charles v tommy harrison 1953, can you see this guy losing to valdes?

What is the agenda here? Why do some of you want people to think that Ezzard Charles was as good as ever from '52-'54? Is it to talk up the fighters he lost to like Walcott, Layne, Valdes, Johnson, and Marciano? He went 2-2 vs. Walcott lifetime and many felt he should have went 3-1. He went 2-1 (1) vs. Layne lifetime. The loss to Johnson was very close and in Johnson's backyard. The loss to Valdes was sort of in Valdes' backyard. Nobody ever gave Marciano so much trouble.......... still, Charles was past prime during all of this!!! Not so much vs. Walcott though.

 

Charles was never a great heavyweight and he was past his prime here .. Harrison is hardly an opponent to define greatness by ..

 

Charles was an exceptional middleweight and light heavyweight and a very good heavyweight ... he simply was not a great heavyweight when measured against great heavyweights.

Harison was not even a heavyweight. How do you feel Harison would have done against Marciano, Frazier or Tyson ?

 

Is Floyd Patterson a great heavyweight?

What do you determine as a great HW? I think Charles was a great HW. Obviously he isn't on anyone's 1st tier list of HWs though.

How would Jeffries do against Frazier and Tyson?

 

Timing/coordination aren't "required" in order to KO an opponent; they just make it a helluva lot easier. As long as a fighter still has his power, there's still a chance he can get in his big punch over a full 10, 12, or 15 round fight, even if he's lost much of his former timing; and if that happens, he can still get the KO.

And sometimes opponents leave themselves as easy to hit as a heavy bag.

Fair contenders score KOs of one another all the time.

Against weaker fighters a fighter looks like whatever he is. If he's slowing down, it will be visible even against a weaker fighter. The two things are completely separate issues.

Not necessarily - What about Foreman against Frazier, Henry Armstrong against Barney Ross, and a host of other examples?

What is the basis for saying he looked the same? Have you seen all those fights?

Since when does a fighter have to score a KO in order for a win to be considered "championship class"?

Yes, sometimes enough to knock them out. Look at Azumah Nelson's comeback KOs of Ruelas and Leija after he had been clearly faded and out of boxing, for example.

The title fight was more decisive and impressive than any prior or subsequent win he'd get over Maxim.

What makes Satterfield or Layne any better than Oma? Oma got his title shot by beating Satterfield, which you've said was enough to make Bill Gilliam better than Nino valdes.

Then how can you trust newspaper men's criticisms of him when you say they had a personal bias against him?

They had already sunk to that level. They scored KOs because fighters don't have to be a "level' above another fighter in order to KO him.

Champions aren't "expected" to lose in big upsets to either unranked fighters or fighters from a lower weight class.

Those only show the rankings as they were at the final month of each year, though. The Boxing Register, as well as newspaper reports from those times confirm that many more fighters were rated at the time Charles actually fought them.

Check the Boxing Register - 22 fights against rated contenders from May '46 to May '51.

Moore (three times)
Lloyd Marshall (twice)
Billy Smith (twice)
Fitzie Fitzpatrick (twice)
Elmer Ray (twice)
Jimmy Bivins
Joe Baksi
Maxim (twice)
Walcott (twice)
Lesnevich
Valentino
Louis
Barone
Oma

 

Which sometimes happens.

But not all world class fighters are alert, or succeed in being so for an entire fight.

Yes, even some world class ones. Some either don't have great defenses or fail to keep it up for an entire fight. Look at how wide open Satterfield leaves himself as he's going after Charles, for example.

Why not? Why can't a faded ATG do something an only fair fighter can do?

My assessments come from actually watching his fights, not reading reports. Reading a report isn't going to tell you if a fighter looks the same in two separate fights.

Since when?? Plenty of fighters have been good or even great without having KO power.

In every era odd things happen; that's the point.

What do you find boring about it?
[yt]wYN2eeIuZr4[/yt]

Which means that it was boring? -Or just that Charles was uniformly and repetitively dominant the whole fight? The reports that actually took the time to describe the fight say the latter.

His record and achievements show that he wasn't; he was at least on their level.

That's what Tommy Harrison was when he fought Charles. Liston to the commentary on the video you posted.

Yes he was; he had been restored to the rankings upon his return.

At light-heavy he was, just like Harrison.

 

my2sense---"What makes Layne better than Oma?"

I would say victories over Walcott and Charles.

 

Layne has better individual wins, but not as good an overall body of work as Oma.

 

I disagree with that rather strongly. Layne was 50-17-3 and Oma 64-28-3. Oma was stopped 17 times. He did defeat some good fighters over the years, but tended to lose more often than not. He beat Mauriello, for example, but lost twice to him. He beat Muscato, but lost twice to him. He beat Satterfield, but was stopped by him, etc. Layne just had a more impressive career.

 

That's only about a 5% difference in their win/loss ratios.

That's a helluva lot better than not winning any fights in a series, as was the case with Layne in his multiple fights with Hurricane Jackson, Earl Walls, Bob Baker, Heinz Neuhaus, etc.

In addition to the wins you listed, Oma also beat Gus Lesnevich (by stoppage), Freddie Beshore (twice), Joe Baksi, Tommy Gomez, Omelio Agramonte, and Nick Barone. Conversely, following his loss to Marciano, Layne lost to pretty much every noteworthy or semi-noteworthy opponent he faced outside of his bizarre and highly controversial decision over Charles.