Billy Conn vs Ezzard Charles at Middleweight.

You may well be on to something here. Although I can't say I have studied Conn's tapes in that much detail so I can't say how good he was t it but I'll take your word he was one of the best.

I think Antuofermo could be mentioned here though.

Overlin beat him with lateral movement combined with punches off the angles he made. Sounds similar to Conn IMO.

Tunero beat him with lateral movement and veteran savvy, picking his hots and keep Charles from getting off. I think this defeat could have been averted if Charles was more experianced but reading his fight reports he always seemed to struggle if he was unable to consistently get off on his opponents, and lateral movement is a great way to stop someone getting off.

Also, although Maxim was bigger, it was his jab and lateral movement that caused Charles so much problems, although he did just grind out two dominant points wins, he wasnt as impressive he had been and struggled badly in the early goings.

Charles found it hard to stalk on something that was moving. He liked to keep that jab out and then come in with his combinations, abit like Napoles. If Conn is moving, like we know he can, Charles will find it hard to pin him down with just the jab and struggle to stalk him IMO, especially if Conn attacks of his angles, again as we know he can do.

Not really, Charles was explosive but Conn was blazing fast also.

I wouldn't say great, he tended to be at his best when hes getting the guy on the end of his jab and leading him in, so he can slide back and counter. Hence the Cobra tag. When he has to purely go on the offensive he tended to struggle and not look as sensational.

I agree here, on both parts. Conn aint winning this on his jab. But he never really was just a jabber and mover though was he, he loved combo's.

What he needs to do is circle laterally keeping Charles off balance and not committing to any head on exchanges. Constantly creating angles and stepping in firing fast combintions before sliding out of range again. Not giving Charles the chance to counter by getting drawn in with the jab.

Burley was a proven Middleweight though, he was beating the best of the guys was he not?

Yes, he lost to them guys but he generally got revenge on them, and these guys were no slouches.

Thing is though Charles proved hismelf superior twice in two different type of fights. In the first he was sensational and used his speed and power to amost overpower Burley, the rematch was a boxing match that Charles controlled. It proved that neither win was a fluke and he was well rounded at the time.

The Bivins-Burley fight has more ammunition of being a 'flash in the pan' type of fight IMO.

Like what?

Charles had proven himself against some of the best Middleweights and Light-Heavyweights around he was generally considered top 3 in both weights. How was he not ready for the Bivins or Marshall fights? Who else was there to fight really?

Yes. I'm not saying Charles was at the top of his game at Middleweight, he obviosuly improved later, but he ws still a force.

Conn wasnt at the top of his game at Middleweight either but he was much closer.

May I remind you Charles was blasting through top contenders like Basora, Mose Brown, Beckwith, Maxim and Christoforidis.

McGrain and Choklab, could you expand on your Heavyweight match up thoughts?

 

Yeh I seen a bit of footage on Robinson vs Abram, in fact I have it on DVD, and Ray looked in controll but it wasn't all of the fight, so I couldn't comment on it comfortably.

 

Overlin was also older. I think its fair to say Charles had trouble with his style. As he was beating guys on Overlins level easy at the time (Burley and Christoforidis)

I never once said 'defensive mover', but Overlin used a lot of angles and lateral movement. That is what I mean. Conn was hardly a runner either.

Don't have them handy but Tunero used his experiance and lateral movement. Although Charles looked poor, lack of training blamed.

Walcott less so, though. Plus we are talking about Middleweight Charles.

Maxim is much more of a pure boxer using lateral movement behind his left jab. This is what caused Charles problems, when Maxim began shelling up when hit that is when Charles was able to bank the rounds, despite it making him look bad. In the early goings Maxim was winning rounds, he just got scared of Charles power. (Quite a feat for a Middleweight to do to a Heavyweight, I may add.)

Agreed, but Walcott wasn't exactly a lateral mover or an angles specialist.

Your right. But he didn't use lots of movement on Charles, well not in the Conn or Overlin mould. In the rematch he retreated alot and failed to attack of his angles.

Maxim wasn't, he had two fights with him in 1942.

Conn is hardly going to all of a sudden discover he can off set opponents attacks after growing a couple of pounds is he?

How so?

I'm providing you with some conflicting points here, I would like to hear your views on them.

 

OK, fair enough. Overlin was still a stylistic problem and caused Charles trouble because of it.

Also you don't have to take my word for it, do you not see his use of angles in the footage you posted, albeit he is quite unorthodox in his angles. And the comparisons to Greb another fighters who excelled on angles.

I think that is overblown, he was 'fighting' with Louis throughout the bout, but he was doing it his way with angles, it was when he gave them up he was in trouble.

Yes, it is a problem and a very valid point. As I beleive Charles could KO any Middleweight or Light-Heavyweight ever! Its especially a problem as Conn would be less mature at Middleweight.

But I'm assuming we stick to the gameplan. As we could say, ok excessivly, that Charles could quit needing to use the toilet.

Thanks. It was just a breif report I read. His Cincinnati fights are a pain to get reports of.

He wasn't just holding his own, he was winning rounds, many people felt in the early rounds he was going to beat Charles. And after seeing the first fight many favoured Maxim in the return. Although at the time the feeling was it would be amazing if anyone went the distance with Charles so his success may be overblown but I doubt it, as respected sportswriters mentioned the thigns above too.

And Charles never really broke him down, he just caused him to shell up because of his firepower. But his power is definitly something we should consider here as Maxim had a grade-A chin and a solid defence and was forced to look to survive.

He is much more defensive with his angles and minimalistic IMO, different from Conn greatly.

I think he failed. He tried an aggressive approach in the first fight and got beat bad, so in the rematch he vowed to play it defensivly so never integrated his offence as fully as he should have IMO.

If your meaning he wasn't a Middleweight at the time, he was still considered as such. Although not in his rankings because he was cleaning out the Light-Heavys, as a title shot hope was more prevalent at 175lbs.

I think movement is a huge part of his style anyways, and it is more the offensive angles that I se ebeing the major key here, and he would have been using them as a Middleweight as they are not something you just pick up, and as a by-product the defensive angles would have been there, just maybe not as utilised as much, as you suggest.

Charles-Conn is more important than any lady.