Is Ezzard Charles a great heavyweight?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Jun 24, 2020.


  1. cuchulain

    cuchulain Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    26,870
    1,572
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 6, 2007
    Frank, who would you consider as Joe Louis' best win ?
     
  2. cuchulain

    cuchulain Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    26,870
    1,572
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 6, 2007



    There have been at least 32,000 professional Heavyweight boxers.

    I haveCharles somewhere between 15 and 20 all time in the heavyweight division.

    If he were no worse than 20th, that would make him greater the 99.94% of all pro Heavyweights ever.

    So, unless one has extraordinary stringent criteria, he is, almost by definition, a great Heavyweight.

    To put this in perspective, an American male would have to be approximately 6 ft 8 in tall to be taller than 99.94 % of American men. And most would agree that a 6' 8" man is tall.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
    sweetsci and lufcrazy like this.
  3. Charlietf

    Charlietf Well-Known Member booted Full Member

    2,414
    1,999
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 25, 2020
    I said that charles was a lhw in his prime and Patterson weighed 185-190 in his prime in his early 20s and it is absolutely truth, where is the biggest difference that i indicated?
     
  4. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,045
    693
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    You picked various measures that described them as more separated in size.
    Such as: "Patterson at 21 weighed 180s and Charles 161. 20 pounds of difference".
    And listed some of Charles lowest weights.
    Patterson peaked early, both in terms of size & accomplishments.
    At their HW bests they were very similar.
    Difference is Charles took longer to move up.

    In terms of height & bone structure, they were very similar.
    Patterson is the one likely shorter than his listed 6'.
    Patterson both matured earlier, & did not make an effort to stay leaner & weight drain to make weight.
    When you Google Charles, you get weights such as 201, & 160-204.

    Again, the main thing is we gotta analyze how good they both are when fighting legally at what HW was at that time.
    In terms of defenses & his record against god competition-before all the past prime losses-Charles was remarkable.
     
  5. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,480
    4,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 24, 2004
    Well, two stand out to me. First, his KO of a dangerous Max Baer. Then his comeback victory over Max Schmeling which to me is really and truly the one Fight of the Century that lived up to its name.
     
  6. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,480
    4,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 24, 2004
    How do you think he would have competed vs Michael Spinks at either LWH or HW?
     
  7. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft Bit of a Gobshite Full Member

    15,685
    19,675
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Mar 3, 2019
    Charles? Favourably, but it's a very close fight and Spinks winning wouldn't surprise me. These are two of the three best LHWs ever (Moore being the other).

    Charles' biggest weakness here was his lack of a jab on Spinks' level IMO, Spinks almost was on a level of his own when it came to jabbing at 175. I think that Spinks would eventually start to keep Ezzard from doing much with his lanky, awkward style and longer limbs. A past-it Charles had issues with Johnson's jab and Spinks' was better and quicker and longer than Johnson's.

    However, Spinks was a pretty slow starter. Charles took a good lead pretty often, but could squander it. I have a feeling Spinks's combined assets of trickiness and devastating power would cause Charles to switch to a spoiler style and resort to shutting Spinks down, instead of mounting his own tools for winning.

    Obviously Charles had issues with Walcott's trickiness, and Spinks was bith better and trickier than Walcott IMO. Spinks also managed to keep Qawi off him on the inside (for the most part), but Qawi was much better than Charles, at forcing the fight. That said, Spinks wasn't against an infight, which would play into Ezz's hands. The power that Spinks brought isn't a something to be played with, though. No, I think Charles's counters are what give Spinks the bigger problems here. Spinks could throw himself off balance when he missed a left hook or a supercharged Jinx. Mike did have a few issues with Eddie, who was a counter-puncher, similarly to Charles but not as good. This is why I think all of the late rounds would be very closely fought with Spinks's awesome jab giving Charles issues but also opportunities.

    So basically, I think it goes with Charles taking the early rounds, with the middle rounds becoming increasingly competitive, with Spinks's power slowly taking effect and his jab taking the close ones. Spinks could maybe get a KD here, which would tick it in his favour, but ultimately I think Charles nicks it based on his better start.

    Charles SD15(8-7)
     
    FrankinDallas likes this.
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    64,726
    5,387
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Both weights the exact same outcome.

    Charles wins a close but clear decision.

    Spinks has an ATG jab but Charles has the movement, activity nd ambush tactics to offset that.

    I actually think it will be Spinks who will have trouble getting going here, and his power won't be enough to save him. Charles has been in with and fought against much bigger punchers.

    Charles beat Burley at MW, Moore at LHW and Louis at HW. That's top ten ATGs in 3 different divisions. And even considering that Louis was old, Charles did the next best thing which is beat the best HW in the world (Walcott).

    Charles has fought at and succeeded at a much higher level.

    I mean yeah, you could say Qawi and Holmes are great victories and I certainly wouldn't argue against that, but what Charles did was greater, imo.
     
  9. Berlenbach

    Berlenbach Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,111
    962
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 27, 2011
    He did also lose to a number of lesser fighters at all three weights, so beating XYZ doesn't necessarily mean he beats Spinks.

    I do favour Charles as Spinks had more trouble against boxers. Eddie Davis pushed him very close and Eddie Mustafa was winning early on before fading in the second half. That said, Charles was up and down like a yo-yo in his career, so maybe one or two Spinks KDs turn the tide (especially if the fight is using the 10-point must system). It would be close.
     
  10. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,480
    4,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 24, 2004
    Only issue I'd bring up re Charles vs Spinks is that Spinks was unpredictable. Maybe he'd find a way to confuse Charles and out point him. Would have been a great fight that I think we can all agree on.
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    64,726
    5,387
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    From 44 to 52 he lost two debatable split decisions to Ray and Walcott. Plus he was stopped by Walcott. But he beat both mean himself as well.

    His loss to Layne is reported to be an outright robbery.

    His losses to Valdes and Johnson were reportedly dull affairs that could have easily been a draw.

    His losses to Marciano, well that's Marciano.

    So I don't think the best version of Charles ever lost to a fighter inferior to Spinks.
     
  12. Berlenbach

    Berlenbach Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,111
    962
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 27, 2011
    You don't think any of the above were inferior to Spinks?
     
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    64,726
    5,387
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Only Walcott and Marciano had a clean victory over him.

    Neither of those two are inferior fighter to Spinks imo.

    I'd favour both to knock Spinks out.
     
  14. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft Bit of a Gobshite Full Member

    15,685
    19,675
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Mar 3, 2019
    To be fair, prime(ish) Charles was between '46 and '51, in which time he has two losses. The fight with Violent Ray and Rubber match with Walcott. Ray's win over Charles is a complete robbery. Most who were there said Charles won clearly. And Walcott hit him with Boxing's equivalent of Thor's hammer. Charles ford have 4 official wins over both, and arguable 6 actual wins and only one loss.
     
  15. Berlenbach

    Berlenbach Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,111
    962
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 27, 2011
    Walcott and Marciano were not only ones to beat Charles. Clean victory or not (whatever that means), Layne, Ray, Bivins, Valdes, Johnson all hold wins over him too, as does Lloyd Marshall. If they can beat Charles, then Spinks is definitely in the hunt.
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement