Charles looked as smooth and slippery as butter even though he was on the downcline by 1953, and showed tremendous expereince to outrick the youth. Make no mistake about it, Johnson is also one of the greatest fundamental boxers we have ever seen. I thought Charles landed the harder punches, outfought johnson at longe range and close range, controlled the ring generalship, plus he scored a knockdown in round 10. Harold Johnson did land his jab almost at will, and he well with sharp counterpunches, but charles outworked him. very action packed high workrate fight for two classical boxers. Round 1 EVEN Round 2 Charles Round 3 Charles Round 4 Charles Round 5 johnson Round 6 johnson Round 7 Charles Round 8 Johnson Round 9 Charles Round 10 Charles- johnson knocked kdown from fast sharp right hand my total ezzard charles 6-3-1 in rounds
I hope someone other than me responds here because we've already discussed this fight before, but I take a totally different perspective to this fight. I thought Charles was anything but smooth and slippery in this one. He looked old, bumbling and befuddled to me. Johnson as far as I'm concerned dictated the tempo and as you say, landed the jab at will. Occasionally Charles would surprise him with a hard hook but for the most part it was Charles winging wild punches and getting picked off in between. My card: 98-94 Johnson Rounds 1,2,5,6,8 and 10 for Johnson. Rounds 3 and 7 for Charles. Round 4 and 9 even. I didn't count the knockdown in the 10th round, though I suppose you legitimately could. If I did the fight becomes closer, but still remains Johnson's.
Like I said he was past his prime, and perhaps looked old compared to his fights in the 1940s, but charles was still a great fighter in 1953, and his handspeed, movement, were still quite fast and his boxing skills were still sharp at this point. I thought Charles outfought johnson at all ranges, and used his experience to control the tempo by making johnson engage on the inside. I dont see how johnson controlled the tempo, even though he scored with his jab(which he did on everyone)...but even at long range charles scored with his long well timed hooks and he used his ring savvy to frustrate johnson. Charles experience showed here, as he dictated the fight, and as far as pure boxing skills they both were about even. Charles did knock johnson down in the 10th with a right hand, that is clear and crisp. I guess our opinions differ.
7-3 for Charles. I relly dont see how SS got that card, maybe I need to add that fight to his next list lol.
Most of the rounds were close, but I felt Charles did plenty to win. yeah the Johnson Jab was a problem, but as you said, I felt Charles outwork him.
I think SS is a little confused because he doesnt see a 1949 charles in there. But that doesnt mean anything, because charles in 1953 was still a greatfighter his punches were still sharp quick and he could still move despit being past his prime. Dont forget, one year later charles gave marciano a gruelling 15 rounder and knocked out bob satterfield with one of the most perfectly timed knockouts shots we have ever seen. I suggest SS scores the fight again, and this time just watch the 1953 charles rather than looking for the up on his toes dancing slick 1949 charles. That charles is gone, but that doesnt mean this charles still couldnt fight!
Hmm. I'm going to have to dig this bout again sometime. Don't remember it as a "decisive" victory for either fighter. It was rather difficult to score.
I wasn't watching 1953 Charles vs. 1949 Charles Q, I was watching Charles vs. Johnson, and I saw Johnson landing time and time again and Charles landing sporadically wiht hard clean shots. It was a case of the quantity outdoing the quality for me. Charles simply didn't land enough to take it.
I thought it played out similarly to sweet scientists view, only a bit closer. i thought Charles still looked more or less a very good fighter. Johnson wasn't nearly aggressive enough, or he could have taken it by an even bigger margin.
