Patterson has the power and speed edge. Charles has the toughness and counter punching edge. Both guys came to fight. Good match up. Charles lack of firepower might hurt him here. He took most ranked guys the distance, and liked to brawl. In the films, I have seen Charles often has a low guard and was not much for fancy footwork either. His defense was beating the other guy to the punch, but I dont think he could do that often with Patterson. Patterson had a peek-a-boo style of defense the works well vs jabs and straight punches but not vs hooks. Was Patterson's chin that bad? I think part of it was confidence, and Charels does not scare guys as Liston could. Some here feel Bonevenna, Quarry, and Chavalo were punchers. I view them as solid hitters, with all three hitting harder than Charles hits. Patterson when the distance with Bonevena, Quarry, and Chavalo. So does Charles really get a TKO here? Unlikely. However, Patterson hits hard enough to get the stoppage vs Charles. I like Patterson to win via late round stoppage or on points, but I think Charles would be competive enough to win as well.
Im not sure he stops a prime Charles who went to war with Marciano for 15 rounds past his very best. Charles was susceptible to left hooks though so I could see him scoring a couple of kd's
Its funny how people think patterson had that much of a power edge than charles, yet charles knocked out more ranked contenders than patterson did and knocked out more top big men than patterson did. I do think Patterson defintley was one of the best combination punchers in heavyweight history, and he had fastest hands in HW history, but charles had extremley fast hands too. Mendoza, if you dont think charles had fancy footwork i suggest popping in some tape you have of charles in the late 1940s, he was as smooth on his feet as butter.
I think this is nonsense about Charles' punching power. 1. Bonavena--If you look through the list of Ring Magazine's top 10 heavyweights year by year, Bonavena only stopped Manuel Ramos. 2. Chuvalo--Chuvalo did slightly better than Bonavena, with ko's of Jones and Quarry. 3. Quarry--stopped 10 one time rated heavies--Alex Miteff, Brian London, Billy Daniels, Thad Spencer, Mac Foster, Jack Bodell, Earnie Shavers, Randy Neumann, Eduardo Corletti, Lorenzo Zanon. (Quarry might have gotten some of these past their best, but this is an impressive total) 4. Patterson--Tommy Harrison, Jimmy Slade, Archie Moore, Hurricane Jackson, Roy Harris, Brian London, Ingemar Johansson (2), and Henry Cooper. (total of eight) 5. Charles--Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Joe Kahut, Jimmy Bivins, Pat Valentino, Freddie Beshore, Lee Oma, Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison, Coley Wallace, Bob Satterfield, and Archie Moore. (total of 12) Evaluation--If Patterson has an advantage, it rests totally on Johansson. It is true he is the only man to ever ko Johansson, but near knockouts to Wim Snoek and Brian London cloud the issue of Ingo's durability. Charles could not ko Walcott, but Walcott was so much more proven against top punchers than Ingo that it is hard to tell how much weight to give these knockouts. Charles was clearly a more effective puncher than Bonavena and Chuvalo. Patterson and Quarry might be in the same class, but Charles stopped more rated heavies, including durable ones like Bivins, Baksi, and Valentino. As for surviving big hitters, Charles survived Ray, Satterfield, and Louis. You can make as good a case that Charles can survive Patterson as that Patterson could survive Charles. I like Charles to edge Patterson. He simply did better against top opposition. Patterson was 3-6 against Hall-of-Famers. Charles was 18-6.
If Charles was able to withstand 15 rounds of constant aggression from Rocky Marciano, he could certainly take whatever sporadic spurts Floyd manages to muster for however long this one lasts. Floyd Patterson was an absolute joy to watch but he was wont to complacency especially against fighters with good jabs. More frustrating is how he was actually too much of a gentleman to take advantage of certain opportunities inside; Mike Tyson may have been garbage inside because he couldn't, Floyd was garbage because he wouldn't. This reticence can be plainly seen in the Ellis fight where it obviously cost him the decision; the referee, rightly or wrongly, preferred Ellis' steady output to his flurries. I thought it could have gone either way, but Floyd was unmistakably the better man. It's his own fault not pressing the fight when it was quite clear Jimmy didn't have it in him to keep up with the pace. It would be close, mainly due to The Rabbit's x-factor speed, but more often than not, I predict Ezzard to catch him and clinch the decision.
By the way, it's not my intention to bash any of the fighters I mentioned above. The statements I made are purely observations of pugilists whose careers I have come to closely follow. It must be said that I enjoy watching all of them with the possible exception of Jimmy Ellis who I think was merely mediocre as far as heavyweights go.
Bert Sugar who loves Charels said he lacked a heavyweight punch. CHarles is an attrtiion / attack oritned fighter. He was not a banger at all. The Bonavena_Chavalo_Quarry comment was a play on the Frazier thread, but I do think all three guys hit harder than Charles. More effective, yet. Harder hitter no. Perhaps the Moore fight is one to look at as both Charles and Patterson fought him. Patterson had the easier time by a mile. I suppose you could. I just think Patterson hit hard enough to get the job done. Many of Charles hall of famers were light weights. Patterson had to fight Ali and Liston twice, and was robbed vs Maxim. I slightly favor Patterson here, but give Charels a very good chance. 55-45 type of fight in my book.
People are overstating the importance of power, offense is about landing clean and landing time and again through combinations or sustained atacks. Either man can stop the other if they land enough. We've seen each man put away durable fighters. Both have been stopped but well prime versions allow clean shots to be landed? It boils down to defense, skill, speed, stamina on who will land the shots that do the damage. Physically they are well matched in most departments. The more I think about it the more I see it going the full 15
Hey QC; not to get off thread subject but I always liked Jimmy; campaigned as a MW early on, Ali sparring partner, got a late start in the HW division (actually 2 years older than Ali) so his heavyweight window of prime is a little narrow as he was 30 when 1970 rolled around. His 67-68 four win in a row superfecta / Martin-Bonavena-Quarry-Patterson is impressive to say the least. Good boxer, had all the punches, decent whiskers, and a solid quick right hand.
Ezzard Charles beat better HWs than Paterson. It would be a close fight but I'd go with Charles to win without any controversy. I'd pick Walcott and a prime Moore over paterson too.
He was rather bland. Winning the WBA tournament was mildly impressive, but then again, he only won because Frazier didn't think to enter; we all know what happened when he finally faced Smokin' Joe. For me, if you're not top drawer, you have to be at least entertaining. Take Gatti, for example. Ellis just didn't have that quality about him. I think I got the most kick out of him winning against Martin and Patterson; and the Patterson thing was questionable.
Charles fought a prime coming into his own archie moore, while patterson fought a much older past his prime archie moore. If you watch the film, patterson vs moore was one of archies very worst fights on film. He seemed to have lost his movement and fluidness, strictly relying on turtle shell defense by that point.
I think thats going a little too far. Moore was only 1-2 years past his prime when he took on floyd, and floyd really beat the **** out of archie. I think stylistically floyd always beats him, whether its by KO or close decision.