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

7.

 

Hearns and especially Lewis at 4 or 5 and Charles at 7 doesn't add up for me. There's footage of Lewis taking loads of hard shots with little effect.

 

Lewis - 7.5
Hearns - 7.0
Moore - 7.5
Leonard -8.0

 

The point is to throw Charles in there for comparison Robbi.

 

Why Leonard only 7 or 7.5?

More, Hearns and Lewis all lost fights pure because of their chin (in fact- it's almost the only way to beat them, especially Lewis and Hearns), but Leonard never lost a fight because of his chin. Hearns landed monster shots on Leonard, as did Duran. Hagler, while past his best, still got through with enough leather but couldn't affect Leonard - who was over his best weight and semi-retired himself. I'd say his chin is a 9.

 

Archie Moore had a nondescript chin.Not bad but when you go down five hundred times with his insane level of talent, it's safe to say it was nothing special; even allowing for a great level of competition fought.

 

Suspicions. Opinions. Inferences. Logical conclusions drawn from analysis which can only be subjective and subject to human error. If I am "certain" about something, it is still mere opinion. Are you certain that Ezzard's chin was a "7"? You can't be. Nor can I be certain that his chin was less.

 

Certainty is not so easy to grasp here either, my friend. There are other factors that are involved here that prevent us from knowing for sure that what you say is true, that is, unless you want to find a way to go back in time, blindfold Ezzard and allow Marciano to land a monster shot. There are other variables that come into play:

1. Did the recipient of the shot see it in time for the body to react just enough to remain conscious? Part of this is the speed and suddenness of the shot.
2. The trajectory and distance the punch travelled...
3. Defensive capability/experience (ie. rolling just enough, relaxing...etc).
4. Physical conditioning
5. Mental/emotional conditioning. Ezzard, for example was known as a tempermental fighter who wrestled with his own insecurity.
6. Chin (and power) are partly mysterious.

These, it seems to me, are what would help us speculate as to why was Ezzard able to take what appeared to be direct shots from the Rock, but within a year, went down several times against Holman, went down twice in his first year as a pro, and so many times in between. It seems more sensible than minimizing the record...

James Douglas got up from a Tyson desperation uppercut, well-timed. He didn't agaisnt a short right counter from Evander "can't hurt heavyweights" Holyfield. Ezzard took monster shots from Rocky. He didn't against the smaller, weaker Bivins. See if you can explain why Duran was able to take that vicious shot from Barkley but not the one from Hearns. Because I sure as hell can't. But I can venture that it had something to do with one or more of those 6 factors above. Barkley threw a short left hook he threw coming up with maximum leverage. Duran didn't seem to have seen it. By the end of the round, he was coming on. By the end of round 2 against Hearns, he was face down on ***** Street.

This is not about durability or toughness. Ezzard was durable and tough, though he had a reputation for being a bit inconsistent and uninspired after '48/Baroudi. This is about Ezzard's chin. That response that you responded to here was only my attempt to show contrast because you were being selective in your presentation....

This all began because I made the opinion that Ezzard, a superb and master boxer, had a weakness that I see as his chin. It was, I hope you can concede by now, an opinion more informed than you assumed.

In my opinion they are not.

He was not "ridiculously overmatched" agaisnt Overlin, anymore than Azumah was against Sanchez. Both were 14 -0 and the results proved that their handlers knew something that you don't.

Overlin was 5'9, 30 years old and had something like a 150 fights already. He had just lost his second in a row to Billy Soose, who was 6'0 -like Ezzard. Soose was adaptable, like Ezzard, but he was basically a one-handed fighter because his right was nothing since early in his pro career when he ripped the knuckle or something like that. Ezzard, let's remember, was undefeated as an amateur, was physically tall, fast, a good mover, and hit hard. He was good early. Overlin wasn't a banger -he was a test, but this was a calculated match-up. Ezzard wasn't thrown to the lions as you assume. If so, then they wouldn't have had Ezzard fight Overlin again 9 months later. Now I wasn't there to speak to his handlers in the early 40s because my mom wasn't even born yet, but it just seems pretty clear to me that Ezzard was expected to beat a safe, smaller, older, though more experienced former champ who wasn't known for power.

Harry Matthews? At least as a HW, those who were around and knew what was what, did not consider him dangerous. Jack Hurley was careful about who he lined up to fight Matthews, who really was a bit like Gerry Cooney -some talent, much hoopla. Jimmy Cannon wrote "As a fighter, Matthews is a fictional character created by Hurley."

Charles fought Holman less than a year after the first Marciano fight. It sounds as if you are getting ready to lay all of Charles' knockdowns post-Marciano I to Lou Gehrig.

I do not, absolutely would not, argue that Charles' deterioration as a fighter had nothing to do with the disease that put him in a wheelchair and eventually killed him. However, it is safe to argue that Charles' physical decline, age, ringwear, the beginnings of an illness, meant that he was not able to react as he would have been able to earlier, to shots. You may argue that this meant that his chin deteriorated. I don't think so. I think it means that his reaction time deteriorated. He was young against Bengal and Overlin but went down. If I hear Teddy Atlas talk about a prospect going down twice in his first year as a pro -at least one time against a non-puncher, I'd suspect that the prospect was a bit chinny. After he went down 15 more times a couple of years later, irregardless that all of these knockdowns were against 1 good puncher and 1 respectable puncher, my suspicions would seem to be confirmed.

Now, relying on that conclusion against a fighter as great -as great early- as Charles would be in all likelihood false hope, because he really shined after the army stint. Did his chin somehow get better? Probably not, although as he got bigger, the thickness of his neck may have acted as more of a shock absorber. Who knows. In his prime, he'd be harder to penetrate, but if you could penetrate and you could hit respectably enough, you had a (demonstrable) chance to at least put him down.



That rounds out and hopefully finishes my comments on Charles's chin...

 

Here's how I see them, JT:

Lewis- 7

Hearns- 4

R. Leonard- 8

Moore- 5

Charles- 6

 

Good call, except i think you may have a typo on Hearns. I'll wait for you to fix it of course. The 5 (hit twice with a decimal in between) is one key right of the 4!

 

Haha. Well, the argument I'd make against Hearns' chin being any higher is similar to the one about Charles' chin. Hearns was skilled, liked the outside, and had the physical advantages in height and reach and especially in his ability to create real danger. These allowed his chin to be less tested that it would have been had he been 5'9 with average power.

If you could get through and tap him, he could be hurt. Leonard proved this in round 5. The problem was -it was hell to get there. Leonard proved that too.

Hearns' had that thin neck and narrow chin that isn't exactly conducive to taking shots.

However, I'm not so adamant about this. Would a 4.5 make you happy?

 

If you got Charles at 6 you gotta give Hearns 5 or 5.5!!!!!

:smoke

 

5. That's my final offer!

 

Baggars can't be choosers i guess

Maybe i should attempt to wittle the others down a bit now!

 

Unless of course you mean you've taken Charles back to a 5

:angel