Ezzard Charles@168 - WTF happened against Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall?!

...first..bivins and marshall were both great fighters.

second.... i'm not sure of the details any more...i just know that the draft board had something to do with it. charles thought he would be called up any day so he didn't prepare for a fight. it might have been that he was the sole support of his grandmother and great grandmother that delayed things..anyway, he went into both matches woefully undertrained. this obviously had a major effect. of course, with thes two guys he might have lost even if he had been in shape. when i talked to him....in the 1960's... he smiled and said "I was like a yo yo in the bivens fight...and i was the same way against marshall." no excuses..no comment on the training problem....just a little grin.

i still contact with some people who were part of his management...at least i think i do....and i've always wanted to know more about those fights myself. if i can come up with more information i'll pass it along here.

sadly there aren't many people still alive after all these years...but i' start digging.

 

Apparently he got his ass kicked. I guess he was green, and up against two great fighters. It happens.

 

Ezzard was down 30 times in his career. Twenty of these before he became a HW. Enough said.

I didn't say it was... however his chin was a weakness. Was it a major one? No... he had better than average recuperative powers and his exemplary skill prevented him from becoming known as "Canvas Back" Charles.

 

But it wasn't - unless you consider a solid jaw a weakness.

 

Fighters with solid jaws don't kiss the canvas 20 times in 46 fights before their 28th birthday.

 

Getting knocked down can have so many reasons not related to chin.

 

15 of those were in 2 fights, if he stayed down after the first KDs he'd have 7KDs in 46 fights, so getting up makes his chin worse?

And lets not forget his comp was some of the best in history, you'd expect a few KDs against Moore, Bivins, Burley, Walcott, Marshall, these are top P4P guys in any era

 

I have read that Charles was in the military and not training for boxing or sparring at all. He took these fights and fought them on three day passes.

You read so many excuses that you end up taking them with a grain of salt, but the fact that these two fights were so out of line with the rest of Charles' career leads me to think this excuse is probably valid.

 

As has been said, fifteen of those knockdowns came in two fights where he was obviously overmatched - a lighter, weaker, less experienced Charles was up against two of the very best fighters of the era. Charles didn't have the strength and solidarity at that time in his career to trade on even terms; he got run over. Stamina may also have been a problem as his training was up and down during that period.

After Charles had finished with the army he was better all round as you well know.

He could get knocked down (he was never a runner and traded punches a lot), but then he could also endure a lot - Elmer Ray, Joe Louis and Archie Moore couldn't deck him in sixty two rounds combined. It took Jersey Joe Walcott two and a half fights before he sparked Charles (with a punch that would have ended almost anyone), and even Rocky Marciano couldn't get the job done in the first fight despite letting go everything he had.

Nobody will ever try to claim Charles had a jaw that belonged in the upper echelons of history but it was not a weakness either.

 

Sure it can. It can also mean that his chin was a bit porous. 30 knockdowns usually point towards the latter.

He was also knocked down by Basora, Bengal, Fitzie Fitzpatrick, and Ken Overton -and Overlin particularly was no banger.

 

....old fogey may have it right..that ezzard was in the military when he had those two fights. i've read in some places that was the situation....but that seemed odd. again, i'm trying to get to someone wh was involved....don't know how successful i will be.

 

I consider Ezzard Charles to be among the most technically proficient fighters ever. That, we surely would agree, more than compensates for those greats who's chins weren't curbstones. I believe, and not casually, that Ezzard's chin was his weakness. Marciano didn't stop him in the first fight but does that necessarily mean that Ezzard's chin could take the Rock's shots? I'd say no, it more likely means that Marciano didn't land squarely. Rocco was quite sloppy that night. I'd also say that in that particular fight, Ezzard had something to prove -he was at the time being written off by many who should know better as a bit soft... heart problems. He had conditioning and inspiration -both a fighter's endeavor to remain vertical.

If you are more comfortable with terming it a relative weakness, then I wouldn't protest, but if you were scheduled to fight him, what would your strategy be? I'd be throwing overhands all night.

I'll offer you another "cobra" for a rough parallel. Hearns. Some out here believe that Hearns couldn't take a shot. That's nonsense. However, what was his weakness? His chin! Similarly to Ezzard, Hearns was only stopped by serious guys before he got old. It took Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley's guns to finish Hearns (Urian Grant did too, but when Hearns was 40, and Hearns was wobbled by Roldan and Delgado)-all good to very good punchers. Yet Cuevas and Duran couldn't dent him. And he overcame larger men than those three -who could hit harder... Nate Miller for instance -who could hit hard enough to stop the durable Orlin Norris. Andries. CW "Rage" Lapaglia who stopped 33 out of 37, albeit mostly nobodies.

Point is, Hearns was probably less vulnerable to knockdowns than Ezzard, and both could deal with big punchers most of the time, but either one could get a little wobbly in there. That's their point of vulnerability, their weakness. That's what you aim for. The chin.

Moore and Benitez respectively proved that outboxing them is exceedingly hard! But the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.

 

I'll give you someone who was involved.

Jimmy Bivins.

Here's what he had to say about how he beat Ezzard:

He came down from Cincinnati and everyone was telling me that he was going to knock me out. He could punch and he was a cutie. He had all kinds of skill. He was a great fighter...You had to be on the ball when you fought Charles. Every time I jabbed, I kept him on the outside so he couldn't counter or move in on me. When he'd throw a right hand, I'd slip it and throw a hook. I had to keep him off with my jab. I had to keep hitting him to keep him from hitting me.

-This is from Robert Cassidy's interview with Bivins from around 1996, when Bivins was 76. Incidentally, when asked who was the best among his opponents, he said that the man who really stood out was.... Archie Moore.

 

Yes, it does! If you think Marciano didn't land squarely then I don't believe you've seen a significant portion of the fight. Charles was hit by everything but the kitchen sink and the state of his face showed it.

This content is protected

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, because like me, you don't like conceding points when there is a shred of possibility you can find an angle that works in your favour. But you will not win here I'm afraid.

And for the record, pound-for-pound, Charles definitely had a better chin than Hearns.

 

So this picture proves that Ezzard's chin could take a flush, direct shot from Marciano? I don't think so -Marciano is not even at the proper range to deliver it full force... and his legs are not leveraged. Here's one that better represents the fight:

This content is protected

Here's one from 3 months later:

This content is protected

Let's not make this a fruitless war of pictures. Again, technical skill, mental and physical conditioning, and pure luck (as to where and how a shot lands) can more than compensate for a dentable chin and you know this. Ezzard took shots and looked it, but neither does that mean that he's got a great or even a better than average chin... The fact is that Ezzard was stopped in the rematch, and within in the year went down twice before being stopped by John Holman in the 9th.

Manassa, I believe I've already "won" (ie: provided a stronger argument). After the Romans vanquished their enemies, they'd grant them Roman citizenship... at least they would the survivors, well, at least the survivors who weren't paraded through the streets in chains and crucified. I am Hadrian and am considerate enough to spend time converting you Manassa, a barbararian chief of Britannia. Join me, or be repelled beyond the Wall I'll build.