Jimmy Ellis of '68 vs. Ezzard Charles of 1950.

Charles was better

 

The Charles of 1950 thrashes Ellis handily imo.

Charles by a wide UD.

 

charles. not to side with majority but i never got ellis. he was NEVER that good and charles was a top 10 lhw and potential top 10 hw of all time. that left hook that KO'd satterfield would obliterate ellis

 

Would be an excellent technical match-up. IMO Jimmy is underrated. Still, a peak Charles would be a bit too much for him, IMHO.

Also, Mr Bill I don't think that it is a given that this fight would go 15 rounds. It might go the distance but a late stoppage (in favour of Charles) is also very possible.

 

Ellis would get schooled and knock out - I don't rate Ellis at all - another overated 60's/70's "oh he must've been good coz he mixed it with Frazier and Ali" boxer but didn't have anywhere near the power to worry Charles nor speed - Charles would punish him and knock him out probably in about 10 or 11 rounds

 

Ellis was good but Charles just is a class above him. He can do everything Ellis could and then some. It´s just a gap in class. I guess Ellis would be competative early on but from the 4th round it´s all Charles and he may even TKO him - when depends on the rules.

 

Ellis is an under rated fighter. He fought in the golden era of heavyweight boxing. I do think Charles was the tougher of the two, and more aggressive. Best guess is Charles via late round TKO, though I could see Ellis winning a close decision too.

 

Ellis was a very competant contender (and paper champ) who can cause plenty of problems for Charles. Ellis at his best dominated Bonavena and dropped him, something that Frazier never managed to do. He had a very good boxer's style.

However, I think he would play into Charles's hands by trying to outpoint Ezzard in a cagey boxing match, and I think it's very hard for anyone to win that kind of fight against the Cincinnatti Cobra.

Ezzard Charles by points.

 

Ellis was a good counter puncher who could hit. He was actually quite dangerous early but tended to run out of stamina/lose focus as the fights went on.

I imagine Ellis would present some problems for Charles early, until Charles takes over in the late rounds. Ellis was tough, but he could be stopped in a 15 round bout. If it's 10 rounds, I see him lasting the distance.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e789kXQ-Ot8[/ame]

 

Although I liked the Ellis of '68...I loved the Ezzard Charles of 1950...loved that fight of his with Louis...thought Charles moved like a cat..boxed beautifully against his idol..it was one of the fights that stirred by love for boxing way back..so I say Charles 1950 W15 Jimmy Ellis 1968.

 

Ellis was a good fighter and underrated but he is not in Charles class. I can see the fight go the distance but would not be surprised if Charles stops Jimmy if they both got aggressive instead of keeping it like a chess match. Charles did everything better

 

Underated? I just don't agree with you guys here on Ellis being underated at all. At his best most had a little past his prime Patterson beating him while I had it a draw in a no ball of fire contest. Jerry's account of his back being injured enough for it to have been postponed and his being all but unable to throw at Jimmy leaves that victory a moot point. Jimmy was cutie style wise and had that quick right hand with pop on it, but he was a full class below the 1950 Charles.