Larry Holmes vs Ezzard Charles

[SuzieQ49]

Neverthless, I think he's easily a top 15 guy in my book..

I think walcotts a top 15 guy, i dont know about ezz. I think I have ezz at 16 or 17. walcotts at around 12 for me.

[SuzieQ49]

Charles was 32, not 33. marciano was 30. I do think charles was past his prime when he fought rocky, but that he was still a very capable world class fighter. I also think rocky was starting to go into decline by 1954. This fight should have happened in 1951 when both were at the top of there game.

charles footwork handspeed movement were clearly better in 1949 than 1954, but marcianos power handspeed were IMO better in 1951 than 1954.

* but charles awesome film performances against layne wallace satterfield in 53-54 shows me he was still very very good heading into marciano I.

I think charles matches up real well vs marciano prime for prime, but i think rocky takes 2 out of 3 in a trilogy

[Woller]

You have wandered off the subject. I see Larry Holmes outjabbing the much smaller Charles. Maybee a stoppage, but at least a wide decision over 15.

Woller

[Minotauro]

Charles is a difficult match for almost anyone and more so for a boxer like Holmes rather then someone like Tyson. I think this fight would be a close decision which could go either way.

p.s some great points brought up about Charles above.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

I think walcotts a top 15 guy, i dont know about ezz. I think I have ezz at 16 or 17. walcotts at around 12 for me.

I don't know that their resumes are really that far apart enough to where we can warrant one of them being rated at 12, while the other is at 17. There are many ( including myself )who would even rate Charles higher, but that's subject to opinion.

[SuzieQ49]

Back to the topic.....anyone else think holmes jab gives charles quite a bit of problems? 6'2-6'3 guys louis valdez and wallace all good jabbers, landed quite a few jabs on charles on film. charles face was marked up terribly in fact. Holmes with a longer faster sharper jab might do quite a lot of damage. on the flipside, I think charles 1-2 combo would give holmes alot of issues considering holmes is a blatant sucker for sharp right hands.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Back to the topic.....anyone else think holmes jab gives charles quite a bit of problems? 6'2-6'3 guys louis valdez and wallace all good jabbers, landed quite a few jabs on charles on film. charles face was marked up terribly in fact. Holmes with a longer faster sharper jab might do quite a lot of damage. on the flipside, I think charles 1-2 combo would give holmes alot of issues considering holmes is a blatant sucker for sharp right hands.

My answer is yes,

Holmes has just as much of a chance of being the victor here as Charles. In fact, its possible that Charles may even be the underdog going into this fight. I do however believe that Charles' quickness and multi-dimensional boxing ability could lead to him landing often on Holmes. Two of the biggest problems that I see with Holmes, is that he relies on his jab a bit too often, and he also has the tendency to get tagged regularly with right hands. Charles is the type of fighter who I think can take advantage of these things.

But, I wouldn't be the one to bet money on it...

[SuzieQ49]

I don't know that their resumes are really that far apart enough to where we can warrant one of them being rated at 12, while the other is at 17. There are many ( including myself )who would even rate Charles higher, but that's subject to opinion.

I happen to prefer walcotts pre title run up until his "win" over a still great joe louis 1945-47 over anything charles did.....and my main reason is I think h2h walcott has more to bring to the table than charles does. Walcott could knock you out with one punch, either hand and had amazing moves and footwork to go along with top jab and skills. charles while a very technical boxer with gifted handspeed, lacked the power walcott had to beat bigger ATG heavyweights. but people who rate charles over walcott, i have no strong objections under there criteria

[Minotauro]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

- also he lost to elmery ray. in the rematch he beat ray, but ray was in decline at this point. according to the fight reports ray gassed after a couple rounds allowing charles to take over....ray was 38 years old.

The first fight with Ray was meant to be a poor decision even Ring Magazine said Charles should have won. One judge gave Charles 8 out of the 10 rounds and Ezzard was giving up 20lbs and the previous year Ray had beaten Walcott so I doubt he was shot and the rematch happened less then a year later and still giving up almost 20lbs again did not stop Charles from knocking Elmar out.

[SuzieQ49]

There are two sides to the story Minotaruo, I happen to be a big elmer ray fan so I prefer this side


"The boxrec page for this match has a somewhat misleading description, quoting the RING Magazine account, which says that Charles "apparently won handily," making the fight out to be a flagrant robbery. Having looked through several other accounts, I no longer believe this to be accurate. Opinions seem pretty evenly split as to who deserved this decision.

The United Press scorecard had it 5-4-1 for Ray, while the Associated Press card scored the match 5-4-1 for Charles. Here is the description from the Middlesboro Daily News account: "The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one. For from 10 rows back it looked like Charles all the way. He danced and jabbed and landed a lot on Ray's bobbing pate and Elmer's busy elbows. But inside 10 rows you could see the devastation wrought by Ray's jarring hooks, blasts which raised the sheaf of Ezzard's cheek. “No holding,” was the continual admonition of referee Eddie Joseph. But Ezzard, of the winged retreating feet, had to hold for his life, and in doing so he made of Elmer Ray a modern Sam Langford."

According to the Nevada State Journal, "Ezzard had clicked off 15 straight victories since he received his discharge from the army 18 months ago, including nine knockouts, but he was unable to overcome his heavier and more experienced opponent, and he was unable to score a single knock-down against rugged Ray, who kept marching in, bobbing and weaving and throwing hooks to body and head. Although Ray admits to 31, which would make him at least five years older than his opponent, it was Ray who finished stronger in the 10th round and thereby apparently wrapped up the bout by a close margin"



* thanx to marcianofrasier's article





It seems to me it was a very close fight with no definitive winner. it depends if you prefer effective counterpunching defense vs effective agression.

[SuzieQ49]

does anyone else see holmes-charles ending up turning into a slugfest war in the championship rounds(ala norton-holmes)??? both men could take a punch and loved to trade when hurt.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

does anyone else see holmes-charles ending up turning into a slugfest war in the championship rounds(ala norton-holmes)??? both men could take a punch and loved to trade when hurt.

Anythings possible when you have two very talented warriors with the type of heart that they both had. I have my doubts about this turning into a war of attrition though. These were two guys who preferred to box their opponents. Its what they did best, and rarely do we see fighters leave their comfort zones, unless forced to for some reason or another.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

does anyone else see holmes-charles ending up turning into a slugfest war in the championship rounds(ala norton-holmes)??? both men could take a punch and loved to trade when hurt.

That is not unlikley in some ways.

The Charles Walcott fights got a bit volatile at times.

If neither guy is letting the other fight the fight he wants to then it can go that way.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

"The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one.

The world is full of these little ironies.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm confident of a Holmes victory myself, and see his jab being the dominant factor in the fight. Don't forget how fast Holmes handspeed is at his peak. One of the fastest heavyweights of all the champions ever.