Ezzard Charles vs Mike Tyson. "Primes"

you guys know how i feel bout tyson, but even i would pick him to ko Charles, the size, strength, power diffs are too big. Ezzard is way better p4p h2h though/

 

This content is protected

 

See Holyfield vs Tyson and you will see what Charles will do, Charles by TKO

 

Because Charles was about 220 pounds and had a granite chin.

I see the comparison.

 

I think that Charles could do a lot better than many people think.

Having said that he would probably sucumb eventualy.

 

I think highly of Tyson and said nothing to discredit him.

-But Elmer Ray was an imposing broad shouldered 6'2" 190-205 lbs. He is more comparable to Joe Louis and Heavyweight Holyfield in size than Mike Tyson. He is the bigger man. I understand Iron Mike was bulky, but could you say with a straight face that Pinklon Thomas or Tillman weren't bigger men or that Tyson and Tucker was the same size? Scale doesn't tell everything. Tyson was a small but stocky heavyweight.

-Its a fair analogy. Ray wasn't as successful as Tyson but he was one of the most feared fighters of his era. He was on the longest win streak in HW history with many early round KOs to his credit. Savold was a top 10 staple and Walcott was top 5 when he beat them.

He had a fearsome mystic known for wrestling alligators and winning brutal battle royale free for alls. Many name fighters and contenders were reported to turn down fights with him, If there's any validity to the media's claims you could make a convincing case for Ray being the most avoided heavyweight contender of all time: (notice the descrition of his middle weight speed and weaving crowding..sounds a bit like Tyson doesn't it?)

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I like Tyson here ,and by stoppage, not only more powerful and heavier ,but his explosive bursts of punches spell jeopardy for the, apt to mix it Charles.

 

i dont to hand have the record of Charles, but i would of thought the experence of Charles may of meant he took a beating but could last out to the final bell. blah blah nutrition, better training - guys from Ezzards era fought, healed then fought again.

 

Charles probably beats him up like Holyfield did.

 

Its debatable whether Holyfield would have beaten the Tyson of 86-88 (Which this thread is about), let alone Charles.

And why did you bump a thread which was last bumped 4 years ago just to make that comment?

Running out of Tyson material to comment on are we?

 

No, I was searching for Ezzard Charles head-to-head threads. :good

 

:gayfight

 

No matter how many times he is corrected Mendoza will still repeat this ,it isnt willful stubborness so much as deliberate falsification of the facts.
My take is Tyson by stoppage 7rounds ,too fast,too strong, too powerful.Charles doesn't have the artillery to keep him off and at heavyweight his mobility was not that of his 175pounder days.

 

Charles pound for pound maybe a better ATG, but I would go with Tyson. Would be a bit like Spinks fight, a lot of build up but over quite quickly.

 

That's the thing, "modern day training techniques" include the use of PEDS, and the other day I watched Holyfield against Tyson; nobody will convince me Holyfield wasn't on something dodgy to get his physique like that! That helped him manhandle Tyson; he already had the style to give Mike trouble.

I agree with an earlier poster that Holyfield resembled Charles and he had similar abilities, too; a good jab, movement, but maybe a better hook and right cross. All Ezzard lacked was size, and the Ezzard we saw would likely be overwhelmed against Tyson. It would be interesting to see a performance enhanced Charles fighting Tyson, though. I think it would be like the Holyfield fights again.