Ezzard Charles vs Roy Jones Jr

Charles stops him in 9 in a semi competitive fight up till that point

 

Charles is the obvious pick here but I think Jones could beat him in a one off. But best of three I'd take Charles 2-1.

 

So the man who was awarded the 1988 Val Barker outstanding boxer trophy… he never learnt the fundamentals?

 

Why would Charles be the one controlling the distance in this one, instead of Jones?

And do you think he was as good as Jones defensively?

 

How was Charles a superior ring general?

Disagree re: handspeed.

 

Except Burley's chin is made out of granite and RJJ's is made of cardboard

 

I watched Charles with my own 2 eyeballs and read about his non recorded fights and saw/read him controlling distance and showing more solid fundamentals than the likes of Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Harold Johnson and Charley Burley. Simply outclassing. His defense has alot of subtleties that I saw in the Louis fight

All of which have an argument over Jones' ring generalship. In fact, I'm appalled that you'd question Charles' ring generalship

btw I said meet his match in handspeed, have you watched film of LHW Charles? Absolutely blistering handspeed. Doesn't mean that Jones's hands aren't faster, but Charles would be the fastest that he's ever fought and would keep up with Jones.

 

Charles was tough as nails, with pound for pound type of skills. I'd pick him over Roy Jones at 175 pounds.

 

Not really sure what to make of any of that. Anything specific that stood out to you about Charles' ring generalship? Have you watched much Roy Jones? As everyone knows, he was an absolute master of controlling distance in his prime, and had a way of making even talented, top-ranked opponents look completely inept and harmless. Completely took his opponents out of the fights, threw them off of their game, and imposed his preferred terms of engagement on them. The definition of ring generalship. Also incredible handspeed. He also seemed to be much harder to hit than Charles. So, I'm not sure what it is you think you're "appalled" about.

 

I think he was better defensively, he was bigger and fundimentally better

 

Charles was in deep with some of the greatest fights ever, Jones is highly talented and gifted but the power and smarts would catch up to Jones, Charles by KO in any weight over 168 to 200+

 

Having better fundamentals is a disadvantage vs Jones. It makes you easier to read when you do everything textbook vs a guy like Jones.

 

I'm not a big fan of holding bad defeats against a once great fighter, when he's way past his sell-by-date. And I think we can agree, that Roy continued long after he should have retired - and as a result was humiliated by boxers he would have toyed with in his prime.

But was there any indication, that young Roy (say before he turned 35) had a weaker chin than young Ezzard?

 

Charles..

Jones more talented & maybe more strength/power.

But i think charles the better boxer & more durable.

Superior chin too, tough SOB.

Charles @LHW more aggressive too, 1 opponent he faced latter died.

 

30 posts into this interesting thread, I think it's time for a sum-up.

So far we know that Charles:
- could match Jones' handspeed
- was an underrated puncher
- was the superior ring general
- was the better boxer
- was more durable with a much better chin
- had better fundamentals
- was better defensively
- was more aggressive

Holy ****! If I hadn't watched any footage of Charles, I might actually think he would win this one!