Better at HW: Bob Fitzsimmons vs Ezzard Charles

Charles comfortably for me.

Fitzsimmons was being comprehensively outboxed by Corbett (who in my eyes is one of the most overrated fighters in history) before he found the money punch. Fair enough, you'll have that in boxing from time to time, but head-to-head I'd give Charles a much better chance of competing with the top tier Heavyweights across history than I would Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons' inactivity and lack of a single defence as champion is another problem for me in terms of rating him higher than Charles. Ezz managed a good handful of defences against men at least on a par with Fitzsimmons' best Heavyweight victims (and that's putting it mildly).

Pound for pound there's not a great deal between them, but Fitzsimmons himself never really considered himself anything more than a blown up Middleweight who was good enough to masquerade as a Heavyweight by virtue of his punch, and I'd be inclined to agree. As Heavyweights I don't think there's all that much comparison.

 

I'd say Charles , but that's not a dig at Fitz .I just believe at heavyweight ,in most eras that Ezz could do well ,if not champ but as a contender

 

Is it possible Charles might have emulated Fitz and won titles at Middle, & Lhvy as well as heavy?

 

Fitz was probably more spectacular, and more consistent, Charles fought a lot more and has the better wins.

I'd have to pick Charles

 

I didn't say it was a lucky punch, my point is that based on the way the fight unfolded and what I've seen and read of it from eye witnesses, Fitzsimmons beating Corbett may well have been the exception, not the rule. And I don't think Corbett is as great as many others do.

No shame in going 2-2 with Walcott on Charles' part, or on losing twice to Marciano considering where he was in his career and the fact that he pushed Rocky all the way first time out. And as it goes I don't think Fitzsimmons deserves any real flack for losing to Jeffries against a similarly bigger, younger man.

The eye test is one issue, yes - Fitzsimmons boxed in a generation still shaking off the hangover of the London Prize Ring Rules era and his style just isn't going to match up as well across other eras, especially against bigger, more genuine Heavyweights, than Charles'. But more importantly I just tend to value victories under full championship conditions as considerably more important than Fitzsimmons' (still solid) wins over the likes of Ruhlin, Maher etc. which took place when another man was king of the division.

 

But it wasn't just the single punch he landed, he turned the tide, and wore down Corbett using swings for the head to set up body punches.

I think Fitz was always going to win, because Fitz was far better in terms of strategy. Corbett just relied on his speed.

 

Add in O'brien for Fitzsimmons and pick the next best win for Charles and I'd say its about even. Joe Louis tilts it a bit, be he was past it when he fought Charles.

 

He fought for the heavyweight championship of the word vs Johnson, and did rather well.

Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, and Pat Valentino were not north of 200 pounds either, I think.