Patterson-Charles... Who takes it?

Honestly I see a win for Patterson. Neither guy had a great chin, but Charles was the better defensive fighter with the higher overall skillset, mainly because he started at a lower weight, but Patterson was more explosive had the fastest hands I ever saw at heavyweight and was far better than an average puncher at the weight. Both were equal in size and weight while campaigning at heavyweight. I have to give it to the naturally stronger man Patterson. It would have been a fairly exciting affair

 

Floyd Patterson W15 Ezzard Charles

Charles, though a highly-skilled technician, could be a little too courageous for his own good. We saw that in his fight with Rocky Marciano, in which he busted Marciano up badly, but, upon a little much aggression in efforts of putting Marciano away, he left himself vunerable and would be knocked out (and lose again later). Or even the Jersey Joe Walcot fights, observe the highlight reel knockout loss he suffered, blaming this on a "cheap shot" (stubborn, he refused to acknowledge the perfect left-hook that put him down).

Floyd Patterson was humble, courageous, and had maybe the fastest hands the Heavyweight division had seen (I believe he was actually a Middleweight when he competed in the Olympics). Patterson, despite being on the smaller side, packed a decent punch, which was showcased against hard-punching Johannson in their rematch (and rubber match, too). Few recognize the great record of Patterson, with wins over Tommy Jackson, Archie Moore, Johannson, Jimmy Ellis (yes, Patterson was robbed), and more. Even in losing effort, Patterson displayed championship quality (his worst blunders the horrible outings with murderous punching Sonny Liston).

In my estimation, Floyd Patterson, though somewhat chinny (knocked down more than any other Heavyweight champion- but also got up more than any other one, as well), would be able to keep Charles at a bay and land his combination in succession. He'd pile on points and suffer minimal damage with his peek-a-boo style. Charles would be a tough customer, but Patterson would be able to answer virtually everything Charles had. I could even see Charles becoming desperate as the fight is comftorably in Floyd's favor, and Floyd even scoring a knockout late. But let's bank on the best Charles coming to fight, and losing a decision.

Floyd Patterson W15 Ezzard Charles

 

..charles takes it....not one of his hardest fights. better boxer, harder hitter. re the "cheap shot" comment .....when i asked charles if walcott landed a lucky punch, he replied "not for mer." this was well after his retirement. i 've never read the "cheap shot" quote, but if it was said, i'm betting it was soon after the fight, and somebody in his camp made it. reporters did thjat then...take a quote from a third party and apply it to the fighter.

charles was one of most decent, humble non-egotistic fighters ever. sometimes it hurt him and made him seem to lack confidence. when he was asked before the first walcott fight if he was going to win, he replied "Well, i hope so" and the reporter wrote that he didn't believe in himself. lots of commenatery like this durong is career as a heavyweight.

 

You make Charles sound... alot like Patterson, who in 1962 received a National Role Model Reward from John F. Kennedy. Never one to boast, Patterson was very sensitive. Upon his brutal knockout of Johannson, he commented that he never wanted to knockout someout out that way again. :bbb He never did.

Patterson had faster hands, more talent, and a bigger punch than Charles. Charles fine boxing technique, ring generalship, and good right hand would make the fight a see-saw battle, but in the end, Patterson at his best takes out the Charles of best, no doubt about it in my book.

Patterson W15 Charles

 

ezzard and patterson did have some personality traits in common, though ezzard, if he felt comfortable around you,was more open and funny, and he liked to sit in with jazz gbroups and play bass. they had another thing in common, this one in the ring....ezzard killed sam baroudi and was never the same again..got more cautious and went for cutting his opponent instead of the kayo....and would coast if he thought he was well ahead.

as to their skills...i respect your opinion and i stand by mine.

marciano said ezzard's hook off a left jab was the greatest he had ever seen...in person or on film....and against him.

 

I was actually just thinking about posting this. Good match-up. I take Patterson.

 

I also think Charles takes Patterson, by decision or possibly knockout. He has great skills and showed not to buckle under pressure from a much, much better come-forward fighter in Marciano.

 

I'll go with Charles but I'm not too sure how he'd handle Pattersons speed/power/athleticism/style all of which were phenomenal. Charles is the better technically and skillfully and he could pick Patterson apart, but its a tough call.

 

An excellent post, styles make fights and those who would dismiss Floyd in a lot of these h2h matchups ignore that. I rate Ezz top 5 p4p ATG but consider a Tunney for a moment (among others). I'd venture to say that maybe 90% of posters here have Gene taking a wide UD over Floyd, but who did Tunney ever fight even resembling Patterson? IMO I could easily see Floyd tearing into him after landing some big shots and stopping him, something many other HW's (better than Patterson) would be unable to do...

Patterson-Charles? Who knows? Charles UD? Patterson UD? Patterson stoppage? Charles stoppage? (don't think that would happen)

Two of my favs; don't want to pick...

 

50/50 fight, some people in this thread forget just how sharp and fast charles was with his punches too in his prime, and he had better footwork and was more slick in his prime than floyd. Floyd would play the part of the aggressor and charles the counterpuncher. I dont think floyd hit as hard as walcott, who only floored ezzard once in about 50 rounds. Floyds combinations and handspeed and duck and weave with high gaurd defense would spell trouble for ezzard, but if ezzard fights smartly and counterpunches and shoots out sharp rights and flurries he has the better pure skills to pull out the decision. 50/50

 

Charles. Very similar fighters. Patterson was likely the more powerful hitter at LHW, while Charles was the craftier boxer. Charles takes it more often than not in my estimation. Probably by set up KO after timing it in around the 6th or 7th.

 

Because this is a small heavyweight in Patterson, does this then mean that this is a totally fair prime for prime match-up? If so, i would lean towards Charles, the man was simply amazing at his best. The HW versions of each who campaigned during their title reigns, maybe Patterson, Charles was never as good at the higher weight as at 175 imo. Close still at HW though