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

You were a bit selective with your data SuzieQ!

Walcott KO'd Charles with one clean punch!

Marciano KO'd Charles

Louis was old, and had but 4 Ko's in his last ten fights.

Valdes defeated Charles, and since the fight is not on tape, we aren't sure how many times he landed his best.

The Satterfield fight is on tape, and he nearly floored Charles in round one before being taken out in two.

Did Ray ever KO a ranked contender besides Pastor? Again, Ray vs Charles is not on film to see. Pun intended.

Layne was awful vs Charles, and landed nothing serious of note.

Chins are best tested when they are checked and Charles chin seemed suspect when checked.

Allow me to sum the whole thing up for you. In your own top 15, is there ONE fighter with a weaker chin / punch resistance then Charles?

 

You're always going to find angles on statistics and pick them apart. I'm not a fan of them for use other than fun really. That's why Charles being knocked down thirty times shouldn't be taken as seriously as it first sounds, because there are explanations just like the ones you listed above.

Heavyweight? Charles wasn't a heavyweight. He was a light heavyweight who did well at heavyweight, so let's rate him at 175lbs. There, I think you'll find a whole host of champions who had weaker jaws.

 

Your arrogance is almost as annoying as your fleeting man-fetishes.

First I'll address your strange statement that Ezzard did not get more skilled as time went on, he only "matured mentally and physically". That's a dizzy statement. A 23 year old will be more skilled after 3 actives years have elapsed. 1943 Ezzard was not as experienced or therefore as skilled as 1948 Ezzard, barring other factors.

Here's what Manassa isn't acknowledging. And I've been reduced to accessing boxrec to most of these simple, though uncomfortable, facts.

* Ezzard, granted in his second year as a pro as a MW, went down twice in 41' against Bengal and Overlin. The former had a decent % of KOs against nondescripts. The latter was a good, solid boxer, but not a puncher -no way, no how, and yet managed to stagger Charles repeatedely over the last 5 rounds. If this raises no red flag, then it shows what I already know -your bias.

Let's go on:

* Jose Basora, a contender, managed to hurt and "almost stop" Charles, despite being floored 6 times before the fight was stopped in 5.

* His last two fights before the army were against Bivins and Marshall. He went down 15 times between them. His record going into the Marshall fight was 27-3. These taken alone do not prove my point. But let's not fool ourselves by claiming that he was "green" at that time.

* In '46, Charles was a LHW and his glory years began. I believe that he was at his best until the Baroudi fight. Notwithstanding his progress in terms of skill and physique, LLoyd and Jimmy both put him down in their losing efforts.

* In '47 Fitzie Fitzpatrick put him down before going to sleep himself.

* Fearsome punching Moore almost had him out in '47.

Then Ezzard has his fateful fight with Baroudi. Baroudi dies from his injuries. Ezzard considers retiring until Sam's family encourages him to continue with his career. Many contemporaries believe that Ezzard became a more cautious fighter as a result. Ezzard was not quite the dynamo he was earlier, and this may account for part of his ability to survive against bigger men, he was simply more cautious and less aggressive.

* As already stated, Ezzard was KOd by by Walcott in 51, went down 3x against Rocky in the rematch in September '54,. No shame here, and Ezzard fooled everyone in the first Marciano fight.

* but then he went down 3x times against John Holman and then went down again at the hands of Paul Andrews the next year.

* As his career wound down, he went down 7 more times.

...........
Snooks was indeed "magnificent" at his best. He was a master boxer, considerably experienced by his 23rd year, a great puncher, dynamic, adaptable, eventually a disciple of Arcel... But "magnificent" isn't "flawless" -because no fighter is flawless, except in the imaginations of the young and/or naive. Your enthusiasm, in my humble opinion, detracts from his legacy... because it isn't honest.

Now you may want to come up with a litany of excuses for what I consider a weakness (namely his dentable chin), and you may surely state some that I agree with and already know -and probably already mentioned. But you have already gone too far and if you continue, I'd be willing to bet that you will only prove your zeal for Ezzard, but it would be at the expense of your credibility.... However, if you are going to follow a path of historical revisionism, please extend the courtesy to Floyd Patterson and Thomas Hearns.

 

You really are an idiot. You've dragged me in far too deep already - it's a chore just for me to type this. You keep going on about how immature I am? What's that about? And how biased I am (and where did you get man fetishes from?)? I have no bias anymore because I'm barely interested in boxing outside of a fleeting comment here and there. But I still don't like it when someone is blatantly misinformed but believes they are right.

You were wrong about Marciano-Charles and you are wrong about a lot more than just that, from my own viewpoints, the case you're arguing and the facts and figures on Charles himself, and you can either believe me or carry on agreeing with yourself. I'll let you stop performing now (Manassa this, Manassa that, talk to me and not the people you think might care enough to be reading this) - I'm not going to type anything else; so if you want you can squeeze in one more smart alec comment about how you've won, how superior you are or something to that effect if it satisfies you. I'll let other posters fight you.

 

How is simply "being hurt" late in a brutal 15-round war with Marciano indicative of a less-than-decent chin? No other fighter ever went a full 15 round route with Marciano.

Yes, Charles was floored and stopped in the rematch, but the fact still remains it took Rocky a total of 17 rounds just to put him down even once, and a total of 23 rounds before finally putting him away.

The Satterfield fight being brief doesn't mean anything. Satterfield was an explosive one-shot puncher, and he got in on Charles in the first round-and-a-half and pounded away with his best shots. Saying the fight was "too brief" to prove anything is like saying Hagler-Hearns was too brief to be used as proof that Hagler has a solid chin.

By the time Charles fought Holman and Andrews, he was beyond simply being past his prime and was pretty much used up. Within a year he was beginning to suffer the effects of Lou Gherig's disease, which eventually paralyzed him and killed him.

 

Stonehands and Manassa are going at it 'hammer and tongs'. Manssa's popping out some lovely fluid jabs, back comes Stonehands with a lovely right right cross that knocks him back to the ropes. Timed very well indeed. Manassa aint giving up and fires back with a quick flurry. This is a great contest. We are now in the late rounds and it's all up for grabs in the last few rounds. Manassa sure looks tired, but always has a few tricks up his sleeve. Never count a wounded man out, never.

 

The ad hominem attacks continue. How brave. Somehow I doubt that you'd speak like that if we were in the same room.

Boo hoo.

Wait... here it comes...!

--And there it is.

Well, don't be such a half-ass. Argue the merits or run along. When you get personal, people get mad, and you'll only wind up getting your feelings hurt. It's happened to you numerous times on this site before, and it's happening again. Learn a lesson.

You overestimate your knowledge. I won't get into an ludicrous argument about who knows more about Ezzard Charles. I won't comment on your ability to analyze the information you do have except to say that you have never shined in that department. Your knowledge comes strictly from the couch. Not from any real experience and not from any insight that many others on ESB have in spades over you. Your credibility is in a pile at your feet. You have failed to address the arguments. You have failed to control your silly little tantrums and made this personal.

Well, bless your soul, you just admitted that you read a response to someone else that I wrote, why wouldn't others?

Are you demanding that I talk to you? Maybe I shouldn't... you seem to be on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

Now we have an avowed elitist who cannot tolerate dissent, who's arrogance is only matched by his emotional instability, pointing out a speck in my eye while missing the plank in his own.

Manassa overrates himself. He has many tapes which he used to watch faithfully, especially when he got obsessed with a particular fighter (Hagler, then Armstrong, then Monzon, then Williams, evidently it's Charles now.). He'd glorify them and boost them to places that they did not quite belong. And then change his mind. Like a child discarding a once favorite toy, and pursuing another. Then another.

This debate began fairly enough, but Manassa soon demonstrated his pattern of immaturity. He is not emotionally equipped to cope with transgressions against his hallowed opinion. I am a bit surprised though. Perhaps disappointed. Manassa and I have had maybe 5 debates in years past, and he usually didn't show me the pimples on his ass that I watched him show others. He used to be pretty good -never as good as he'd claim, but objectively good nonetheless. Let's wish him luck with his new pasttime, since boxing is blase to him these days.

 

'Emotional instability' :nut

As I said before, get over yourself.

 

That was a great show fellas.:rasta

 

--- you still here?

 

Was I supposed to be frightened off by 'you wouldn't have said that if we were in the same room'?

 

A friend and interviewer of Ezzard's told me that Charles was not prepared at all for those 2 fights. As has been posted he was in the army and not training. Even so, had they been against anyone other than such great fighters he probably would have won anyway. Charles himself never offered an excuse. I believe the only defeat he ever complained about was the points defeat to Walcott.

Ezzard set the record straight and proved himself again and again.

 

op

 

Please.

-I see this statement was made in the throes of another hissy fit.

 

Keep going :good