'50 E. Charles vs. '60 F. Patterson... Who the man in a 15 rounder?

I feel bad now, having just posted on another thread that Norton would beat him, but I got to pick agaisnt Floyd big time. Charles all the way. Charles was great, Floyd was not. Charles also had great power, but did not use it all the time after killing Borouni (sp? )
in ring.

 

I don´t think Charles had better combinations, Charles was failry fast and had decent power even at hw but neither as good as Patterson - I don´t think you wanted to say that though. I´m not so sure about the shorter, mora compact shots too, at least not when it comes to combinations. IMO Patterson is up there with Louis and Tyson when it comes to throwing hard, compact, short combinations and better than Charles. You have a point when it comes to single shots though. I think Charles´ better timing - even so Floyd was pretty good there himself - and especially ring smars and experience would be the decider for the Cinncinati Cobra. :thumbsup

Yeah, right, because the last fight in his 18 year career should be used to assess him here. Billy, you are a little comedian.

Awesome post, I agree fully. :thumbsup

Ah, so this was an excuse .... but of course Vitali quitting wasn´t. You really are an comdian, aren´t you?

Ah, well, I´m one of the biggest fans of Floyd on here and while I think this will be a very good and close fight and I can see Patterson winning it - actually I picked him in the past when this match-up came up. The more I rewatch and see of both the more I think Charles would win this. He´s just more complete, more intelligent and experienced. He beat guys with a similar combination of speed and power already - Burley, yeah, a few weightclasses down but he learned how to deal with someone with such a deadly combination - Patterson faced harder punchers, faster fighters, similar intelligent ones, bigger fighters, similar skilled ones but none of them brought it all combined with huge championship experience to the table. In three fights Patterson would take one.

Btw. I rank Floyd above Charles at hw.

Yeah, right. Floyd wasn´t great. P*ss off. :twisted:

 

Patterson struggled with lesser fighters, but he never lost to them. Yes, he lost to a lesser fighter but an incredibly devastating puncher. A fighter that also wrecked Eddie Machen in 1 round. Charles on the other hand actually losses to scalps like Valdes and Layne. Yes, albeit in close decisions and when he was slightly past his best. But still... that's got to count for something. I just think Patterson's chances are being undervalued. He's definitely one of the more underrated HWs H2H.

 

It's an interesting match up ... Patterson is the faster fighter and the better puncher however Charles was the better fighter ... I like Ez but he'd have to be at his best ...

 

Again, Bill specified 1950 Charles versus 1960 Patterson of Ingo II, which can be expressed as a best for best pairing. Floyd didn't yet have the veteran savvy he'd display against Chuvalo and then Cooper half a decade later, but Ingo II was Floyd at his most motivated.

1950 Charles was a changed performer after Baroudi, but he was now a full fledged heavyweight campaigner with championship distance experience not possessed at the time of Baroudi, championship distance experience Floyd never obtained in a winning effort. (Normally, what Patterson did after 1960 might be irrelevant here, and should be disregarded, but if he over paced himself with uncertainly against Ellis while a grizzled veteran in 1968, then he possibly always does it when less experienced the first time in dealing with a situation like this.)

 

One fight I wish we had seen is Floyd Patterson vs Harold Johnson.

Johnson actually won a decision over the great Ezzard Charles, a close one surely, but one thing that I believe troubled Charles was Harold's speed. Charles looked much slower, methodical but also more relaxed. He took punches flush though and Patterson does have the power. Charles would have to play it very smart and look for opportunities on the swarming Patterson. Remember that Moore tried to sucker him in, but that night Patterson was too focused and far too fast for the older Archie.

Patterson would have to iron out any amateurish mistakes and Charles would have to take advantage of every opportunity given to him. I think Patterson is a very tough opponent to outpoint though and I don't see a KO for Charles. It would be a very tough task for Ezzard.

 

Another good post.

Previously, I mentioned questions about Patterson's smarts against Liston, and self doubts about going the championship distance with Ellis. In addition to that, it merits pointing out that Jerry Quarry decked him three times in two bouts by suckering Floyd into the ropes and corners, the margin by which Jerry avoided a pair of defeats. Ezz had that Cobra moniker for some compelling reasons, like the way he could bait a trap and strike without warning. If he opted to retreat and bait traps, Patterson would likely tail him into them. Floyd did well moving laterally on a pressing Chuvalo in a grueling infighting affair. But Ezz could counter effectively in retreat as well as box effectively on the front foot. He kept his first match with Marciano entirely in ring center, and clinch free, his back contacting the ropes for just an incidental instant in the final round. Because of his versatility, we don't know how he'd deal with Patterson. Floyd was more predictable.

 

Floyd Patterson ducked Harold Johnson. Well, D'Amato did.

Charles arguably beat Harold Johnson. He did on my Card.

Charles was past his prime when he fought Johnson. The 48 Charles would have clearly beaten Johnson