he able to get a shot at the light-heavy title ?
Top