Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers?

Nope, although he was a great one and underrated. My reason is that in MOST of the footage we have he doesn't demonstrate excellence in two big things that define a GOAT level puncher:
-He doesn't score knockdowns or knockouts with body punching. He has a good right hand to the body, but we don't see him pinpointing the liver or plexus or heart or ribs with devastating effect.

-He cautiously opens up to finish and waits for openings rather than forcing them open by strength like a lot of the most devastating punchers do. Ezzard was great at feinting and subtly probing for openings. It's understandable- he's not a clubbing puncher but a sharp, quick one. I don't know whether he had the raw power for this approach.

If robinson is on the puncher side of boxer-puncher, than charles is on the boxer side. Maybe if we had more MW/LHW footage we could argue a better case for him as a puncher since he seemed to be a good deal more aggressive, but the Charles we know isn't that kind of operator.

 

Charles had underrated power and so did SRR, they had the same type of one-punch power and yet many of there fights went the limit because of there abilities to box....While both men do not come to mind when I think of punchers because of their additional skills I would have to say they were punchers indeed

 

I'm not saying that Ezzard isn't great or that he lacked the ability; i'm saying that i think the greatest punchers frequently or primarily exhibit a mentality and strategy of landing a big punch or breaking a man down. I don't think charles does.

If you read A.J. Liebling's The Sweet Science(and if you haven't get on that), there's a section detailing Charles and Marciano both receive sessions with a psychiatrist as a part of pre-fight hype...The psychiatrist hypothesizes that Ezzard's personality is split in finishing mentality or killer instinct; that he simultaneously dislikes the brutality and primitive side of prize fighting, but also has a bloodthirsty dominant killer instint at the same time. Obviously that psychiatrist's experience with Charles' psyche and his career is limited, but I think that he proves a point in that Ezzard's technique and style varied with his mood, mentality, opponent and goal. He wasn't a killer with knockout in his mind all the time.

I don't see what's so strange about judging someone's quality as a puncher on the perceived results of their body punching. Am I wrong about Ezzard's body work? Does he have any overlooked displays here, in accounts or film?

 

I think the case can be made.

Charles was able to outbox the better boxers of his era but he could still outslug much bigger heavyweights.

 

Definitely, reading reports of him as a Middleweight and a Light-Heavyweight he really could bang, often turning a fight around, or ending it, in one punch.

 

I've allways understood the nose split was caused by a wayward elbow.

 

...when he was fighting light heavyweights nat fleischer said he was the hardest puncher and "most dangerous fighter in the ring today."


..nat was correct.

 

Combinations and accuracy? YES! Charles was great... Power? So-So at 200 pounds... That's fair...
bbb

MR.BILL

 

Charles, one of the greatest punchers? I say no.

 

Absolutely! As heavyweight champ he scored some devastating and picturesque ko's and of course the was the Boroudi fight...as well as his brutal ko of Archie Moore.

 

technique, accuracy, combination fluidity, speed of hand and choice of punch all bode well for charles. perhaps he lacks the power of the truly great punchers such as louis and robinson. he's certainly up there though.

 

Charles was a magnificent fighter and puncher.