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

Most reporters at ringside thought Charles won that fight, and some even thought he won clearly. I remember one writer complaining that everyone in his section each had Charles winning something like 11 rounds.

Charles did complain about some other fights, though. He said he was blatantly robbed in his loss to Rex Layne, but then again, that fight was almost universally considered a fix. Jack Dempsey was the ref and the sole judge, and he scored something like 7 rounds even admin), and gave the fight to Layne 2-1-7. :yikes

Charles also insisted he was robbed against Harold Johnson, though not everyone agrees with him there, including myself. I thought the judge who scored the fight 7-3 for Johnson was close to accurate.

 

You were overstating Ezzard's chin when you asked "how is a fighter with diminished skills/reflexes able to withstand clean, flush BOMBS from hitters like Marciano and Satterfield, if not for his chin?". I responded by reminding you that he was stunned, and hurt in the first bout, and was floored in the rematch, etc.

Not necessarily. Hagler's curbstone chin was already tried and true. Ezzard's wasn't. Had Hagler gone down for a 5 count when he fought Hamsho before Hearns and gone down again against Mugabi for a 9 count after Hearns, I'd be hesitant to celebrate his chin because it stood up to Hearns. It seems to be that excuses are being made all over the place to uphold some principle that Ezzard was too great to not have a great chin. Again, Ezzard doesn't need us to engage in revisionism to re-create him into some mythical, flawless fighting machine.

I am not adamant about holding his late HW knockdowns against him -he was competing against larger men in a division above his best. Ezzard, whom I rank around #7 all-time, went down as a HW which is not shocking, a LHW, and in over-the-weight MW bouts. His chin was dentable and that is a demonstrable fact.

 

But being simply "stunned/hurt" is not a failure to withstand clean punches, especially under those circumstances as Charles was in.

And in bringing that up, you really didn't answer the question either, which was pretty straightforward.

Hagler's chin wasn't quite "tride and true" prior to the Hearns fight. Many people gave Hearns an excellent chance at knocking him out (despite it being Hearns' first fight at 160) and were shocked to see Hagler shake off his best shot as easily as he did. The fight is considered the fight that most proved Hagler's chin, not any before or after.

I don't think any excuses are being made, or are even needed.

Your whole argument about Charles' chin rests on the assumption that a fighter dropped a numerous amounts of times over the course of a long career must be attributed to his chin, when in fact there are several possible explainations for something like that (chin only being one of them).

In order to make your case about Charles' chin, you can't simply point to the times that he went down, but you also have to explain the times he didn't go down and appeared to show a sturdy chin. You really haven't done that. Saying "Marciano went on to stop him in a rematch", or "Satterfield only went two rounds" doesn't address what actually happened in those fights.

 

I wish manassa and stonehands would kiss and makeup because I like both of them very much........


ps Remind me never to get on stonehands badside. He sure has a archie moore type style of Exposing your weakness when he is mad at you and ripping into you with perfectly timed sniper shots........I think stonehands would make me cry. haha.

 

I scored Johnson vs charles 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even for charles. charles landed the harder blows, cleaner punches and knocked harold down in the 10th with a right hand. johnson scored most of his points with his awesome jab, but didnt do much else. the boxing match was pretty much even with both fighters not really having the edge in that regard. when charles got in the trenches, he won the battle.

 

..charles camp....the one that managed him before ...ah....some gentlemen.took over early in heavyweight stage....thought ezzard's chin was a puzzlement. great at times...not so great at others. i talked to two members of the family that managed him and we tossed the subject around and came up with....5 being the top...1 being the lowest...charles was around 3.5..

re' the walcott robbery...charles "complaints" were mild "I thought I won" compared to what he could have said....the referee took away his body attack by saying he was punching low when he went as high as the collar bone..and also said "come on pappy " (walcott) .throughout the fight...the judging was a farce ...one writer said it was the biggest robbery ever done in front of alive audience and on tv as well.



the rex layne fight has been accurately commented on here already.

harold johnson...never have seen it. i think at this point ezzard may have been indulging in wishful thinking...hard to admit to himself that he was slipping.

 

I'm not one to avoid questions. I assumed that my reams of discussion on this would make my answer clear enough. Charles's chin was better than it was expected to be that night. Those who were there -including Marciano himself expressed surprise at his ability to survive such a test. They weren't biased or superstitious in getting to that conclusion. They knew the record. You and others seem to take the Marciano example and expand outwards a bit too much in my opinion, glossing over the fact that he went down 3 times in the rematch and twice more before the year was out against the unheralded Big John Holman.

Accusing me of not acknowledging or making excuses for his not going down in Marciano I masks your not acknowledging or excusing the fact that 5 guys had put him down before the Baroudi fight --before he ever became a HW.

You're wrong there.

The Hearns fight is considered the fight that proved beyond any doubt that Hagler's chin was granite. It was the fight that made people notice what was already clear. Hagler had never been down before '85 as an amateur or as a professional - that's over 120 times in the ring- despite facing faded but still fearsome Philly monsters and despite facing several good punchers right up to 1985.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with my observation!

Why is it that your "straightforward question" seeks to credit Charles' chin for suriving the first Marciano bout, but suddenly becomes less of a factor for the times that he did go down?

Let's look at your logic. Had Fighter X had 100 fights and gone down 130 times against 12 guys, would your argument be "hey, that means that he didn't go down against ~85 guys -his chin is solid!? Or, would you argue that it is more likely that he wasn't tapped on a nerve center because he was able to roll just enough, or fought cautiously?

I'll say this, and keep in mind that this is an attempt to resolve this respectfully even if we remain in opposite corners: I see your arguments: Ezzard was youthful and fighting experienced guys who could punch -all except Overlin anyway. Ezzard was older and fighting larger guys who could punch -like Walcott, like Marciano, like Kid Matthews. Ezzard could withstand serious shots and the first Marciano shot is the best example. I see the merit in those arguments.

Mine holds that Ezzard had a demonstrably dentable chin -and went down in every division he fought in, at times multiple times, and at least once at the hands of a non-puncher. Does he have a glass jaw? No, he survived Burley and bigger punchers. Was it a point of vulnerability? I'd say yes. When you consider how much of a ring general he was, it was often the only chance guys had -even in his prime, because he was hell to outbox. Disagree if you like, but it's not an untenable position.

 

Good stuff.

 

The 41 ringside reporters at the 4th Walcott fight split 24-17 for Charles, not overwhelmingly. The fight was close. The Layne fight was more controversial, but Nat Fleischer scored it 5-5 and thought that Dempsey's decision could be justified, if not his 2-1-7 scoring which Nat felt invited dirision.

 

I don't know about that. I know he has a habit of making himself look like an idiot.

 

Well, I'm not allergic to olive branches and have been known to extend them when a debate goes over the line. Judging from Manassa's last post above, his need to get in the last word, and his pattern in the past, I'm not sure he shares that notion.

My hand is extended.

 

.the walcott 1V fight was close but it was made close somewhat by the referee's handling. even at that i had it 10 to 5..giving the rounds in doubt to walcott. but..what the hell..that was long ago amnd other opinions do exist.

my comment on ezzard's chin are all i have to say about that.

i do have to point out, though, that he was finished when he fought john hollman.his mistake was his fighting outside against the bigger man who had the longer reach. i think at that time he thought...mistakenly..that he could still move in and move out with his old style. hollman did kayo him fairly and squarely though. i watched the fight on live tv...and i was saddened.

still...they had a rematch in cincinnati which i saw from ringside. ezzard moved in and stayed there. he was always a good infighter and in this he used that part of his arsenal exclusively. glad he won...but those of us who are ezzard admirers....hell,,,we're fanatical about him.....knew it was well past time to hang them up. unfortunately he was broke and had to go on.

hell..while i'm here....i'll point i am a great admirer of jersey joe and harold johnson.

 

I scored the Johnson vs Charles fight for Ezzard the knockdown should have been counted it was a very close fight though.

 

My need to get in the last word? I thought that was your job. I palmed you off but you still carried on with it. I was hoping to get even more out of you actually because the more you were saying, the more of a fool you made out of yourself.

 

I wouldn't argue either - that is, until I had familiarized myself with that fighter, with his career, with his opponents, with the circumstances of those KDs, and had watched what footage was available of him.

If, for example, I saw that those 85 fights came against tomato cans, and he had scored quick KOs in them all without taking punches in return, and those 12 fights were the only ones he had against decent opponents who hit him back, then I would say yes, he almost certainly does have a weak chin.

However, if I saw that this guy fought consistently against top notch level comp. throughout his career, including numerous fights against Hall of Famers and/or experienced former champs, and in many of those 85 fights took clean, solid punches from legitimate big punchers without going down and perhaps even coming back to win, then I would say no, he doesn't have a weak chin.