Ezzard Charles was as good as Ray Robinson

What it all comes down to is this: Robinson could and most likely would beat Napoles in a similar manner to how Charles beat Moore. That is where this debate originated from when I responded to your post claiming otherwise, and seeing as how you've all but outright agreed to that now, I think we can wave this one off.

 

Nope. You asked the above question, I responded, and you disagreed. That is where the debate started. Ultimately, our thoughts on this topic are pretty similar, and we've been arguing petty nonsense for the past few posts. I think we're done.

 

Because you touch yourself at night.

 

:rofl:rofl

i agree

Fitzsimmons really is fighter of the month just now

 

Sure.

I see Robinson as a complete fighter. I would take issue with Manassa's claim that he was "not unbeatable" only so much that no fighter I can think of was more so than he was in his prime. No man is unbeatable, but some come close -Robinson comes the closest for my money.

I would call Robinson a technician and see him as effective inside, though the later films (against LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer) see him playing matador because of their structural advantages and greater strength. Robinson was a puncher inside and he knew his way around.

Charles became more of a patient, thinking fighter particular after he killed Baroudi in early '48. He took more care in his craft, in strategy, whereas Robinson was more fiery. In practice, Robinson "fought" alot and at times would only box and move to take a breather before stepping in and throwing "go-home-early" shots.

What really convinces me of Ezzard's having the edge in terms of technical skill is the boxing lesson he gave to a still dangerous though fading Louis. Ezzard was outweighed by about 35 lbs. The other masterclass is the win over Walcott in '49. He overcame some serious HWs. Natural LHWs don't often have such success against the big boys unless they are supreme technicians. Now, sure, Robinson would have beaten Maxim had they fought at MSG instead of outside down the street, but he would have done so at range, using his mobility and speed, not by taking Maxim apart at close quarters like for instance Duran did Barkley or Chavez did Meldrick. An argument that those two also had more "technical skill" -strictly speaking than Robinson.

Ezzard was considered boring by the public, but as many observers have already stated in the boxing world, it's because he had an array of skill that was both vast -and subtle.

 

Good post. But there is also an example of an aging Robinson's skill that to my knowledge isn't matched by anything similar by either Charles or Duran - and that's the KO of Fullmer. That one was mainly down to pitch perfect technique. A genius of boxing is exhibited in one punch. An old, faded fighter like Robinson was at that point doesn't have any business throwing a punch like that. But he did.

 

Well, one picture perfect left hook alone isn't enough to satisfy the definition of a technician.... Again, I see Ray as a technician, but that shot really kind of confirms my belief that it was his athletic gifts that got him to where he got first, if you will. That shot was timing, speed, execution/positioning, and power --in that order. That's 3:1 talent to skill.

He probably threw more perfectly executed left hooks in the 60s but his speed and timing had deteriorated ...so the devestating result wasn't the same, even though the technique may have been.

 

I see this argument as conclusive proof that Moore would KO Fitzsimmons

 

No way, Jose....... Buzzard Charles was great, but, he didn't have the longevity that Robinson had......... Look, I know damn well that SRR hung on way too long by the 1960s, but even while he was losing after age 40, SRR was still capable and a worthy foe...... It is my belief that Charles finished up rather ugly by the late 1950s..... I don't think Charles fought passed age 38........ Cheers.....

MR.BILL

 

I'd probably change the order a bit and possibly add "generalship". But you have a point, of course.

 

Very glaring that Archie Moore never mentioned Ez as the best he fought

It was always Burley and Booker.