Jack Johnson v Ezzard Charles 15rds?

Me feels that Jack Johnson is a solid all-time top-10 ex heavyweight champion, however, I cannot place Ol' Buzzard Charles in my top-10 at this juncture.... I see Charles somewhere around # 14 in the top-20 of ATG's...

Still, styles make fights..... I know that much..... Charles was slick as whale **** during an ice flow at sea, but he could be dented and hurt / stopped by bigger men with skill, strength and power....

MR.BILL

 

Yeah, but my eyes don't deceive me. I watch the fighters of JJ's era, and even JJ himself, and I don't see a lot. Frankly, most of them look like toughmen competitors. Fighters from the 20's get markedly better. Johnson was a prophet in some respects, bringing the science to these heathens, though even that assessment can be overplayed. What would Charles do with Philly O'Brien over 6 rounds, with Marvin Hart over the distance, how long would it take him to stop Tommy Burns? Charles was not a great heavyweight but he was a great lightheavy who carried his skills upward, the type that bothered Johnson immensely.

 

Charles UD, don't really see a knockout happening.

 

Charles takes Johnson handily by ud.

 

I see that too---to a degree..... I was not thrilled seeing Ketchel going 20 rds in CA. with Papke in 1909 with all the friggin' holding and rassling around them two did each and every rd..... Ketchel also loaded up with his right way too much, basically writing Papke a letter allowing him to prepare for its delivery.... Plus, the lousy ref refereeing the bout with his arms folded like he was coaching from ringside... The event is historic, but the fight itself was not well refined....

I think Jack Johnson was way ahead of his time, while some of his opponents / victims were skilled for the time, yet also crude in many ways...

MR.BILL:hat

 

Johnson did not really allow for any "open boxing" since he was all about stopping the other man work while grinding him down with sapping tacticks. Jack was very clever and strong inside with the advantage of learning to fight using smaller gloves. Charles was the better long range fighter but he liked to mix it up a bit too much to be a certainty in this fight. As usual, a lot would depend on the ref but I am sure ezzard could box better than marvin hart.

 

How the hell Johnson allowed Hart to go 20 rds back in 1907 boggles my mind.....

MR.BILL

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

i like to think that charles is quite a bit technically superior to jeanette. joe was a tough, tough man but as far as technicality goes i didn't see anything very special.
ezzard was famed for his trademark jab, hooking off of the jab, and walking his opponents into right hands. what a gem he was.

yes, you're right, johnson had an uppercut from the ninth circle of hell but i dont think it would be very effective here, mainly because charles would be enticing jack to come in.

if jack obliges, he'd be walking into left hooks and straight right hands, and we cant forget that charles also had a mean left uppercut. jack would land a fair few, and of course hurt charles, but in the end i think ezzard's technical skills would be far too much to overcome.

 

Johnson had one of the best uppercuts for his time. I think mechanics in terms of how it's thrown in modern boxing is different. The nasty ones he landed against Jeffries in the clinches are significantly different to the type of uppercut thrown by Foreman and Tyson.

As for the thread, this would be a good match. I think Johnson loses if it gets to a wait and counter match. 15 rounds wouldn't be enough for him to close the gap if Charles starts fast and builds up points. I can see Johnson outboxing and countering Charles to a UD. Can't say he lands the same type of uppercut/hook that Walcott baited him into.