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

I think you take yourself a bit too seriously. I can't believe you went looking for better photographs because you thought I was trying to prove something with mine.

You obviously have more energy and time to spend on this than me, as illustrated by my lack of response (you know that if I really wanted to, I would debate this for several pages) - so, then, I suggest you make better use of your time and watch the first Marciano-Charles fight...

... And then continue your general research on Charles because I can tell you aren't that well versed.

 

I don't think there can be any doubt that Charles got his flush during their first encounter. I have a copy with Marciano himself commentating, and repeatedly when he lands a good clean blow, he says how he was surprised how Ezzard stood up to his best shots on several occasions.

 

Is this about Ezzard's flaw or what I do with my time? Instead of argument, I get a hissy fit.

I didn't go looking for "better photographs", and I don't give a damn about photographs -those were posted to show how fruitless that line of argument is.

I think that your fleeting youthful enthusiasms affect your objectivity. You simply can't tolerate an opinion about a flaw in your (latest) hero irregardless of its fair presentation. You may disagree -and that's fine, but to question motives and then get personal is out of line.

Next time, make time to address the arguments, or take a nap.

 

No hissy fits here - I'm as calm as a hindu cow. Boxing isn't my thing anymore, I don't care as much as I used to. I just genuinely can't be bothered getting into a five page debate about the strength of Charles' chin - so instead, I'm telling you it was solid. Now you can choose to believe someone who knows more about Charles than you do, or can choose not to and try to set up a rebuttal.

But it won't be valid, because I'm right and you're wrong. I know I'm right because I know you're wrong, and I know you're wrong because of some of the things you've said. And that's that.

P.S. - I'm not getting personal. If you thought that then I would assume you have a sharp stick up your arse.

 

No stick up this ass. Although perhaps I should consider standing on my head and speaking from my ass to overcome this language barrier.

So, you've been reduced to merely insisting that you know more about Ezzard than I. How juvenile. Well, my stunted friend, it has been some time since we had a full-blown debate. They were fun, and it is unfortunate that you've been claiming 'stomach cramps'.

PS/ Duran stops Ike.

PSS/ Duran defeats Hank.

 

Now as a final word; watch the first Marciano-Charles fight.

 

Your first point actually undoes your second.

The fact that all those knockdowns you're referring to happened in just the first 2 or 3 years of his career, at a time when he was still a work in progress and being thrown to the wolves, suggest that they were more the result of a lack of experience than a lack of chin. So does the fact that he failed to stay down in all but one of these knockdowns.

After returning from the army, his knockdowns suddenly became very few and very far between. Even after he started to slow down in the early 50s, and his reflexes were no longer what they were, he still was hard to knock down. That can't be explained by his defense and technical skill, as that was no longer what it was by that time.

 

Haven't you seen the fight?? Why would you make a determination like that about a fight that's readily available on film and can actually be seen (and not simply guessed or read about)?

I don't understand your points about Rock's so-called "sloppiness" and Ezzard's determination. What does that have to do with whether or not Rocky was landing clean, solid punches (which the film shows he was) and Ezzard taking them?


Incidentally, see Ezzard's slugfests with Bob Satterfield and Rex Layne, both proven punchers (especially Satterfield), both of whom landed cleanly with their best punches, and Charles stayed on his feet and went on to stop them.

By all accounts, he withstood some terrfic shots from Archie Moore in the course of their three fights, and stayed on his feet and won them all.

 

Lloyd Marshall (from all I have read) was an amazing talent. As for Jimmy Bivins, he was actually the `duration` champion while Louis was serving in the army. He should have been a world champ. Certainly no disgrace losing to these two early in his career. Charley Burley and Holman Williams two othet fantastci fighters from that era that never got a shot. Joe Louis used to call Williams the perfect fighter...

 

HUH? As he heavy, Charles lacked a punch, was small, and had a suspect chin to the tune of being dropped 30 times in his professional career. And they say Patterson had a glass jaw because he was down 18 times in his career.

Charles was skilled on offense, gritty, and game, but to say he had no weakness is a reach.

 

Uno mas, huh? "Retire. You ain't got it no more."

 

What's the avatar champ?

 

Obviously I'm talking about a prime Charles - when I say 'Duran had no weaknesses', I don't mean the junior middleweight version.

And actually, Charles did have a good punch at heavyweight - I've seen the footage but perhaps you haven't. He had sting enough in both fists to drop or knock out anyone who wasn't an all-time great. At light heavyweight he was a top puncher on the same level as Michael Spinks.

'Thirty knockdowns' is just a statistic. It's a statistic just like Ray Robinson's nineteen career losses. When you look closer and most of the knockdowns are explained, you realise that Charles in his prime, fighting people his own weight, was magnificent all-round.

 

You can come out with all the witty phrases you like, but it doesn't detract from you being totally wrong about Marciano-Charles.

 

That's Lupe Pintor.