Jack Johnson v Ezzard Charles 15rds?

honestly can't pick a winner. i'd like to think prime johnson edges a decision but two masters of the science, hard to say.

 

I may be in the minority here but I see Charles winning a one-sided decision. He'd bring a level of athleticism and boxing acumen to the encounter that Johnson would find very difficult to handle. Jack was an unrivaled master at stiffling, smothering and bewildering sluggers, brawlers and pressure fighters of the era while Ezzard Charles was one of the most complete boxers to ever lace them up.

Bottom line: Jack Johnson never fought anyone who even remotely resembled Charles while the Cobra had remarkable success against Archie Moore(among many, many others...) and I believe we can all agree that Archie Moore compares favorably to Johnson in almost every measurable category...not to mention the intangibles which would have to be considered one of Johnson's major strengths against most of his opponents.

 

Include me in that sensible, realistic minority...

 

Charles takes it under modern rules.

Johnson takes it under the rules of his respective day.

 

I suspect this topic will be another lambasting of Johnson, as you can see there are already people lining up on one side portraying themselves as a persecuted few..lol: 'i'm an educated elite, believe it, please!')

It's an interesting matchup that we've done before. Johnson was superb and at his most comfortable catching aggressive fighters coming in, relying primarily on elbow and particular glove blocking to fend off ranged attacks. As you can see he had fantastic functional strength for the most part, and pretty good power for a low activity, mostly defensive fighter. On the inside, he'd have a clear advantage over Ezz, who is pretty good at exchanging close punches but certainly isn't at his most comfortable there, as more of a distance fencer type.

A younger charles, from say the Marshall footage, would give Johnson a ton of trouble with his fast feet and aggressive punching in bunches. Johnson's style was certainly very adapted to his time's ruleset, and i think we've seen standup boxer/puncher types like him, fitzsimmons(like with Corbett) have a lot of issues with more mobile, fluid styles. That being said I'd expect Johnson to use his size and strength advantage to exert his will on a lighter, arguably more fragile charles, and administer a beating. I'd expect him to certainly absorb more than a few sharp combinations before either becoming more aggressive moving to the inside or keeping his distance. Charles on the back foot would certainly give Johnson issues with his speed, and i'd expect that to be his best chance for victory, along with fast combinations at the middle range.

The heavyweight Charles would be an interesting matchup. I honestly think he'd have a worse time of it. This version was very content with keeping an outside game with fencing. That's a bad bad look against a competent glove blocker for this reason:

This content is protected

High activity is the key to beating Jack Johnson, either in the form of mobility or fast, devastating swarming. You can't really maintain that kind of laid back economic style with his type because they'll get comfortable, lock your timing, lean away from punches and counter at will.


In short, i think LHW Charles would have a good chance, a nigh even fight. I do not think a tamer, more mature heavyweight Ezzard is suited to this one.

 

True. Extremely hard one to call.

 

It's not that I think he can't be outboxed or beaten at a distance.... If anything his issues with Philly Jack proved that. For example I think I'd favor Corbett, Ali, Tunney, Holmes, at their best over him. It's that it needs to be a certain type of outboxing. You need a very very clear speed edge of hand and foot if you're going to be smaller than Jack Johnson and beat him at a distance. You need to be able to cope with and compete with his feints. You need to have functional strength or infighting experience enough to fend off his attempts to tie up. And you need proven combination punching ability and chin to absorb accurate counters.

I'm trying to leave the 'herp i think this era of boxing is derp' bit out of it and just try and break it down by styles and physical strenghts.

 

Just stating my opinion based on the evidence. '49 Ezzard Charles would give Johnson fits.

 

"Once or twice (Johnson) essayed to force the fighting, but invariably received the worst of the argument, and as a result returned to his careful defensive methods."

"O'Brien... would not allow his opponent to settle himself, but was constantly on top of his with his vicious jabs and stinging blows. These made the colored giant blink and wink as they landed with alarming frequency on his face."

"Johnson looked tired and anxious in the fourth round, and O'Brien appeared confident throughout the bout."

"O'Brien secured a clear lead in the sixth round."

Sounds like O'Brien was quite effective with what he landed and was confident and fresh throughout the fight, not at all getting "broken down".

 

Issues in a purely... Jimmy Young sense. Where he's not really doing that much ****, but his not doing **** is making it hard for you to do ****. I guess. Like Seamus is pointing out above, he certainly managed to get the best of the man enough.

As for the skillset making up the difference... I see essentially some aspects of footwork and of course combinations being largely in Charles' favor. The rest seems pretty give and take or definitively Johnson.

That was directed at Seamus' uppity little ass. You're good.