Heavyweights: Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 18 Jun 2007, 08:06

Two all-time greats considered as the greatest of their respective weight classes. Charles is the greatest light heavyweight of all time and Evander is the greatest cruiserweight of all-time. Who wins this fight at heavyweight? Both were pretty fast in hand speed, even at heavyweight.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 18 Jun 2007, 08:08

Two of the toughest men that ever enter in the ring fight at 147 lbs. Imagine the Duran that beat the great Sugar Ray Leonard in Montreal against the Basilio that beat Tony DeMarco, Johnny Saxton and lost a razor-closed decision against the great Kid Gavilan...who wins?

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 18 Jun 2007, 13:38

Not a fair fight at Heavy -- match them at cruiser and things get more interesting.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Jun 2007, 14:05

Eric the Viking wrote:Not a fair fight at Heavy -- match them at cruiser and things get more interesting.

Not fair? Evander's 15-20 lb edge is not a very large gap at HW.

There was an earlier thread on this same matchup, and I maintain my earlier opinion. Charles by a close decision. Holyfield was stronger and a slightly bigger puncher but Charles was just as fast, and a much more skilled fighter overall, especially in terms of defence and counter-punching, plus Ezzard has superior stamina in comparison to Evander who always had to take rounds off even in his prime.

If the much inferior, much less durable blown up light HW Moorer gives Evander tons of problems in two fights, don't tell me Evander wins this just b/c he's the bigger man.

'Rocket'Rigby · Post by **'Rocket'Rigby** » 19 Jun 2007, 06:27

Ezzard's conditioning, stamina and defensive capabilities would see him past Holyfield's best rounds. Ezzard's speed and pace would help take the sting out of Holyfield stopping him landing the heavier shots of the two. Ezzard Charles by UD.

Rocket
______
Molon Labe!

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 19 Jun 2007, 09:09

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Jun 2007, 09:41

It's true that Holyfield was off in the first Moorer fight and he deserves to be criticized for that performance. However, he certainly didn't have tons of problems in the 2nd Moore fight. Hoylfield gave Moorer a whipping in that fight.

Why should Holyfield's bad performance in the 1st Moorer fight define his career and then Charles gets a free pass for his fights with Johnson, Layne, and Valdes. Assuming Holyfield fights like he normally did during his prime, he isn't going to lose this. Holyfield wins by late ko or decision.

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 19 Jun 2007, 10:42

Holyfield's big muscles are a drawback against the sleeker Charles, and Ezzard knows more about boxing than Holy will ever know. No contest at cruiser. At heavyweight, Holyfield is even slower.

Cap

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Jun 2007, 11:31

DaveV17 wrote:. Holyfield is just as skilled as Charles.

Dave, honestly, I don't mean to put you down, but that statement just points to a clear lack of some boxing intelligence, or should I say a clear ignorance of Charles's abilities.

Picking Evander is fine, but I don't know anyone who would claim that Holyfield was "just as skilled" as Charles.

Holyfield had some good textbook skills but Charles skill-wise was one of the best ever. He forgot more about boxing than Commander Vander ever knew.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 19 Jun 2007, 11:56

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Jun 2007, 12:12

I remember this fantasy fight being talked about a while back.
I agree that Charles had overall better boxing skills, particularly defensively. However, this isn't an insurmountable advantage for Holyfield to overcome.
First of all, Holyfield certainly had very good techinal skills himself.
Holyfield was the harder puncher of the two.
Holyfield had the better chin.
Charles wasn't faster, either with hand or footspeed.

Many people seem to just remember the older, slower Holyfield.
Watch Holyfields fights in the late 1980's and early 1990's against Tillis,Thomas,Dokes,Rodriques, Stewart, Douglas etc. He had tremendous hand speed, foot speed, threw great combinations. He also one the most accurrate heavy weight punchers ever.

What would Charles strategy be? There is no way that he is going to win going to to toe. Holyfield is going to be able to take Charles shots a lot better than Charles is going to be able to take his. He isn't going to be able to be successful his "bycycle" for long.
He isn't going to be able to outbox Holyfield flatfooted for the entire fight before Holyfield would get to him.

Stylewise, this is just not a good matchup for Charles.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Jun 2007, 12:45

DaveV17 wrote:Dempseyfire,
Which skills did you see from Charles that makes you think he, " skill-wise was one of the best ever." I am no expert on Charles but I would be curious to know what he had that other fighters couldn't pick up on. Where would you rank Holyfield skill-wise?

Holyfield who has been boxing since he was a child, he went to the top in the amateurs, the top in the professional ranks, fought well with three of the best heavyweights of all time in Lewis, Bowe, and Tyson (not at his best, but still useful). IMO, Holyfield has all of the skills, tricks, and experience to beat anyone. Hollyfield is still an effective heavyweight at 44. That tells me that he has/had great skill.

Fighters who rely on physical gifts usually don't do well when the physical gifts diminish. Fighters of great skill like Holmes, Duran, and Holyfield can fight effectively much longer. Holyfield said that he could beat all who came before him because he knew what they knew plus the new stuff. I think Holyfield is a hand full for any heavyweight in history and there are very few I would bet on against him.

A good fight that is available to view of Charles is the Louis fight. He was a master of subtle moves (slipping, parrying, using the shoulder, sidestep) that made him very hard to hit cleanly, and to add to this he was a master counterpuncher . . watch the punch that put down Walcott in their rematch.

A Alp I def. see The Charles of the late 40s-up to 1952ish being as fast as Evander. He had incredible stamina and went a very hard 15 rounds many times. Holyfield went a hard 15 rounds once and barely won (many rounds he seemed to just take off due to exhaustion and lew Qawi tee off on him)

Holyfield's skills to the contrary woukd solid, due to his amateur background, but not anything special. He was not good at slipping shots, he was a good but not great counter-puncher . . he was extremely vulnerable to straight shots, particularly the left jab. Just watch how an old slow Foreman was able to hit Evander cleanly throughout their fight, and Foreman vs Foreman, Moorer, Mercer, Bowe etc. just did not show an ability to deal with a strong left jab. His stamina at HW was better than his often overweight opponents, but not great. He often had to take several rounds off.

And Holyfield in his late 30s-40s has not been very successful. Besides two wins over Ruiz and Rahman, Holyfield has looked awful.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 19 Jun 2007, 14:22

So let me put my earlier comment about the size mismatch this way:

At which weight would you rather see this fantasy matchup made: 190 or HW?

To me, it's a lot like the mythical Holyfield vs.Mike Spinks matchup that's been the topic of several threads on BOTP: Much more interesting (IMO) at cruiser, where Holyfield wouldn't just be able to outmuscle the naturally less-bulky opponent. (Admittedly, Holmes wasn't able to do so, but I actually favor Holyfield in terms of turning it into a brawl -- and we all saw what happened when Tyson simply steamrolled Spinks.) True, we all know from watching the current crop of heavies that size is overrated, but there's a long history of fabulously skilled guys getting knocked stiff by bigger guys with lesser-but-still-decent skills, which includes Charles himself.

The great Archie Moore lost badly to Floyd Patterson and Rocky Marciano, neither of whom weighed over 190 at the time. Sure, Archie was no spring chicken, but this is the ageless wonder we're talking about here, in both cases before he turned 40. The common theme? Losses versus a skilled (in Marciano's case, his incredible conditioning and relentless pressure subbing for boxing slickness) but naturally bigger and stronger opponent.

Charles did better than Moore when moving to heavy, but he also met his match there against some decently-skilled guys who are absolutely shrimpy by modern HW standards - Walcott and Marciano were both cruiser-sized guys. So while sure, I'd give him a not-vanishing chance versus a 210-pound version of Holyfield, I'd much rather see this matchup at 190, where the size disparity would be mostly negated.

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 19 Jun 2007, 14:45

At Cruiser, I pick Charles by a solid decision.

At heavyweight Holyfield by late stoppage or wide decision.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Jun 2007, 14:48

Eric the Viking wrote:So let me put my earlier comment about the size mismatch this way:

At which weight would you rather see this fantasy matchup made: 190 or HW?

To me, it's a lot like the mythical Holyfield vs.Mike Spinks matchup that's been the topic of several threads on BOTP: Much more interesting (IMO) at cruiser, where Holyfield wouldn't just be able to outmuscle the naturally less-bulky opponent. (Admittedly, Holmes wasn't able to do so, but I actually favor Holyfield in terms of turning it into a brawl -- and we all saw what happened when Tyson simply steamrolled Spinks.) True, we all know from watching the current crop of heavies that size is overrated, but there's a long history of fabulously skilled guys getting knocked stiff by bigger guys with lesser-but-still-decent skills, which includes Charles himself.

The great Archie Moore lost badly to Floyd Patterson and Rocky Marciano, neither of whom weighed over 190 at the time. Sure, Archie was no spring chicken, but this is the ageless wonder we're talking about here, in both cases before he turned 40. The common theme? Losses versus a skilled (in Marciano's case, his incredible conditioning and relentless pressure subbing for boxing slickness) but naturally bigger and stronger opponent.

Charles did better than Moore when moving to heavy, but he also met his match there against some decently-skilled guys who are absolutely shrimpy by modern HW standards - Walcott and Marciano were both cruiser-sized guys. So while sure, I'd give him a not-vanishing chance versus a 210-pound version of Holyfield, I'd much rather see this matchup at 190, where the size disparity would be mostly negated.

But Eric, the point is right there. Charles met his match vs Walcott and Marciano, not because of their size, but b/c they were outstanding fighters (plus the fact that Charles after he lost the title in my opinion began slipping a good deal).

Holyfield, who until his mid 20s was weighing in the same range as Charles (175-190) and who bulked up through supps, weights, and Evan Fields, was not that much bigger than Ezzard. Ezzard Charles vs Foreman or Lennox Lewis . . .those are matches you can point to the size advantage in, not Holyfield, who was a couple of inches taller and at his HW peak had about 20 lbs on Charles (185-205)

Rex Layne, Joe Baski, Joe Louis, and Elmer Ray were all naturally bigger men than Evander, and in Rex, Joe (despite the age) and Ray you have guys who not only were naturally physically bigger but bigger punchers than Evander. So this whole argument that EVander just comes in and out-strengths Charles don't point to reality.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Jun 2007, 16:45

dempseyfire- I wanted to address some of your comments:

- I agree that that Holyfield wasn't that good of a defensive fighter. However, there is no way that Charles is going to knock him out. Therefore Charles is going to have to consistently hit Holyfield without being hit himself over the entire course of the fight. Would he be able to do that? It isn't likely.

-Charles was a good defensive fighter, but he was hardly unhittable. Marciano was able to hit him enough and he wasn't nearly as accurrate of a puncher as Holyfield. Charles lost to Layne and Valdes who weren't nearly as skilled as Holyfield. Holyfield is going to get to Charles.

-That really isn't a accurrate version of the Qawi fight that you gave. Yes, there were a few moments that Holyfield was inactive in that fight, but for the most part he fought at a very fast pace. This was a tremendous fight. It was also only Holyfield's 12th professional fight and he had only been 8 rounds once before, never mind going 15.
You can probably count the # of guys around 190 pounds who would have beaten Qawi in their 12th professional fight on one hand.

While size and strength can be overrated, it is a factor that has to be considered. When Charles was a this best at heavyweight, he weighed about 185. Holyfield at his best was around 210. And that was a very strong 210. That is a 25 pound advantage.
Holyfield also had a bit of height and reach advantage. Charles isn't simply going to be able to keep Holyfield at bay with a jab. Holyfield could be hit with a jab, but he fought through it against opponents whose jab were far stronger than Charles.

-You pointed out that Charles beat bigger fighters such as Layne,Baski,Louis, and Ray. He also lost to Layne and Ray once. Louis was way past his best when Charles beat him and Baski isn't exactly Holyfield. Deal with Holyfield who was also fast is a otalyy different proposition.

-I am really surprised that you brought up Holyfield looking awful in his late 30's and 40's.
First of all, fighters poor performances at this advanced age is usually disregarded.
2. If you aren't going going to disregard Holyfield record when he got old, what about Charles? He was 10-13 in his last 23 fights, and he was retired by the ager of 38. He was pretty much completely shot by the time he was 34. At this age, Holyfield beat Tyson.

So if we are talking about a fight when they are both old, the advantage would be even greater for Holyfield.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Jun 2007, 17:14

At Cruiser, I pick Charles by a solid decision.
At heavyweight Holyfield by late stoppage or wide decision.

We've disagreed on other topics, but on this one i believe Alabama is right on the money.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Jun 2007, 18:37

Ambling Alp wrote:dempseyfire- I wanted to address some of your comments:

- I agree that that Holyfield wasn't that good of a defensive fighter. However, there is no way that Charles is going to knock him out. Therefore Charles is going to have to consistently hit Holyfield without being hit himself over the entire course of the fight. Would he be able to do that? It isn't likely.

-Charles was a good defensive fighter, but he was hardly unhittable. Marciano was able to hit him enough and he wasn't nearly as accurrate of a puncher as Holyfield. Charles lost to Layne and Valdes who weren't nearly as skilled as Holyfield. Holyfield is going to get to Charles.

-That really isn't a accurrate version of the Qawi fight that you gave. Yes, there were a few moments that Holyfield was inactive in that fight, but for the most part he fought at a very fast pace. This was a tremendous fight. It was also only Holyfield's 12th professional fight and he had only been 8 rounds once before, never mind going 15.
You can probably count the # of guys around 190 pounds who would have beaten Qawi in their 12th professional fight on one hand.

While size and strength can be overrated, it is a factor that has to be considered. When Charles was a this best at heavyweight, he weighed about 185. Holyfield at his best was around 210. And that was a very strong 210. That is a 25 pound advantage.
Holyfield also had a bit of height and reach advantage. Charles isn't simply going to be able to keep Holyfield at bay with a jab. Holyfield could be hit with a jab, but he fought through it against opponents whose jab were far stronger than Charles.

-You pointed out that Charles beat bigger fighters such as Layne,Baski,Louis, and Ray. He also lost to Layne and Ray once. Louis was way past his best when Charles beat him and Baski isn't exactly Holyfield. Deal with Holyfield who was also fast is a otalyy different proposition.

-I am really surprised that you brought up Holyfield looking awful in his late 30's and 40's.
First of all, fighters poor performances at this advanced age is usually disregarded.
2. If you aren't going going to disregard Holyfield record when he got old, what about Charles? He was 10-13 in his last 23 fights, and he was retired by the ager of 38. He was pretty much completely shot by the time he was 34. At this age, Holyfield beat Tyson.

So if we are talking about a fight when they are both old, the advantage would be even greater for Holyfield.

I was bringing up the age factor since Dave had mentioned Holyfield's "effectiveness in his 40s" attributing to his great skills, and I was pointing out Holyfield has not had much success.

Speaking of age, Charles was def. past his prime vs Valdez, and the first Layne fight was derided at the time as a huge robbery (just like I'll even give Evander credit for the Lewis rematch, which was a very close fight but I score very close to Holyfield).

As far as his defense, no Charles won't be able to avoid every punch Evander throws. But do I see Charles "outlanding" Holyfield, yes no question. Charles had an incredibly strong chin (you don't go the distance vs Ray, Layne, Louis, 15 with Marciano without being a tough mother) I don't see either of these guys having that dynamite punch being able to knock out the other. They were both very durable. I see Holyfield winning the early rounds but Charles making him more hesistant with his pin-point counters and coming on strong in the middle rounds. I see the late rounds being give and take, with Charles winning a close, hard fought decision.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Jun 2007, 23:28

..with ezzard at 175-185 and holyfield at cruiser, ezzard slices him up..because holyfield will make him fight at his best....and ezz wins by tko. at heavy....hard to say....even at heavy charles was best when he stayed around 180-85...and at 170-175 he still beat some tough heavyweights. forget what the official weight is for ezzard when he battered the tough heavy joe baksi....he actually weighed about 171.

the loss to valdez was the correct decision..the "loss" to layne was a bad joke as was pointed out at the time.

back to both at heavy...charles was past his prime when he beat joe louis.... but louis was faded even more. charles was never at his best at heavyweight.....for one thing, he had to stop training before he could be at peak level because he lost too much weight...and he just couldn't keep giving away all that poundage each time out. when he was younger he got by with it... he was faster and actually punched harder....but.too many ring battles started taking their toll.

so, matching them during their tenures as heavyweight champion...niether was consistent at that weight.....both had peaks and valleys. holyfields steroids give him the edge over ezzards negatives from the added poundage.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 20 Jun 2007, 05:44

Charles fought flat-footed most of the time, slugging it out, instead of dancing and counter-punching. Even young version of Charles wasn't any different than that, as can be seen vs Marshall and Bivins. And his defense wasn't that good either, he absorbed plenty of punches, but his chin is just not solid enough to take what Holyfield has.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Jun 2007, 06:14

Holyfield does have a size advantage but not a huge one (remembering that it's much easier for fighters now to put on weight). I do think both men are underrated as HW champions.

Holyfield has the style to make things hard for Charles and it would be very competitive.

I don't see either man stopping the other. Charles was better over 15 than Holyfield. It would be nip and tuck all the way.

Charles could fight more defensively if he chose to my understanding is that he took a more risky offensive style in to his fights because he wanted to win over the writers and the fans who didn't give him the credit he deserved. If he chose to just try and win the fight I think he can take a clsoe decision.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Jun 2007, 07:10

This could boil down to which of you would be selected as judges.

'Rocket'Rigby · Post by **'Rocket'Rigby** » 20 Jun 2007, 09:36

Senya13 wrote:Charles fought flat-footed most of the time, slugging it out, instead of dancing and counter-punching. Even young version of Charles wasn't any different than that, as can be seen vs Marshall and Bivins. And his defense wasn't that good either, he absorbed plenty of punches, but his chin is just not solid enough to take what Holyfield has.

If Charles did fight flat-footed then it was out of choice, opting to slug it out because he may have seen the result coming better than using the slippery defensive skills that may not have worked.

You underestimate the quality and skills that Charles had and (I quote) if you thought that he 'fought flat-footed most of the time' proves your lack of appreciation for one of the all-time greats.

Charles was a master tactician, far beyond the skills of Holyfield and easily outpoints Holyfield over 12/15 rounds. Charles has the stamina and conditioning and come the latter rounds either 190 or the Ballooned-Heavyweight version of Holyfield would have grinded to halt whilst Charles would continue to slip and sleek his way around Holyfield with ease.

Charles by UD.

Rocket
______
Molon Labe!

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 20 Jun 2007, 10:10

I base my opinion about Charles on what I've seen of him.
Marshal, Bivins, all 4 Walcott, Louis, Reynolds, Brion, Layne, Wallace, Oma, Satterfield, Valentino, both of Marciano fights (true, some of them only highlights, but still). He's flat-footed and not very quick mover, and he chooses to slug it out most of the time, and he gets hit a lot while doing that (although he rolls with punches well to reduce the effect of punches that land).
He is the best 175lb in history, but he's not what many people try to make him to be.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Jun 2007, 10:14

Senya13 wrote:I base my opinion about Charles on what I've seen of him.
Marshal, Bivins, all 4 Walcott, Louis, Reynolds, Brion, Layne, Wallace, Oma, Satterfield, Valentino, both of Marciano fights (true, some of them only highlights, but still). He's flat-footed and not very quick mover, and he chooses to slug it out most of the time, and he gets hit a lot while doing that (although he rolls with punches well to reduce the effect of punches that land).
He is the best 175lb in history, but he's not what many people try to make him to be.

So you think he's overrated?

Heavyweights: Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

Heavyweights: Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

Welterweights: Roberto Duran vs Carmen Basilio