Prime Ezzard Charles in the 1970s

Layne was up and down like a yoyo against Charles. Ezzard easily won their series. Poor Layne had a horrible experience in the filmed fights he had with Charles. The other one, in Salt Lake City was very controversial. I think Jack Dempsey scored too many rounds even. There was a big hoo har about it at the time.

 

3 fights winning 2 is not," lots of times".

 

Charles lost and it wasn't a ,"razor thin decision ",neither was it an example of, "home cooking officiating" as you implied.End of.

 

Yes, Charles lost a close fight to Johnson and a bout to Valdez where some articles describe he gassed out in the heat looking for an early KO. But late 52-53 was an erratic period for Charles after many felt he was robbed of a title repeat in the 4th Walcott fight. He had no chance of getting of a 5th fight with Walcott and fought some 14 fights around the country in a 12 month period while 32 years of age, most against top 10 fighters. Iffy performances were bound to happen.


In his peak run, Charles over came impressive weight discrepancies against:

Louis 218 (34 pounds)
Baksi 211 (32 pounds)
Walcott 196 (14 pounds)
Ray 192 (17 opunds)

So I don't think the size of the 70s fighters would be something he had not seen before.

 

Good info ^ compadre. Always want to hear other legit comments offered up.

 

No problem.

 

It was a tough run, but a little exaggerated. It took him more like a year and a half to rack up 14 bouts and the majority of the opponents weren't in the top 10.

 

Your point is well taken ,Charles conceded weight to quality fighters and beat them.

 

Yes, I stand corrected, there is a gap between the Wallace and Johnson bouts that stretches it out, but prior to that he was on a monthly pace. Still staggering.

I do disagre with your claim that the majority were not top 10.
Layne, Brion, Bascom, Bivins, Harrison, Valdez, Johnson, Wallace, & Satterfield were all rated from 52-53 at some point or another. So that's at least 9 of the 13 opponents.

Watson I don't think was rated but he had just beat the top 5 Nardico.
Gillian was not rated but he had just beat Valdez and Baker.

Reynolds and Buford were not rated but they were solid journeyman that gave everybody a night's work. So there were no soft touches on this run.

 

Oh, at some point, probably, but at the time they fought Charles, Brion had dropped out of the top 10 while Valdes only earned a rating with his victory over Charles. Johnson, Bascom and Harrison were ranked, but as light-heavies. (So I guess we could count them, but I think when you praise a man for fighting opponents in "the top 10", people will assume you mean at his own weight).

 

Well Brion was rated #7 Feb. 52 so that's pretty close to when Charles fought him.
That is true regarding Valdes but he would remain a top 10 fixture for the rest of the decade.

In the 50s, you did get praise for fighting rated opponents outside of your division as it was common practice. Johnson as a top Light Heavy was probably the best guy out there from 175 and up behind Marciano and Moore.

While Light Heavy and Heavyweight is separated by 25+ pounds now(really 45 on average), in the 50s they were neighbors and often separated by less than 10 pounds like any other division.

Even in contemporary times.

Was Hatton vs Pacquiao described as Hatton vs a non-top 10 opponent?