Who was better boxer? Ezzard Charles or Larry Holmes

Charles.

 

Simply, Ezzard Charles. He has an argument for most complete on film.

 

Definitely Charles. Skillwise, Holmes was only better at jabbing. Actually, I think you could probably stretch to say that that was the only thing Holmes was better at fullstop. Although I'd probably give him the slight edge in chin.

 

Charles pretty much had everything technically.

Holmes obviously was much bigger.

 

There is a difference between skill and physical assets. Holmes was certainly skilled, but part of what made him great was his long reach and fast twitch muscles that enabled him to whip out that cracking left. He had a solid chin, which is more of a biological component, and good endurance/heart, which has to do with will-power and cardio. Holmes had good legs in his prime with good lateral movement but neglected this the older he got. A very sharp right cross and a powerful uppercut were his main offensive tools.

But in terms of actual technique, skill, and strategy Holmes was fairly 2 dimensional and rarely got out of 1 gear. He mostly stayed on the outside attempting to outbox the opponent with basic but effective jab, jab, right hand, clinch, move and circle game plan. Or he'd stay ring center on the front foot and try to time them with counters. Tim Witherspoon was right in saying that he didn't have a lot of variety. He didn't have much of a hook and didn't consistently go to the body.

Charles had every punch in the book and had very sharp punches. He Could box, counter, slug, or have a phone booth fight at close range. He was one of the few heavies that knew actual defense beyond simply covering up. He had good footwork and was aware of both his and his opponent's positions in the ring. He knew how to win rounds and knew when to go on the attack. He was a great combination puncher too.

Charles was one of the most complete boxers not just at light heavy and heavy, but in general. His only flaws were that he could be a little too aggressive at times; it didn't take much to convince him to go to war or exchange. This could lead to him getting lumped up or having major swelling. His lack of raw power meant he often had to go the distance and was sometimes the victim of robberies.

Charles is up there in the top 10 p4p for both accomplishments and in terms of skill. Holmes was a hell of a fighter with longevity and a seasoned veteran but wasn't as skilled overall as Charles.

 

And power.

 

Charles definitely almost a complete fighter. Heart skill speed athleticism. Underated power.

 

Absolutely not. Ezzard Charles was a huge puncher. His low percentage is a combination of a non-aggressive style, extremely good competition and fighting way past his prime vs bigger guys.

 

Charles by a country mile.

The best fighters Holmes beat were pseudo-greatish Ken Norton, and hot-and-cold Tim Witherspoon. Both were disputable decisions. He is not in the same category as a guy who beat Louis, Walcott, Moore, Maxim, and Lesnevich.

Sorry.

 

Holmes hand down. Especially early in his career Charles was an aggressive boxer/puncher

 

Not sure there’s a more important and valuable skill in boxing than knowing how to use one’s jab and footwork to punish opponents while safely controlling the range of fighting.

 

I dunno if I can go along with that.

Regardless of his style it seems he would knock down more of the top guys he fought even if he didn’t rush in to finish them, and later on when he was past-prime (and I don’t see him fighting a lot of behemoths) we all know the power is the last thing to do but I still don’t see it.

Neither of them is Tyson or Foreman in the power department but I think Larry’s right (and his uppercut) along with a jab that can knock a contender down (or sideways) make him the bigger puncher.

 

Yep, I would definitely rate Holmes as a better puncher AT HEAVYWEIGHT than Charles. Pound for pound is a different matter all together though.

Cheers.