Flavours of the month: Charles vs Patterson

LHW- Charles on points. I think Patterson was the better fighter but wasn't experienced enough to beat an ATG like Charles here.

HW- Patterson wins by UD or late stoppage. He's still better than Charles here and now has the experience to get the win. Not to mention this isn't Charles' best weight.

 

Awesome Pacino avatar Bummy. :good

 

Thanks Pete

 

You'd be suprised if the fastest hardest hitting man either Pac/JMM met with 100s of amateur bouts and proven best 4round fighter in the world could kd either men? Worse boxers have managed it with both

Someone that is the best amateur in the world is legit world class, they're just inexperienced over the 12 round distance

 

i'd take charles at either weight or at middle for that matter

 

I think it would be a great fight.

I think Charles was the better overall boxer but Patterson had a great left hook that could get him back in a fight that may have seemed out of reach. They were similar in size, no need to really have a debate over any kind of size advantage either way. Both men had good speed and power. I'll give Patterson a slight edge in power but I think Charles was more accurate and had the better combos. Chin? I'll give Charles the nod here. Patterson was down more than any other HW Champ (20 times) but he got up to beat whoever dropped him several times.

I'll take Charles by close decision at LHW or HW.

 

Patterson just too fast at that stage.

 

patterson was a great fighter but charles was just as great and fought often enough to know more. charles was more resilient in competative fights.

 

I think this is a bad style for Charles and a good one for Patterson. Patterson a a fighter who could be intimidated by bigger fighters. His chin is not as bad as advertised. He is either the fastest or second fastest HW's ever. His power is also pretty good for his size. This makes him a dangerous fighter for Ezzard to fact.
Charles was definately a better tactician, but he was also a small HW, so there is really no size advantage. He wasn't as fast or strong as Floyd, but boy, could he box. Charles has been ko'd in his prime, though, he had a good chin, but he has been ko'd several times, so there is always the possibility of him getting caught.
My guess would be that Charles would be winning a close, exciting match before getting caught with a big punch.
If it goes the distance, I would say Charles wins, but I feel that Floyd has the speed and desire to finish this fight inside the distance.

 

Patterson would have been a far tougher match up for Charles than the old Walcott. Floyd was much faster, much busier, had much better stamina and was an equally dangerous puncher. Ezzard might outbox Floyd but over 15 it is a very even fight.

 

I think D'amato was in with them at the time. Otherwise Floyd wouldn't have been there. D'amato may have been a critic, but he became an "enemy" later, around the time he wanted to match Floyd with a string of unworthy challengers.
But your point is a good one still, it does seem unlikely that they'd risk losing control.

I agree.
But the rumours were openly discussed at the time. Probably because people lost money on Moore.

 

I think Charles must be considered much the better lightheavyweight. Patterson would have been extremely inexperienced at that weight.

Heavyweight is the closer call, but Charles just went against so many more ranked fighters. I would give him a slight edge.

 

cus kept patterson away from zorra folley for a reason. Charles was a beter version of folley.