Ezzard Charles v Bob Foster

Charles' tough durability got him out of that hairy first round against Satterfield just fine. It was only after he survived those big shots that he was able to regroup and outbox him. I see this fight going the same way. I would be hard pressed to think of a more damaging puncher than Satterfield..he's in the upper tier no doubt.

Curious as to how someone would come to the conclusion that Charles was vulnerable to punchers. During his best run, he was only KOed and dropped by a sneak punch from Walcott and relentless punishment from Marciano..after already previously going the distance with them.

This board kills me sometimes....the only man to go 15 with Marciano in which he took some brutal punishment, a man who outslugged Moore and Satterfield, now has a questionable chin? And its matter of who lands first. Foster folded against the big boys..Charles held his own or beat them at their own game.

 

Never said he was vulnerable to punchers in general, but the right kind of puncher he could be. Foster was the right kind of puncher. As I said, Ezzard's resourcefulness usually got him out of those situations, and may very well in this fight, but at the same time he could get sparked out with the right blow if he slipped up for a second. It would take a very disciplined gameplan for him to deal with Foster, in my opinion. Then again he was usually a very disciplined fighter. Still, one well-placed shot
(and Bob placed them well) could end things for him. Nobody could punch like Foster.

 

are you saying that foster is the hardest hitting light-heavyweight in history

 

Yes, Foster is the hardest hitting Light-Heavyweight ever. Harder the more. Hardest than Spinks. Harder than Tunney. Definitely harder than Charles.

 

Despite facing every dangerous puncher of his era LHW to 200 lb+, has Ezzard Charles ever been sparked out early?

Techncially it took Walcott 37 rounds to find him.

Someone is getting blasted out early, and I don't think its the Cobra.

Satterfield placed his punches well also...unlike Foster, he actually beat and KOed many big Heavyweight contenders..Oma, Williams, Baker, and Holman. He fractured Gomez's ribs and damaged Valdez's eye.

 

Read my post properly and stop whining.

 

Charles goes the distance and exchanges with Louis, Marciano, Walcott while past his best and Bob Foster is his undoing?

hmmmmmmm.

EDIT: Nevermind, Mongoose managed to ***** before i could.

Langford, Fitzsimmons...

 

He was knocked down a total of 15 times in back to back fights with Bivins and Marshall. A tad green, perhaps? These losses came after his back to back wins over Burley and wins over Basora and Maxim.

I'll give him the credit for getting up for most of them, though. Regardless, he was capable of being hurt, and being hurt badly, and capable of being sparked. I never said he had a bad chin, it was decent, but nothing special. His skills are what allowed him to survive most of the time. Skills don't help after you've been seperated from your senses, though.

Anyways, stop making it out to sound like I'm denigrating Charles. He was a great, great fighter, and if you'll read my post I favored him to out-box Foster in 2/3. It's hardly out of the realm of possibility that he could be cold-cocked by such a monstrous hitter, though, and I think Foster would find the range in at least one of their affairs.

 

-1 for the Classic Forum's reading comprehension.

 

Yeah, pretty :huh

I guess we didn't read the post properly...Foster is the RIGHT KIND OF PUNCHER. He's not saying Charles is going to get knocked out but he is if he doesn't box the best fight of his life. :nut

 

In my opinion. He's one of the hardest punchers, period. Any weight class. By comparison to his foes, anyway.

If one of you is thinking of making the "but his power didn't hold up at Heavyweight" argument, don't.

 

I change my prediction. Foster by brutal, life-threatening KO.

 

I think Charles is the greatest LHW ever so logically I think he would win this fight, BUT a puncher like Foster can't be discounted entirely at 175. Let me qualify that - I know Ezzard took Marciano the full 15 etc, but didn't he also get floored eight times in one fight by Lloyd Marshall? Using that logic, is it not conceivable that Foster could turn the trick that Marshall did?

Foster also presents a different set of stylistic problems than The Rock - his height etc.

Maybe there are mitigating circumstances that explain Charles' crushing loss to Marshall - does anyone on here know the background to this bout? (he did go on to avenge that loss twice (I think)), but, as I say above Foster does have that chance.

I think the ratio in this fight is circa 75/25 in Charles' favour. In a series of 4 or 5 fights, Foster is capable of winning one, probably earlier in the series, before Charles works Foster out.

 

no, i was simply asking a question

and you should read my reply to your post to see i was not taking your opinions lightly

 

I wasn't referring to you with my last statement.