Larry Holmes vs Ezzard Charles

[mr. magoo]

Rarely do I ever pick a fighter pre-1970 to beat Holmes, but in this case I might be willing to make a rare exception.

For whatever reason, Ezzard Charles has managed to impress me on film lately, and frankly I think that his boxing ability, quickness, durability and other attributes may well lead to him taking a close decision in this match. No, I do not consider Charles to be a better fighter than Holmes, and honestly I think Larry fairs better against other all time greats, but head to head Charles has a very good chance here.

Holmes of course, would have the reach, as well as the advantage of being a full sized, natural heavyweight, but I don't think he stops the man who took the very best that Marciano, Walcott and Louis had to offer. Trying to knockout Charles in his prime, was like trying to kill a ****roach. His physical conditioning along with his solid chin and undying work ethic, would have made him a nightmare for almost any all time great really.

I think that while both men were elite boxers with better than average durability, Charles may well have been the faster of the two, as well as a tad more accustomed to fighting in long range fights ( subject to opinion of course.) Addtionally, when I watch footage of him, he seems to be more mult-dimensional when throwing a variety of punches, as opposed to Holmes who relied a bit too heavily on the jab in my opinion. I don't think that Charles dominates Holmes, but squeaking out a close decision, by keeping busier and landing a few more shots per round may well do the trick.
Thoughts?

[Joe E]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Rarely do I ever pick a fighter pre-1970 to beat Holmes, but in this case I might be willing to make a rare exception.

For whatever reason, Ezzard Charles has managed to impress me on film lately, and frankly I think that his boxing ability, quickness, durability and other attributes may well lead to him taking a close decision in this match. No, I do not consider Charles to be a better fighter than Holmes, and honestly I think Larry fairs better against other all time greats, but head to head Charles has a very good chance here.

Thoughts?

Agreed. Charles at his best matches up well with Holmes. Holmes has the better Jab but Charles has better overall boxing ability and the quickness to go along with it. Durability, power and ring generalship are about even. It wouldn't surprise me to see Ezz take a MD in a fight that would be a strategic battle.

[Holmes' Jab]

Larry narrow UD: 8-6-1.

[Bummy Davis]

Charles could cause Larry a lot of problems with his fast hands and good right hand...A prime Larry vs a Prime Ezzard....Charles wins a close UD

[PowerPuncher]

I can see advantages to either fighter, it would be a very high level skill battle, hard to pick a winner. Charles has become the most underrated of HW champs

[Holmes' Jab]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I can see advantages to either fighter, it would be a very high level skill battle, hard to pick a winner. Charles has become the most underrated of HW champs

Good post, you may well be right with that last part (though I go for Walcott, personally).

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by joeezzard

Agreed. Charles at his best matches up well with Holmes. Holmes has the better Jab but Charles has better overall boxing ability and the quickness to go along with it. Durability, power and ring generalship are about even. It wouldn't surprise me to see Ezz take a MD in a fight that would be a strategic battle.

That's how I see it as well.

This fight would be nothing shy of a pure chess match between two technical geniuses. It would be a real boxing expert's fight, as opposed to a match that would be appreciated by a more novice type of fan. I'm not a gambler, but even if I were, I'd have a real problem putting money down.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Charles has become the most underrated of HW champs

True to some extent,

Though I think on ESB and other various forums, he's starting to regain recognition as one of boxing's best. Another poster name Marciano_Frazier, said it best when he pointed out that Charles commonly makes most people's top 20 list, and rightfully so.. I think traditionally, the problem was that Charles resume requires a further degree of study as opposed to someone with a flashy record and loads of carisma, in order to better appreciate his accomplishments.

[SuzieQ49]

Late 1940s charles who moved like an ice skater gliding around the ice with handspeed like roy jones has a real good shot at taking holmes.


Of Course mendoza will come on this thread and be like "holmes by Kayo, charles was down 30 times in his career and was a swarmer brawler who lost alot. holmes is a bigger tougher better fighter"

[SuzieQ49]

Charles has become the most underrated of HW champs

Partially, But I do think walcott was the better heavyweight, and brings more to the table h2h vs the rest of the field.


I love how you made the walcott louis "robbery" thread to try to debunk my opinion that walcott was the clear winner......and a man who was LIVE ringside at the walcott-louis I came out and said walcott was blantantly robbed. LOL

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Late 1940s charles who moved like an ice skater gliding around the ice with handspeed like roy jones has a real good shot at taking holmes.


Of Course mendoza will come on this thread and be like "holmes by Kayo, charles was down 30 times in his career and was a swarmer brawler who lost alot. holmes is a bigger tougher better fighter"

You 40s nuthugger Robinson didnt have hand speed like Roy Jones

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Partially, But I do think walcott was the better heavyweight, and brings more to the table h2h vs the rest of the field.

I love how you made the walcott louis "robbery" thread to try to debunk my opinion that walcott was the clear winner......and a man who was LIVE ringside at the walcott-louis I came out and said walcott was blantantly robbed. LOL

Actually no I was interested what none biased fans thought of the fight, it sounds like a close clear decision for Walcott. And lets remember YOU HAVENT WATCHED THE FIGHT IN FULL

People occasionally make threads for none political purposes, strange concept to yourself Im sure

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

True to some extent,

Though I think on ESB and other various forums, he's starting to regain recognition as one of boxing's best. Another poster name Marciano_Frazier, said it best when he pointed out that Charles commonly makes most people's top 20 list, and rightfully so.. I think traditionally, the problem was that Charles resume requires a further degree of study as opposed to someone with a flashy record and loads of carisma, in order to better appreciate his accomplishments.

His record from 1946-1951 is something else. His grace, skill and ability on film is what wins me over to Charles though

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

His record from 1946-1951 is something else. His grace, skill and ability on film is what wins me over to Charles though

Agreed,

He did have one hell of a run in the later 40's to early 50's. He reigned as heavyweight champion for something like 4 years, and was regularly fighting top flight contenders. I might be going out on a limb here, but glancing at his record, it would certainly seem like he's faced as many or more named opponents than just about any heavyweight champion I can think of.. Of course Louis fought more contenders and defended his title more than anyone, but I don't cosider men like Jack Roper, Johnny Davis, or Tony Musto as named opponents.. Charles fought Archie Moore, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, Joe Walcott, and shit loads of others..

[SuzieQ49]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

You 40s nuthugger Robinson didnt have hand speed like Roy Jones

90s nuthugger, I said Charles(not robinson)


btw, I rate Roy Jones # 2 160lber all time so dont call me bias twat