Ezzard Charles Discussion

He didn't have a flashy style or personality - so that means he was never going to be a very popular boxer. And, fair or not, lack of popularity often translates in lack of recognition of ability.

And to make things worse, he gave Louis - an incredible popular champion and hero to many - a beating. And not only that, but a beating while Louis was coming out of a 2 year retirement... he probably lost more fans than he won that night.


So what's there to like about the Cincinnati Cobra? He is the complete boxer puncher and one of the first fighters with that style to show it consistently at top level. He can move, fight on the inside, counter punch, slug it out, jab... you name it, he's done it. A natural born fighter. And although he was still a formidable force at heavyweight, he was fantastic at light heavyweight. He could hit very hard (more so than Roy Jones) and was very durable to go with it; attributes many people think he doesn't have, based on the Marciano and Walcott KO's losses. But he was only stopped twice despite literally fighting 100+ fight veterans in his second years as a pro at age 19, and continuing his entire career to box very skilled and dangerous opponents. His three wins over Archie Moore are perhaps better wins than any other fighter in history can cough up.

This content is protected

Charles knocking out Bob Satterfield with one punch

One should also take into account that while Walcott and Marciano (both terrific hitters) knocked him out, he is also the only man in history to go the full 15 with Rocky, and has 3 times gone the distance with Jersey Joe, twice in winning fashion. Other than Walcott 2x, at heavyweight he beat Elmer Ray, Gus Levnivich, Lee Oma, Joe Louis (old but still capable), Layne, Maxim, Brion, Satterfield, Valentino and Bivins. Maybe a name slipped my mind.... but that's a damn good resume, not to mention his best work was at the lower weights.


After his two grueling wars with Marciano, he was never the same. And who can blame him, after a 14 year career as a professional with a ridiculously high amount of top opposition.


It's a pity there is very little footage of him at light heavyweight available; i recently wanted to make a highlight similar to what i did with Marciano, but there is so few material to work with.

 

Good post Chrispontius, if its purely natural attributes the thread starter is after, then he had power and almost lightning speed.

One other thing, imo, the man is an absolute LOCK for greatest 175er ever.

 

Absoulte lock at 175? A lock, over Tunney, Langford, Spinks, Foster, et al?

Chalres was among the best five light heavies ever, but to call him a lock is a bit of a reach. Very few fighters at any weight class are a lock for #1.

Maybe Sugar Ray Robinson at welter.

 

he was a great body puncher. had great speed. was technically great

 

Why? He did not hit as hard as Langford or Foster. He was not as fast as Jones. He was not as smart / rangy as Tunney. Did Charles have anything that really stood out at light heavy to give him a clean edge over other ATG's?

 

The fact that i made such a bold statement means i believe it. I have Tunney at 2, but even he doesnt have quite the resume of Charles at 175 imo. Moore i respect so much in terms of how good he was, and his dogged determination in how he perservered for years and then held the title with great distinction, but he really doesnt have a case for number 1 at all imo. I know people query the secnd fight between Moore and Charles, but Moore lost to him 3 times, and was nowhere near as consistent as Charles in that initial golden era at 175. I think the debate of 'when Moore's prime actually was' gets a bit silly at times, especially when Archie fans are trying to make a case for him here. Also, I like Spinks a lot, and maybe a case can be made for him, but not for the number 1 spot imo, the reason being the presence of Charles on that list.

If ever there were locks for number 1 in any of the classic eight division's history, i believe they would be Charles here and Robinson at 147, but just my opinion.

 

PS-I'm talking greaness at the weight by the way Mendoza, not how good they were in terms of attributes as in power, speed etc. That's why i made a seperate paragraph for that in my original post.

 

Pep at fw and Monzon at mw would be also locks i think.

 

Some of the very best choices, but not quite a lock Monzon imo. Maybe Pep, dont know though.

 

Who says foster and langford were better punchers had 175lb? when charles was at his fighting best, he was a devastating puncher at 175lb, he KILLED a top contender at that weight. he was never the same again after, didnt go for the kill anymore lost his hunger. charles didnt carry his power up to heavyweight, but neither did foster.

some of charles BEST knockouts at 175lb are unfortunetly not on film



What stood out about charles? his unbelievable combination of handspeed/power at 175lb, his amazing boxing skills, his very technical defense, his astounding footwork/movement, and his vastly underated durability and toughness.