the underrated patterson vs the overrated hw version of ezzard charles

It could go wither way.

 

Definitely agree with you that Patterson is underrated. This fight would be won by Floyd I think but close

 

If you compare Patterson to other heavyweight champions, he has an incredible run of world class consistency.

He was ranked in the top ten, in more years than any other lineal heavyweight champion, despite having a style ill-suited for longevity.

His work ethic must have been incredible.

Having said that, it was comparatively possible to close the gap on the lineal title, when he held it.

 

They're quite evenly matched. Charles ranks higher in all-time terms, but his best work was really at lower weights. At heavyweight it's a close call. No one is getting destroyed.

 

Close but I'd back Charles to stop Patterson between 10 and 12
Charles overrated ????? How so ?

 

Charles rep suffers because he fought so far past his prime.

 

you're probably right and in those losses there are lots of stoppages.
Uptill when he was KO'd by Walcott his only previous stoppage loss was to Lloyd Marshall.
At 175-180lb at his peak, he was unbeatable.

 

Ezzard Charles was a much better boxer than Patterson. Patterson was quick and explosive but far from elusive, he liked to brawl. Patterson was down 20 times in his career, more than any other HW Champ ever.

Ezzard Charles came back in 1946 after serving in the US Armed Forces. At this point he was a full framed man (he got his "man strength" as DeLaHoya calls it) a big LHW who could fight at HW. He was 33-4-1 (16) overall and had already defeated some Hall of Famers and World Champs like Burley x2, Yarosz, Maxim (went 5-0 vs. Maxim), and Christoforidis. He lost close and questionable decisions to Overlin (he also drew with him) and Tunero. He also lost to Bivins by decision and was stopped by Lloyd Marshall 6 weeks later (LKOby8 in 1943). He would not be stopped again until his 3rd fight with Walcott (1951).

From 1946-1954 he went 53-8 in 61 fights bringing his fight total to 99 fights.

He went 39-1 (24) overall and 9-0 (5) in HW World Title fights from 1946- mid-1951. During these 40 fights he was most definitely in his prime. The only loss was a questionable decision vs. Elmer Ray, he went 1-1 (1) vs. Ray. He also beat the likes of Moore x3 (stopped him once), Bivins x4 (stopped him once), Lloyd Marshall x2 (stopped him twice), Lesnevich KO7, Walcott x2, Louis, and others.

After the loss to Walcott in 1951 he went 14-6 in his next 20 fights (thru 1954). He lost questionable decisions to Walcott (their 3rd fight), Layne (he went 2-1 (2) vs. Layne), Harold Johnson, and Valdes. He gave Marciano hell in their 2 fights (L15 and LKO in the 8th) even though they were Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights.

Charles went 42-0 before turning pro, the only HW Champ who was an undefeated amateur. Charles also has more wins than any other HW Champ. He should have been the 1st two-time HW Champ but the decision went to Walcott (in their 3rd fight).

Patterson was the youngest HW Champ (until Tyson) and he is the first two-time HW Champ.

I like them both but I think Charles wins by decision.

 

87-12-1 thru his first 100 pro fights and 9-4 in HW World Title fights. Most of the decision losses were questionable. He was stopped 3 times in these 12 losses-

Marshall- he went 2-1 (2) vs. Marshall, he improved after the loss to Marshall.

Walcott- he went 2-2 vs. Walcott, should have been 3-1 in my opinion.

Marciano- in his 99th pro fight, lost a close 15 round decision in their first fight.

 

patterson by stoppage is most likely imo, that combination of speed and power is bad news for older charles. i won't write off charles' chance of getting a decision, becuse he was awesome, but i can't really picture it.

maybe, but i can see why the op said overated at hw because he was already past his peak(imo) when he moved up and wasn't big anyway.

 

Patterson beat a much older Archie Moore than Charles beat 3 times (once by stoppage). Patterson was robbed vs. Maxim early in his career, Charles beat Maxim 5 times.

They are similar in height and reach, both started at MW. Patterson was more of a SMW except there was no such thing back in those days. I'll give Patterson the edge in power but Charles was more durable (chin, conditioning, and stamina). Speed? They were both quick, I'd give Charles the edge in footwork though.

 

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention.

 

Going with Patterson who I agree is underrated. Had he not chased the $$ at HW he could have reigned at lhw for nearly 20 yrs in addition to capturing the HW title.

 

Charles chased the same money, could have won titles at 160 and 175 and while Floyd is over looked by historians, I don't think Charles is overrated.
3 wins over Archie Moore and 2 over Charlie Burley plus wins over Bivins and Maxim prove how great he was.