Ezzard Charles rightly gets a lot of praise being considered by many as the greatest light heavy of them all. Considering this I have always wondered how true is the claim that his style was disliked by boxing fans during his time? Was he really seen as boring when he fought? Can anybody shed any light on this?
After the Baroudi tragedy, he was a little more safety-conscious. That, and he followed an icon in Joe Louis. It was unavoidable in that way, like Larry Holmes was never warmed up to partially because he followed Ali, and the way Tunney was never embraced because he followed Dempsey. Fans missed their icons, and their replacements are never good enough at the time.
I mean I think it was a bit more than that. He was maligned, certainly by Ring Magazine, as a champion. They thought he was ****, they thought he was unworthy, and when he had that heart trouble you get the feeling they wanted to move him along. There was certainly some agitating to have another champion at least partially recognised during his reign, and a European at that. The whole thing reads like a phantom reign, which is absurd. He was a good and a busy champion. But neither public nor press seemed to take to him as a heavyweight. One of the real anomalies of American ring lore IMO. I'm at a loss really, even accepting what's been pointed out by klompton, sal and Janitor as being quite right.
Im sure being black in 1950 helped. Looking at it from the perspective of the time, I'm sure to some it seemed a real change was taking place. With Louis you could look at him as the exception and after things could get back to normal, ie white. But then here comes another black guy and this right in the heels of Jackie Robinson breaking the color line in baseball (more or less). Suddenly the majors had blacks, the heavyweight champion of the world was black yet again. Add to that a skilled but dispassionate fighter, a boxer and not a destroyer. Louis in a way was more palpable because he was such a puncher; it allowed sportwriters of the time to dismiss his ability as the animalistic side effects of his blackness. Charles was not bigger than the other heavyweights and he wasn't someone like Ray Robinson that had talent and natural ability to burn. Charles won because he was a better more skilfull boxer. Anyway that's all pop psychological claptrap. It's impossible to pin down a single reason.
He was never a fan's favourite and why is answered by Janitor's post.Charles was an introverted ,shy man who never seemed comfortable in the spotlight.
He was kind of like a Mike McCallum. Great fighter. Excellent skills and ability. No charisma or huge fan following.
Yes I think this is a big part of it. Charles represented the possibility of a black heavyweight champion becoming the norm. I'm sure it made people a bit uncomfortable at least? Especially that sense that the ship had sailed with Louis and that was that. Personally I really like watching Charles box, especially Valentino.
Yeah, my hunch is that it was mostly this - but the societal prejudice & "ah crud, not another one! atsch" angle is certainly worth mulling over given the zeitgeist back then.
There may have been some of the "not another one!" there as the proverbial cherry on top. Seemed like people liked Jersey Joe more than Charles, for whatever that's worth.
Joe Louis was a tough act to follow. His main rival, was flashier and a natural showman in Walcott. Charles still delivered the fun matches and knockouts though. Like Holyfield during his first title run, he had a tough act to follow on and just didn't have the personality or charisma a Heavyweight Champion is expected to have.
On top of what LittleRed said, Charles' subtle style was a double-edged sword in terms of hooking casuals, not being explosive or particularly vulnerable. Guys who can thrive without causing a stir are liable to become part of the scenery.