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

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Manassa, Mar 21, 2011.


  1. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Wasn't talking about the second fight (nose fight) mate, I meant the first and much more memorable battle of the two; in that one, Marciano said Charles hurt him more than any other fighter. From what I remember, he described actual pain. Charles lost the fight but from their faces it looked dead even.

    This content is protected
     
  2. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    But he wasn't 200lbs. He was lighter than that, and sometimes outweighed.
     
  3. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Nah, I meant the first fight. Marciano described actual pain and said fighting Charles was hellish, or something along those lines. Charles lost the fight but he left Marciano in a bit of a state.

    This is weird. I just made a post like this but it didn't register :huh
     
  4. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    I've allways understood the nose split was caused by a wayward elbow.










    Ground Hog Day :yep
     
  5. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    You do realise I was talking about the first fight then? I'm confused. Mostly by the site today... Posts don't seem to be registering :think
     
  6. Stonehands89

    Stonehands89 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,775
    312
    Dec 12, 2005
    He was a wicked puncher and that was confirmed again and again.

    -However, that was before Baroudi. Looking at the % of KOs and the % of early KOs before that fight and afterwards suggests that something changed, although of course, he was getting older and was fighting bigger men. I find it interesting that he never again fought in his natural division after Baroudi. There could well be more than one reason for this. Liebling watched him in the early 50s and saw an "intuitive aversion to violence that set in like ice on a pond."

    I think that Charles was one of the great punchers in history, and he had the potential to become of the greatest, but the Baroudi tragedy set him on a different course.
     
  7. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    Yes I got that. Facial damage is misleading imo.Look at post fight photos of Louis v Charles, they might incline you to make it a draw,when in fact ,Charles won handily.
    I'm not saying Charles was not a very good puncher,but I would not put him among the top echelon myself.
    For example , did he hit harder than Walcott ?
     
  8. The Kurgan

    The Kurgan Boxing Junkie banned

    8,445
    31
    Nov 16, 2004
    Yes, in terms of technique; no, in terms of power. I don't think he was naturally powerful at all, but his brilliant textbook punching methods and punch choice made him a very fearsome opponent.
     
  9. Duodenum

    Duodenum Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,604
    290
    Apr 18, 2007
    His knockout of Satterfield replays over and over in my mind as I read this thread. Few who saw him prior to Baroudi's death would have questioned his firepower.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,008
    48,104
    Mar 21, 2007
    An excellent puncher in terms of power, but boxing is full of those.

    In composite terms, you could make a grand old argument but not in terms of pure power, no.
     
  11. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    this looks like a great puncher to me...


    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PutDflPYo[/ame]
     
  12. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    84
    May 30, 2009
    Misquote there Manassa. I believe Marciano said "I really knew what pain was in those fights." Or something like "I learned the most about pain in those fights." Marciano afterwards actually noted that he didn't sting him as hard as Walcott (Punch) but noted that they were grueling, bloody fights. I read that in Sullivan's biography of Rocky Marciano: The Brockton Blockbluster. Charles, also noted that he didn't believe Marciano punched that hard. Said he thought Walcott hit harder... interesting.
     
  13. doug.ie

    doug.ie 'Classic Boxing Society' Full Member

    14,214
    80
    Apr 1, 2008
    why wasnt he able to get a shot at the light-heavy title ?
     
  14. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    Some might argue that, because Walcott dropped Louis 3 times in 2 fights ,and Marciano, in their 1st fight. Walcott was a heavier puncher than Charles.
    Video, kindly provided by Boxari.
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2BEE8Ce70&feature=related[/ame]
     
  15. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Yeah, it's along those lines. Didn't mean to imply Marciano thought Charles hit the hardest, but by his accounts (got them in a book, will have to re-read) Charles was just, like you said, gruelling to fight.