the underrated patterson vs the overrated hw version of ezzard charles

Charles opponents when he was a very light, heavy king weren't hand picked.
I'd say Charles stopping Joe Baksi was a better defence than any of Patterson's
Charles had double the fights that Patterson had so if we're using statistics his chin is twice as good .

Also Robinson was dropped quite a few times, was he chinny ??
LaMotta got stopped 4 times, Marvin Hagler didn't get stopped, got knocked down once (questionably) yet LaMotta supposedly has the beat chin of all time ??

 

I never said Charles was chinny. I was responding to your point that Charles was knocked down a lot less than Patterson, which isn't true. Charles was knocked down a lot, often against smaller men than Patterson was facing. Of course, like Patterson, he usually got up. In chin I think they're pretty even. Neither was Tex Cobb.

 

Charles was down four times against Bivins not three.

People may not want to hear it or even believe it but Charles was down more in his prime than Patterson was in his whole career and against guys who weren't as big or hard hitting as the guys that put Patterson down. The vast majority of Pattersons knockdowns came against Liston and Johannson. Two massive punchers. Four more came against Quarry who to this day holds a record for knockouts in the golden gloves. A lot of people don't remember it but Quarry was a big banger as well. Jimmy Bivins was a 180 pound guy who was not a big puncher and Charles was up and down against him numerous times. Overlin couldn't crack an egg. The bottom line is that the idea that Charles had a better chin than Patterson is ludicrous.

Im also not sure who exactly feared Baksi, outside of the British HWs. Baksi did almost nothing after WW2. His biggest win was againsts Bruce Wood**** who hadn't yet propelled himself to contendership with his deplorable acting against Lee Savold that got Savold DQd. Baksi was no better than Hurricane Jackson and certainly no better than Johannson as far as defenses go but more to the point Baksi wasn't even a title defense. The Baksi fight took place before Charles won the vacant title. If we are just comparing him to general opponents of Patterson then Patterson beat many better people than Baksi before and after he won the title.

Nobody said Charles was chinny. You tried to use Patterson's knockdowns as an excuse for Charles A. having a better chin and B. knocking Patterson out. Your exact words were "Charles would flatten Patterson" If you are now going to argue that a fighter simply getting dropped doesn't equate a weak chin because you now realize Charles was dropped a lot more than Patterson. Then you can apply that same logic to Patterson, who not only stopped less but dropped less and stopped clean less times (his stoppages to Ali being a back injury and a cut).

 

For openers, this would be a fan's fight! I'd pay $100 on PPV to see it.

You can make a case for either man to win.

Charles to me had better skills and mental toughness. Patterson was slightly faster and had more power. Both were about the same size. I'd say Charles had the better chin. Prior to facing Marciano, Charles was only stopped twice and once at the hands of Walcott who landed a, perfectly timed and placed left hook.

I'd go with Charles here, simply because I think he's mentally tougher and a bit more durable. He wants 15 with Marciano in a war! He also took a hard shot from Satterfield early, then took him out in style in round two. Ray was a puncher. Moore, couldn't stop him either. Charles was very gritty, a true fighter. Patterson had issues with intimidation and dealing with defeat. I think Charles would just handle the heat of the moment better both physically and mentally.



So I'd pick Charles.

 

I dont have a problem with anything you said except the intimidation factor. Im not sure Patterson was ever intimidated by anyone including liston. It was patterson who actually made that fight happen against the wishes of his management and a lot of other people including the president of the usa. He didnt have to fight liston. #1 or no he could have ducked liston on principle and nobody would have done a thing about it with the doj backing him. Hell he even chased a third fight with liston until sonny died. But more to the point charles wasnt going to intimidate him. Charles was about the quietest, most humble, unassuming hw champion this side of patterson outside the ring and inside he a straight up and down technician. Its not like he was some rampaging ko artist. I think the buildup to patterson charles fight would have looked like a meeting of the mutual admiration society rather than see anyone intimidated.

 

Im sticking by Charles would flatten Patterson who even had a history of being flattened as an amateur before he won the Olympics.
I take it you either had or are having a sterling boxing career without being dropped ??
Or are you one of the posters obsessed with fighters having glass chin??
No, I never hold it against a fighter for being dropped, it happens to most, nor am I ignorant to ever, ever call a fighter a bum.
Charles stops or KO'd Patterson but it would go down in the records as a ko win

 

Good post!

 

There are valid criticisms of Charles' record, but Patterson is simply not the stick to use to beat him with. If either is overrated, I judge it to be Patterson.

This is simply a choice between a guy who fought them all in his time against a guy who was pretty carefully managed.

Charles peak years were from 1946 to 1951. During that time he had 25 fights against rated fighters and went 23-2. Patterson had 14 victories over rated fighters in his entire 20 year career. Charles fought 13 fights against Hall-of-Famers (I think often an arbitrary honor) during this period and went 12-1. Patterson had 3 victories over H-0-F'ers in his entire career. Charles fought 11 fights against men who were world champions during those five years. He went 10-1. Patterson had three wins over world champions over his entire career.

It was mentioned that some of Charles' H-of-F opponents were bottom of the barrel H-of-Famers. Well, the most bottom of the bottom of the barrel H-of-Famers would be Johansson who had only three wins over rated fighters in his whole career. Ingo is in the Hall of Fame purely for blowing out Patterson in their first fight.

Baksi has been critiqued. Certainly only a decent 1940's contender who was well short of being champion. Still, he would rate high among the men Patterson actually defeated, probably between 6 and 8. He certainly doesn't rate anywhere near that high among Charles' opposition. He was probably only the 4th best opponent Charles defeated in 1948.

The championship reigns of Patterson and Charles have been compared, but Charles' was much more impressive to me. He was only champion for two years, during which he made nine defenses, including a come-backing Joe Louis (certainly a fight Charles had to take), one-time light-heavy champs Maxim and Lesnevich, and Walcott. Even the down guys, like Oma and Valentino and Barone, match up with most of what Patterson was fighting, but over a reign of five years spread across six years. I would ask who did Charles not fight that he should have? during his two year championship reign? Who would have been better than the guys he fought?

What about these questions concerning Patterson. Who did Floyd not fight that he should have? Folley. Machen. Valdes. Williams.
Who would have been better than the guys he fought? Other than Johansson, all these guys,

until he defended against Liston and went out twice in the first round without landing a damaging punch or showing much of anything offensively or defensively.

 

Patterson was knocked down in his prime by Pete Rademacher who had never fought as a professional before.
It's not so much about his chin as his amateurish style and poor defence.

 

Very good post and :good put that way there's only one winner.
I've just read a belting book on Charles and after his career petered out he was just another fighter who had been shafted by managers and prompters but Rocky Marciano didn't forget him and that's a big plus to the to the Rock.
I suppose after the 15 round battle they had the feeling was mutual.

 

in think charles could hurt patterson with the right shot, but as klompton said, patterson was brave and in there to win so i don't think charles would discourage him.

 

"weakest era"

Perhaps and perhaps not, but the difference is that Charles faced the best of his era and always acquitted himself well. He beat Louis and Walcott, and went the distance with Marciano.

Patterson either lost to or did not fight most of the best of his time.

"Liston, Ali, Quarry, Ellis"

Men he lost to. And the losses to Liston were the two worst that any champion ever had to another champion.

"Johansson"

He won two of three here, but for me Ingo is rather tough to rate also, as basically he had only two wins which amount to much--Machen and Patterson.

"Moore, Johnson, Pastrano, Torres, Tiger, or Foster"

Patterson beat Moore (and so did Charles three times) but did not fight the rest. Patterson never beat a top light-heavy at weight, so crediting him against someone like Harold Johnson or Bob Foster is empty speculation.

"Folley, Valdes, Williams, Terrell, Frazier, Foreman"

Top heavyweights Patterson did not fight. His career is defined more by whom he didn't fight, or lost to, than by what he actually accomplished.

 

Criticism of Patterson's failure to fight a washed up Nino Valdes as well as other boxers has been exhaustively covered in previous threads. Most agreed that timeline of events as well as the return bout clause contributed to these fights not happening. It seems a bit fanciful, the suggestion that Ezzard would attempt to intimidate Floyd. Not so fanciful perhaps, is that a 25 yr old, Florio trained Patterson left hook could achieve the same result as a 37 yr old, Florio trained Walcott.

 

Charles is simple the better fighter in pretty much every way imaginable in an all time sense. Better resume... better run.. and most importantly a better boxer. He may not win this fight, but that is because Patterson is simply the big guy here with skills. However, if their weight was equal, I'd back Charles every day of the week and twice on Sunday

 

Couldn't have said it any better. This is spot on.