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

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by PACFAN84

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?

These questions were all answered pretty early. Just a differing of opinions on a few. He was simply young and green in comparison to those great fighters he faced.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by PACFAN84

WTF happened against Bivin and Marshall?

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

The first and the third.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.

But every argument you've made revolves around a single flawed premise, that a relatively high number of knockdowns in a career equates to a vulnerable chin. Because that premise is flawed, every argument that's spun off of that is flawed.

Charles' mettle was sternly tested and proven. It's not something I inferred from looking at numbers on paper, it's something that can be seen with your own two eyes. Numbers and inferences don't outdo what you can actually observe and analyze right in front of you.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

"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.

I can't think of any other fighters who put Hearns down. Leonard, Hagler, Barkley, Delgado. (By the way, he beat Delado via decision -who obviously watched Hagler on Hearns and Hearns beat him after going down as early as round 2. And Delgado was a respectable puncher who was landing...).

I don't count Uriah Grant -Hearns sprained his ankle. Nor do I count LaPaglia because it was his balance that sent him down. Both landed at the same time, LaPaglia landed a jab, Hearns a right. LaPaglia's eyelids were a'flutter.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

More than I can count, to be honest.

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.

Can you believe that Cus, on Floyd's 21st birthday, was calling out Rocky? Rocky hadn't quite retired yet, but had already fought Moore. Marciano surely retired for fear of Floyd. Nah.

I'd agree about Patterson staying at LHW, although Cus saw a vulnerable division, and that fight against Moore convinced him that the most of the current crop wasn't so dangerous after him. He was a whiz kid, and questions were being raised before the Moore fight about his being moved to fast. But not after.

Durelle wasn't noted or feared as a puncher, but that shot that collapsed Archie Moore in the first round of their first bout, suggests a deeper truth. About 10 years ago, Moore conceded that he “had fought a lot of great punchers, and I could always handle them pretty well, but this guy — oh boy, he hit me harder than I’d ever been hit in my life.”

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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.

If it makes you feel better, the three are listed from weakest to least weakest chins. The real point of bringing up Floyd and Tommy was comparative. Both are commonly considered suspect chins, but both, especially Hearns, have chin experiences at least roughly comparative to Charles'.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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.

No, I'm not missing any of your points. I think it's clear that I've addressed every point you've made but am not sure that you have returned the favor.

--and if I were only "marginally looking at the numbers", then why are my fingertips wearing out?!

[Robbi]

Originally Posted by PACFAN84

Was Ezzard just green?

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

But every argument you've made revolves around a single flawed premise, that a relatively high number of knockdowns in a career equates to a vulnerable chin. Because that premise is flawed, every argument that's spun off of that is flawed.

Charles' mettle was sternly tested and proven. It's not something I inferred from looking at numbers on paper, it's something that can be seen with your own two eyes. Numbers and inferences don't outdo what you can actually observe and analyze right in front of you.

You're getting more wrong.

I have absolutely acknowledged and discussed Ezzard's remaining vertical against punchers. You have only made denials, excuses, or changed the subject about the opposing argument. You're dismissive, and that is simply no way to engage in real debate, which this is, like it or not. My "premise" (which you distorted) being "flawed" is your subjective opinion -it isn't a fact. You are building a castle on sand. However, I call into question your objectivity. You may not like my premise, but I see bias in you.

Here's a more than marginal look at the numbers: Ezzard was put down by 12 guys. Most of these were good (Bivins) to exceptional punchers (Marciano, Marshall), punchers. Not all were that -Fitzpatrick was a journeyman at best. Overlin was a boxer with bad hands, had a 13% stoppage rate, and was the smaller, though vastly more experienced man. Kid Matthews, well, let's look closely at that one. Ez had just turned 35. Matthews was 33. Harry started a division below Ezzard at WW, and was coming back from retirement. The fight after Ezzard's was his last. Both had over a 100 fights. Matthews, though, was 20 lbs lighter.

You seem to be just vigorously shaking your head at all this -and waving the Marciano-Charles I tape like a flag that trumps all other discussion. The only film of Ezzard going down that I know of is Marshall II and obviously Walcott, and Marciano. There's a highlight of one of the Holman fights but I don't know if it's the first. Just because you didn't -see- Charles go down so many times against so many opponents throughout every phase of his career simply doesn't give you authority to essentially deny that it happened.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Robbi

--never seen that one before. Great picture!

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I can't think of any other fighters who put Hearns down. Leonard, Hagler, Barkley, Delgado. (By the way, he beat Delado via decision -who obviously watched Hagler on Hearns and Hearns beat him after going down as early as round 2. And Delgado was a respectable puncher who was landing...).

I don't count Uriah Grant -Hearns sprained his ankle. Nor do I count LaPaglia because it was his balance that sent him down. Both landed at the same time, LaPaglia landed a jab, Hearns a right. LaPaglia's eyelids were a'flutter.

But this here advocates exactly what I'm talking about.

You're able to say that the KDs against Grant and LaPaglia "don't count" as knockdowns because you saw them for youself and were able to see the circumstances of them.

But someone looking at boxrec 50 years from now and wanting to make a point about Hearns' chin, would say simply "He was down against 6 guys in 67 fights" - counting the two guys you yourself say shouldn't count.

PS, Hearns was also down against Benitez and Kinchen, and I believe someone else as well later in his career.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

You're getting more wrong.

I have absolutely acknowledged and discussed Ezzard's remaining vertical against punchers. You have only made denials, excuses, or changed the subject about the opposing argument. You're dismissive, and that is simply no way to engage in real debate, which this is, like it or not. My "premise" (which you distorted) being "flawed" is your subjective opinion -it isn't a fact. You are building a castle on sand. However, I call into question your objectivity. You may not like my premise, but I see bias in you.

Here's a more than marginal look at the numbers: Ezzard was put down by 12 guys. Most of these were good (Bivins) to exceptional punchers (Marciano, Marshall), punchers. Not all were that -Fitzpatrick was a journeyman at best. Overlin was a boxer with bad hands, had a 13% stoppage rate, and was the smaller, though vastly more experienced man. Kid Matthews, well, let's look closely at that one. Ez had just turned 35. Matthews was 33. Harry started a division below Ezzard at WW, and was coming back from retirement. The fight after Ezzard's was his last. Both had over a 100 fights. Matthews, though, was 20 lbs lighter.

You seem to be just vigorously shaking your head at all this -and waving the Marciano-Charles I tape like a flag that trumps all other discussion. The only film of Ezzard going down that I know of is Marshall II and obviously Walcott, and Marciano. There's a highlight of one of the Holman fights but I don't know if it's the first. Just because you didn't -see- Charles go down so many times against so many opponents throughout every phase of his career simply doesn't give you authority to essentially deny that it happened.

You yourself acknowledged earlier in this thread, there are factors other than chin that can cause knockdowns. As you said, it may often turn out to be the chin, but nevertheless, not always.

But in order for your argument to be true, it can't simply be "possibly" or "most likely". It would have to be almost a 100% certainty that multiple knockdowns mean a vulnerable chin. If it's not, your argument is more of an inference than an actual proveable fact. Perhaps a logical inference, but an inference nonetheless.

If I hadn't seen or read up about Charles' fights, I probably wouldn't disupte anything. But I have seen, and I know what I've seen.

I've pointed to the Marciano fight because it's probably the single best example, but as I've also said, there were others in which he showed obvious toughness and durability.

As I said, there's the Satterfield fight. How about his war with Rex Layne (still a live contender then), just a couple of months after being KO'd by Walcott? Or his 2nd fight with Walcott, another tough battle in which he withstood some big shots. How about his loss to Harold Johnson, by which time his reflexes had diminished and he was walking into punches without being able to roll or slip with them, and he still kept coming the whole fight?

Those are just some of the fights I've seen myself. There are fights others have seen, such as his three battles with Moore, in which he is reported as taking big shots in each one and not going down, and coming back to win.

What about Charles' loss to Nino Valdez, which also came when Charles was starting to slow down? What if you saw that fight and it turned out (contrary to what someone else suggested) that Charles was indeed taking clean, solid punches all night long from a fighter considered a pretty solid puncher? Would that influence your position in any way?

You acknowledged in the Marciano fight that he showed better toughness than you would've expected. Unless I misunderstood you, you basically said it was because Charles had "willed" himself to stand up to Marciano's punches through 15 rounds. But what about other fights in which he also clearly withstood some big punches and even some fair amount of punishment? Was every single instance a case of him "willing" himself to stand up as well? In same cases, that would seem awful remarkable, if not impossible.

[SuzieQ49]

I'd agree about Patterson staying at LHW, although Cus saw a vulnerable division, and that fight against Moore convinced him that the most of the current crop wasn't so dangerous after him

I disagree on this one part Stonehands. Cus Damato was scared to death of the likes of Nino Valdez and Bob Baker. When patterson asked in 1954 if he could fight bob baker, Dmamato replied "when your ready to fight heavyweights I'll let you know, but never against a big guy like Baker."

Valdez Manager Bobby Gleason challenged Pattersons camp on many occasions when valdez was rated pretty high in 57-58 and each time pattersons camp said "no way".


Cus Saw vunerability in moore, because of his lack of size and his age....

[SuzieQ49]

How about his loss to Harold Johnson, by which time his reflexes had diminished and he was walking into punches without being able to roll or slip with them

huh?? walking into punches? Charles was the one landing all the hard clean punches, and knocked johnson down in round 10. outside of stiff jabs, johnson didnt do a lot of controlling. I thought charles clearly won the fight.

[albinored]

..suzie...i'll write about what i know about the baksi fight and the non-fight with clarence henry when i get a little time.

robbi...thanks for that wonderful picture of ezzard!! heart- breaking in a way, but still glad to have it and happy that so many here can seem the way he was .....i don't know how to download pictures on my computer, otherwise i'd put on a great portrait of charles my daughter-in-law made for me one christmas a few years back. i have hung it where i can see it when i'm at the computer, which is where i spend so much of my time.

re:fitzie fitzpatrick....yeah he was a journeyman as somebody wrote, but he could really sock. he was deaf. now you know here how i feel about charles, but then i try to be honest....so...that "knockdown" Hilton (fitzie) fitzpatrick scored was more of a knonkOUT punch. ezzard got a long count on that one....i mean he was g-o-n-e. oh the count wasn't like for 20 seconds..but there was a lot of the ref rubbing ezzard's gloves until they were squeaky clean. As he did so often, though, he rallied and that knocked fitzpatrick cold.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by PACFAN84

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?

Both have already answered your question with great depth exactly on topic per their own individual opinion. There's loads of reading in there for both sides of the debate if one wades thru enough.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

But this here advocates exactly what I'm talking about.

You're able to say that the KDs against Grant and LaPaglia "don't count" as knockdowns because you saw them for youself and were able to see the circumstances of them.

But someone looking at boxrec 50 years from now and wanting to make a point about Hearns' chin, would say simply "He was down against 6 guys in 67 fights" - counting the two guys you yourself say shouldn't count.

PS, Hearns was also down against Benitez and Kinchen, and I believe someone else as well later in his career.

It advocates against you, depending on one's view of things.

Someone looking at boxrec 50 years from now would see that he was stopped 4 (3) times, and went down several times, and arrive at the reasonable conclusion that he had a dentable chin. At the very least they would suspect that he had a less than solid chin, even though he also stood up to some serious punchers as much as or more than he toppled before them. That's what you are not accepting.

[Stonehands89]

Okay, again. You quote my whole post and you fail to address it.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

You yourself acknowledged earlier in this thread, there are factors other than chin that can cause knockdowns. As you said, it may often turn out to be the chin, but nevertheless, not always.

But in order for your argument to be true, it can't simply be "possibly" or "most likely". It would have to be almost a 100% certainty that multiple knockdowns mean a vulnerable chin. If it's not, your argument is more of an inference than an actual proveable fact. Perhaps a logical inference, but an inference nonetheless.

It's easy to turn that on you. Just because Ezzard stood up to several big punchers without going down does not establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that he had a solid chin. There are other factors that can prevent knockdowns as well as cause them.

...I believe my argument is true. You believe your argument is true. This is a debate about the merits of those arguments. Resolution of this debate will not establish that Ezzard did or did not have a solid chin with metaphysical certitude.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

If I hadn't seen or read up about Charles' fights, I probably wouldn't disupte anything. But I have seen, and I know what I've seen.

Now who's making assumptions??

Originally Posted by My2Sense

I've pointed to the Marciano fight because it's probably the single best example, but as I've also said, there were others in which he showed obvious toughness and durability.

And it's pretty damn clear that there were others that did not!

Originally Posted by My2Sense

As I said, there's the Satterfield fight. How about his war with Rex Layne (still a live contender then), just a couple of months after being KO'd by Walcott? Or his 2nd fight with Walcott, another tough battle in which he withstood some big shots. How about his loss to Harold Johnson, by which time his reflexes had diminished and he was walking into punches without being able to roll or slip with them, and he still kept coming the whole fight?

Those are just some of the fights I've seen myself. There are fights others have seen, such as his three battles with Moore, in which he is reported as taking big shots in each one and not going down, and coming back to win.

What about Charles' loss to Nino Valdez, which also came when Charles was starting to slow down? What if you saw that fight and it turned out (contrary to what someone else suggested) that Charles was indeed taking clean, solid punches all night long from a fighter considered a pretty solid puncher? Would that influence your position in any way?

You acknowledged in the Marciano fight that he showed better toughness than you would've expected. Unless I misunderstood you, you basically said it was because Charles had "willed" himself to stand up to Marciano's punches through 15 rounds. But what about other fights in which he also clearly withstood some big punches and even some fair amount of punishment? Was every single instance a case of him "willing" himself to stand up as well? In same cases, that would seem awful remarkable, if not impossible.

This is getting redundant. You are content to bring up only those fights where he stood up. You said not a word about Overlin and not a word about Matthews.

I am considering those fights I have seen where he stands up, but also consider those fights where he went down, and draw my own conclusions accordingly. But I have been insisting that you consider those fights that do not bolster your position, and stop waving them off because you didn't see them.