Ezzard Charles@168 - WTF happened against Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall?!

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I'm not one to avoid questions. I assumed that my reams of discussion on this would make my answer clear enough. Charles's chin was better than it was expected to be that night. Those who were there -including Marciano himself expressed surprise at his ability to survive such a test. They weren't biased or superstitious in getting to that conclusion. They knew the record. You and others seem to take the Marciano example and expand outwards a bit too much in my opinion, glossing over the fact that he went down 3 times in the rematch and twice more before the year was out against the unheralded Big John Holman.

Accusing me of not acknowledging or making excuses for his not going down in Marciano I masks your not acknowledging or excusing the fact that 5 guys had put him down before the Baroudi fight --before he ever became a HW.

I don't see any need to explain/excuse a guy for getting dropped by five guys in the span of roughly 60 fights, when you're fighting at the high level that Charles is for the majority of those fights. In that span, off the top of my head, I would guess he had had at least ten separate fights against Hall of Famers, and that's not counting the five combined fights he had against Ken Overlin and Lloyd Marshall, both considered great fighters that are not yet in the Hall. Frankly, the way I look at it, only five guys were able to drop him out of numerous good quality fighters that Charles fought since the very outset of his pro career. I see that as a credit to his toughness, not a detriment.

Also, you make it sound as if the first Marciano fight is the only instance in which Charles showed notable toughness. If it was, then I suppose you could just dismiss that one time as a "fluke". But it wasn't. I pointed to a number of fights in which he demonstrated his toughness, particularly after his skills and reflexes had begun to diminish and he was more hittable.

[Marciano Frazier]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Most reporters at ringside thought Charles won that fight, and some even thought he won clearly. I remember one writer complaining that everyone in his section each had Charles winning something like 11 rounds.

I've seen a listing of 41 contemporary sportswriters' scorecards for this fight, in which 24 had it for Charles to 17 for Walcott, which is a substantial edge, but not overwhelming. I believe the cards also varied all the way from about 12-3 for either guy to 12-3 for the other, indicating a huge division in assessments of the scoring. I've only seen parts of the fight, and so can't give an assessment of the scoring on my own, but it looks to me as though it probably wasn't a highway robbery, so to speak.

[Stonehands89]

The inappropriately named 'Manassa' lacks the class to accept an extended hand. Will his much-deserved beating resume?

Originally Posted by Manassa

My need to get in the last word? I thought that was your job. I palmed you off but you still carried on with it. I was hoping to get even more out of you actually because the more you were saying, the more of a fool you made out of yourself.

I have news for you, you little Mary, two posters PM'd me and said that you are the type that must have the last word. They know how emotional you are, and you proved them right.

You are the one who took your ball and went home crying....

Originally Posted by Manassa

I'm not going to type anything else

... and then came back (with an emoticon no less) because your online tantrum wasn't done. And also because the response to that infantile post hit you where you live. That was obvious. Your arrogance prevented you from letting it go and your immaturity prevented you from doing what you said you'd do, which is bow out. I'm not surprised, and no one else who knows you is surprised either. Yelping will bring no lifeboat.

I could go further, I could turn you inside out and show the whole site who you are. You wouldn't get over it. Think about that carefully.

....
I offered you a truce. You rejected it. I'll leave it there and do what you couldn't do, which is step out. Consider yourself spared. Swim to shore and try not to show our audience that unseemly pimpled ass of yours anymore. Grow up, move on, and learn from this.

[Manassa]

You'd love to think I was having a tantrum, wouldn't you? In reality you're just really boring. Some moments of brilliance though:

I could go further, I could turn you inside out and show the whole site who you are. You wouldn't get over it. Think about that carefully.

Consider yourself spared.

Somehow I doubt that you'd speak like that if we were in the same room.

Alright hard, calm down.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

I wouldn't argue either - that is, until I had familiarized myself with that fighter, with his career, with his opponents, with the circumstances of those KDs, and had watched what footage was available of him.

If, for example, I saw that those 85 fights came against tomato cans, and he had scored quick KOs in them all without taking punches in return, and those 12 fights were the only ones he had against decent opponents who hit him back, then I would say yes, he almost certainly does have a weak chin.

However, if I saw that this guy fought consistently against top notch level comp. throughout his career, including numerous fights against Hall of Famers and/or experienced former champs, and in many of those 85 fights took clean, solid punches from legitimate big punchers without going down and perhaps even coming back to win, then I would say no, he doesn't have a weak chin.

Well, it is apparant to me, regardless of your claim of fair-mindedness, that you have a premise about Ezzard and you aren't open to fairly consider another.

No offense to you, and you seem to be pretty knowledgable, but you "doth protest too much."

Originally Posted by My2Sense

I don't see any need to explain/excuse a guy for getting dropped by five guys in the span of roughly 60 fights, when you're fighting at the high level that Charles is for the majority of those fights. In that span, off the top of my head, I would guess he had had at least ten separate fights against Hall of Famers, and that's not counting the five combined fights he had against Ken Overlin and Lloyd Marshall, both considered great fighters that are not yet in the Hall. Frankly, the way I look at it, only five guys were able to drop him out of numerous good quality fighters that Charles fought since the very outset of his pro career. I see that as a credit to his toughness, not a detriment.

Count how many guys put Hearns down in his TOTAL 67 bouts against many good and great punchers in and beyond the WW division. FOUR? Now tell me, would you consider his chin dentable?

Count how many guys put Floyd Patterson down. Floyd, who began his professional ring-life in the 160 lb range and moved up to face heavies as did Ezzard. How many seven men? -in his total career. Consider carefully that neither Henry Cooper, nor Yvon Durelle or Archie Moore, put him down. Archie with his voodoo diet from an Australian aborigine who was knocking his sparring partners around the ring in training, came out and landed the first meaningful shot to the head in the fight -a right. He hit Floyd with a series of hooks in the second. In the fourth, he nailed Patterson with a right cross. Nothing happened. Now your question, do you just see all this as a "credit to his toughness" or would you consider the total picture, all the knockdowns, and say that Floyd's chin wasn't quite what we would consider solid?

I'd say that Floyd, Tommy, and Ezzard were tough guys who would and could get up from knockdowns and win more often than not, but they had dentable chins. And that really should not be so offensive a position...

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Also, you make it sound as if the first Marciano fight is the only instance in which Charles showed notable toughness. If it was, then I suppose you could just dismiss that one time as a "fluke". But it wasn't. I pointed to a number of fights in which he demonstrated his toughness, particularly after his skills and reflexes had begun to diminish and he was more hittable.

Please read more carefully, here's what you missed:

"I see your arguments: Ezzard was youthful and fighting experienced guys who could punch -all except Overlin anyway. Ezzard was older and fighting larger guys who could punch -like Walcott, like Marciano, like Kid Matthews. Ezzard could withstand serious shots and the first Marciano shot is the best example. I see the merit in those arguments."

[albinored]

..if you guys would just read my post on Ezzard Charles' chin, you could go on to somethng else, as that is the definitive one.

[albinored]

..if you guys would just read my post about ezzard charles' chin you could go on to something else..as mine is the definitive one.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Well, it is apparant to me, regardless of your claim of fair-mindedness, that you have a premise about Ezzard and you aren't open to fairly consider another.

No offense to you, and you seem to be pretty knowledgable, but you "doth protest too much."

"Protest"?

You asked me what argument I would make about a fighter I knew nothing about other than numbers I saw on paper.

I said I wouldn't be quick to make any arguments/guesses about any fighter I knew nothing about other than just numbers.

What's wrong with that?

That's really the total opposite of going into a situation with a pre-conceived premises.

Count how many guys put Hearns down in his TOTAL 67 bouts against many good and great punchers in and beyond the WW division. FOUR? Now tell me, would you consider his chin dentable?

"Four"? Actually, it was at least twice as many as that. And that's just the times I saw, or can remember hearing about.

"Four" is just the number of fighters he failed to recover against after being knocked down. Which, to answer your question, is part of the reason I do consider his chin to have been shaky, yes.

Count how many guys put Floyd Patterson down.

More than I can count, to be honest.

Floyd, who began his professional ring-life in the 160 lb range and moved up to face heavies as did Ezzard. How many seven men? -in his total career. Consider carefully that neither Henry Cooper, nor Yvon Durelle or Archie Moore, put him down. Archie with his voodoo diet from an Australian aborigine who was knocking his sparring partners around the ring in training, came out and landed the first meaningful shot to the head in the fight -a right. He hit Floyd with a series of hooks in the second. In the fourth, he nailed Patterson with a right cross. Nothing happened. Now your question, do you just see all this as a "credit to his toughness" or would you consider the total picture, all the knockdowns, and say that Floyd's chin wasn't quite what we would consider solid?

Again, I believe Patterson was down against more fighters than you listed (I can think of eight, maybe nine just off the top of my head), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

IMO, Patterson did show ruggedness against fellow super-middles/light-heavies, and his chin didn't seem vulnerable until it was pitted against heavyweights. Many people (myself included) believe Patterson was much better suited for the light-heavy division and might've been a genuine great fighter had he elected to stay down there, rather than bulk up to chase big purses at heavyweight.

PS, Durelle was never particularly noted or feared for his punching power.

I'd say that Floyd, Tommy, and Ezzard were tough guys who would and could get up from knockdowns and win more often than not, but they had dentable chins.

I think you're oversimplifying matters by lumping all three of those fighters together. They all had different careers under different circumstances, which came to different results.

In general, by continually asking me about numbers, you're really missing my whole point, which is that numbers do not tell the whole story, and judgments/assumptions shouldn't be cast without first giving at least a marginal look beyond the numbers.

[albinored]

...a computer foul up caused me to enter the same post twice. one more and it would have been exactly the same number that charles beat walcott by.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

"Protest"?

You asked me what argument I would make about a fighter I knew nothing about other than numbers I saw on paper.

I said I wouldn't be quick to make any arguments/guesses about any fighter I knew nothing about other than just numbers.

What's wrong with that?

That's really the total opposite of going into a situation with a pre-conceived premises.

You protest "too much" -if your point there was all I addressed, I wouldn't have said "too much", I'd have been more specific. You've been protesting a single statement I made in my first post here endlessly. I'd allow that there may be a convergence of variables lost to history about that large number of knockdowns, and perhaps these would change my mind. As it is, I disagree with you.

You concede nothing when it comes to even the merest suspicion that Ezzard's chin may have been less than solid. You'll find that these debates often start off that way, but then with discussion, opposite positions begin to find common ground or at least agree to disagree. Not always, but this loose process can be expected after several pages of fair and reasonable argument.

...more later. Late for work.

[DINAMITA]

This was my thread, but I haven't been checking it much, and I don't want to wade into this feud.

Can those involved in this debate give me their own concise and definitive explanation:

WTF happened against Bivin and Marshall?

Was Ezzard just green? Out of shape? Facing great opposition too early?


Or does the number of KD's in these fights at 175 show a weakness?

[SuzieQ49]

You are the one who took your ball and went home crying....

do you mind if I use this quote to say to my friend next time we get in a heated arguement? this shit is hilarious

[shommel]

either of these fights on film or radio broadcast? if so where can you obtain them?

[albinored]

..shomel.. there may be "shot from a ringside seat somewhere around, but i don't know if they are available. the family that managed ezzard at that time kept saying they'd show me all of the films they had, but the only ones of marshall i've seen were the one where ezzard got of the canvas to kayo marshall.

i profoundly doubt that any of these fights were broadcast...i say definitley not...but i was one who said halle berry would never be a star, so i avoid saying no or never as much as i can.

[SuzieQ49]

Hey Albinored,

What can you tell me how Ezzard Charles vs Joe Baksi fight? and why a fight between charles and clarence henry was not made?