Ezzard Charles was massively under appreciated in his own time. The press didn't seem to champion him for whatever reason.
Archie Moore seems to have been loved by everyone and got the respect his great skills deserved.
Why was this?
A lot of people on this site know this era inside-out. Can anyone offer an explanation?
Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
Outside of my belief that the consistent outcomes when these fighters fought were somewhat of a fluke, I always thought Ezzard was a much admired sports figure. I hold the belief that these two fighters were far more evenly matched than their one to one records would indicate. But the facts are stubborn things....just like that pesky 40 and 0 record of the Rocks.
I would say I was never aware of Ezz not getting his proper respect. He beat my favorite fighter in all their one to one events and I still count him as one of my favorites of all time. He was not able to become an "elder statesman" of the sport as did Archie so that means he may have been a bit forgotton as time went on....simply because he was not a chronic media presence as was Archie.
However as an enduring beloved sports figure, I think he quite qualifies.
I would say I was never aware of Ezz not getting his proper respect. He beat my favorite fighter in all their one to one events and I still count him as one of my favorites of all time. He was not able to become an "elder statesman" of the sport as did Archie so that means he may have been a bit forgotton as time went on....simply because he was not a chronic media presence as was Archie.
However as an enduring beloved sports figure, I think he quite qualifies.
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
I think today everyone appreciates both fighters. I was under the impression though that Charles never really got his due respect.
In recent years both men are ever-presents in discussionss on the greatest p4p fighters. When I was a wee lad in the 1970s and 1980s Archie would be in the debate but Charles almost always not.
As you say it could be that because Charles was tragically denied the elder statesman role he was short-changed...
In recent years both men are ever-presents in discussionss on the greatest p4p fighters. When I was a wee lad in the 1970s and 1980s Archie would be in the debate but Charles almost always not.
As you say it could be that because Charles was tragically denied the elder statesman role he was short-changed...
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
Somewhere along the line Ezz was head injured in a way that denied him the ability to stay articulate, like many who practiced the craft as sincerely as Ezz. Another reason I stand in humble amazement of Archie Moore and rate him so highly is due to the fact that he was able to go through his grueling career and seemingly avoid the ever pervasive toll that was extracted from most who were as experienced as him.
I have come up with the theory that his defensive skills were astonishing and not that he was somehow genetically gifted with the ability to endure punishment any more than any other man.
I do have much education in the area of head injury, and Archie's outcome is not supportable by any other sensible theory other than he was consistently slipping and "de-empasizing" punches in nothing short of genius fashion.
I have come up with the theory that his defensive skills were astonishing and not that he was somehow genetically gifted with the ability to endure punishment any more than any other man.
I do have much education in the area of head injury, and Archie's outcome is not supportable by any other sensible theory other than he was consistently slipping and "de-empasizing" punches in nothing short of genius fashion.
-
BroughtonRulesRefuge
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2770
- Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 06:55
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
- Ezzy died of Lou Gehrig's disease at age 53. His last bouts were at age 37-38 years of age after accumulating most of his losses after the Rocky series.BoxBuzz wrote:Somewhere along the line Ezz was head injured in a way that denied him the ability to stay articulate, like many who practiced the craft as sincerely as Ezz.
Like Ali is often cited as having pre-Parkinson's in the late 70s, it's quite possible that Ezzy had early symptoms that were exacerbated by increasing frequencies of punches to the head. Lou Gehrig famously had a below par season that everyone attributed to age before it became apparent after he was diagnosed with ALS the next season after looking like a child on the field and at bat.
As far as Ezzy's belated appreciation, I beg to differ. One of the earliest boxing articles I read was in a World Book Encyclopedia article on boxing which featured pics of Rocky, Jersey Joe and Ezzy, mentioning that this was one of the greatest series ever. That's quite a lot of recognition to make a cut of a brief general article on boxing.
Probably his career before heavyweight was under appreciated, now I could go with that.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
I was nowhere near around during this time(born in 1987) but I do study this era alot and will give an educated guess. Boxing in the 1940s-50s was not like it was today. Back then they did not appreciate Pernell Whitaker and Floyd Mayweather stylish boxing...they preferred aggresive in your face take a lick to give a lick fighting. They wanted action, Artistic boxing with little action seemed boring to there day. After Charles killed baroudi, he changed from the cinninati cobra to the cinncinati technician, often fighting very very defensive oriented fight trying to inflict as little damage as possible to opponents and he was heavily critisized for this....but what was lost in this was just how artistic and genius boxing displays charles was putting on. Press in the 1950s called Charles Walcott fights boring, I call it like watching two wizards in the ring perform there magic, truelly spectacular boxing matches to watch. It was after the Marciano vs Charles I fight that charles actually finally started getting respect from critics, because he fought 15 gruelling rounds with welts all over his face and body refusing to go down and refusing to let his back touch the ropes...he gained more admirers in this loss in the press row than all his wins over archie moore combined...Sad but true.
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
It seems that the people who failed to appreciate Charles were focusing on him mostly as a heavyweight, and specifically his time as champion, where he was viewed as having an uninspiring reign (albeit an active one) against often mediocre or questionable challengers, which ended with him being embarrassingly KO'd by the oldest fighter ever to hold the title up to that time.Ezzard wrote:Ezzard Charles was massively under appreciated in his own time. The press didn't seem to champion him for whatever reason.
Archie Moore seems to have been loved by everyone and got the respect his great skills deserved.
Why was this?
Conversely, Moore was a much longer reigning champion and was viewed as having the more impressive reign.
It also didn't help that many people refused to acknowledge Charles as the real champion until he beat Louis, similar to Frazier and Ali. I think Ring Magazine didn't even consider him champion until he beat Louis.
It seems Charles earned more respect for his fights after losing the title (ie: his shocking KO of Satterfield, his gutty efforts vs. Marciano), plus his wins over Moore began to look much better in retrospect as Moore himself continued to demonstrate what a great fighter he really had been.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
I think other posters have explained it. Charles was thought of as the boring Heavyweight champion who came after Louis' historic reign and Walcott and Marciano's more exciting runs as champion. Charles had the same problem that Holmes had being inbetween Ali and Tyson. And people did not take into account that Charles was coming up from Middleweight, where he had beaten Burley twice, had been one of the best Light Heavyweights of all time, beating the likes of Archie, Maxim and Bivins. This was before he took the biggest crown in sports against Walcott, the man who almost beat Louis. Charles' own fight with Louis surely could not have endeared him to fight fans, people do not like to see old legends getting beaten by younger fighters. Compare Chavez-De La Hoya. And despite being named fighter of the year two years in a row, the most exciting thing that happened in Charles' title reign as far as people were concerned was the left hook that knocked him out in the third Walcott fight.
Charles and Moore represent everything I love about boxing. I really appreciate their fights, and I just wish we had film of their three fights against each other. Moore accomplished a lot, and he was a quintessential great, but Charles out did him in nearly every facet of boxing, except longevity. Archie was ageless, while Charles was finished after Marciano. When Charles was at the end of his career losing fights to guys like Jackson and Matthews, Archie was Light Heavyweight champion and still had the Durelle fights ahead of him, which hardly hurt his popularity.
Charles in my opinion is a top 5-6 all time pound for pound fighter. Pound for pound I would rate him ahead of Ali. I think Archie is borderline top ten.
Charles and Moore represent everything I love about boxing. I really appreciate their fights, and I just wish we had film of their three fights against each other. Moore accomplished a lot, and he was a quintessential great, but Charles out did him in nearly every facet of boxing, except longevity. Archie was ageless, while Charles was finished after Marciano. When Charles was at the end of his career losing fights to guys like Jackson and Matthews, Archie was Light Heavyweight champion and still had the Durelle fights ahead of him, which hardly hurt his popularity.
Charles in my opinion is a top 5-6 all time pound for pound fighter. Pound for pound I would rate him ahead of Ali. I think Archie is borderline top ten.
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
.....it's in the wee small hours as i read this, and there's no way that i can get started now, as it would take me...oh...hours to do the subject justice.
one question, though...boxbuzz...i know you are educated in the subject of head injuries, so i'll throw this in. i talked to ezzard as late as the early 60s...on and off the radio. he was fully articulate and had no speech problems. his speaking voice was always soft. he made a movie - never released as far as i know- and his voice had to be re-dubbed because it was so light.
in the later stages of ALS he couldn't speak at all. he communicated with his wife gladys by a code of eye blinks. he still flashed that big smile.. he lived longer with the disease than the average victim because it didn't affect his breathing until late. terrible, terrible last days...drooling and unable to hold his head up as he was propped in his wheel chair.
one question, though...boxbuzz...i know you are educated in the subject of head injuries, so i'll throw this in. i talked to ezzard as late as the early 60s...on and off the radio. he was fully articulate and had no speech problems. his speaking voice was always soft. he made a movie - never released as far as i know- and his voice had to be re-dubbed because it was so light.
in the later stages of ALS he couldn't speak at all. he communicated with his wife gladys by a code of eye blinks. he still flashed that big smile.. he lived longer with the disease than the average victim because it didn't affect his breathing until late. terrible, terrible last days...drooling and unable to hold his head up as he was propped in his wheel chair.
Re: Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore
Jaclem, this is the first time I've given thought to this, but it appears you were so close to Ezz that you saw first hand what his symptoms were.
From what you describe he could have been experiencing most any of the conditions listed below. Or a combination of these. But after seeing your description I can tell you that it certainly was not simply the grouping of symptoms that often gets lumped into the descriptor of Parkinson's syndrome.....not to be confused with the formal disease of Parkinson's. I have been told that Ali has the formal disease but I have to say that his symptoms are moving so slowly that I wonder sometimes if it simply P syndrome soley from Head Trauma. Clearly Joe Frazier (Whether he will admit it or not) suffers from that as well, as did Joe Louis. A form of this can be brought on by pure head trauma, Something they used to call being "punch drunk". It is detectabe in Freddie Roach, but not in DLH for example. However with Roach I believe only his speech pattern has been affected and not his sharp and obviously brilliant electronic firing of his neurons. The same may be true for both Joe Frazier and formerly for Joe Louis. (Ali is another who seems to suffer little if any intellectual deficit though he has the more disease related ticks associated with P.D.).
Do you know what Ezz's formal diagnosis was? We have on this thread both Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's....certainly he did not suffer from both? Another thing, were you close enough to the situation to be certain that whatever formal diagnosis Ezz was cursed with by the Dr's, were they assumed to be correct? In other words was he of enough economic blessing to have a Dr that actually qualified the diagnosis in a way that friends and family were satisfied that it was indeed correct? Sometimes if you don't bring the money for the proper support and testing you will languish in a netherworld of vague and ambiguous diagnosis. Was this the case with Ezz?
When I say articulate in this case I'm not just referring to brillance in wording, phrasing and intelellectual prowess, I was including (you can call me errant on this if you wish) the ability to deliver in a way that pop culture can latch on to and utilize...or sometimes exploit. I assume you are saying that because of his soft spoken characteristics he was not considered much of a public speaker. Or even a great candidate for interviews. Even when no symptoms were apparent. So when he began losing his ability in this area it went less publicly noticed than what would have been the case for the other champions of the era. Am I correct on that assumption?
My guesses of what it was he may have experienced:
Fredrich's Ataxia
Lytico-Bodig disease
Lou Gehrigs disease (ALS)
Parkinson's Disease
Parkinson's Syndrome
Only Parkinson's would have been related in any way to head trauma. The others are curses of the genes.
Do you know what his diagnosis was? Key questions: did he lose his ability to control all of his lower body? Arms, legs, ambulatory ability eventually his own breathing process etc?
From what you describe he could have been experiencing most any of the conditions listed below. Or a combination of these. But after seeing your description I can tell you that it certainly was not simply the grouping of symptoms that often gets lumped into the descriptor of Parkinson's syndrome.....not to be confused with the formal disease of Parkinson's. I have been told that Ali has the formal disease but I have to say that his symptoms are moving so slowly that I wonder sometimes if it simply P syndrome soley from Head Trauma. Clearly Joe Frazier (Whether he will admit it or not) suffers from that as well, as did Joe Louis. A form of this can be brought on by pure head trauma, Something they used to call being "punch drunk". It is detectabe in Freddie Roach, but not in DLH for example. However with Roach I believe only his speech pattern has been affected and not his sharp and obviously brilliant electronic firing of his neurons. The same may be true for both Joe Frazier and formerly for Joe Louis. (Ali is another who seems to suffer little if any intellectual deficit though he has the more disease related ticks associated with P.D.).
Do you know what Ezz's formal diagnosis was? We have on this thread both Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's....certainly he did not suffer from both? Another thing, were you close enough to the situation to be certain that whatever formal diagnosis Ezz was cursed with by the Dr's, were they assumed to be correct? In other words was he of enough economic blessing to have a Dr that actually qualified the diagnosis in a way that friends and family were satisfied that it was indeed correct? Sometimes if you don't bring the money for the proper support and testing you will languish in a netherworld of vague and ambiguous diagnosis. Was this the case with Ezz?
When I say articulate in this case I'm not just referring to brillance in wording, phrasing and intelellectual prowess, I was including (you can call me errant on this if you wish) the ability to deliver in a way that pop culture can latch on to and utilize...or sometimes exploit. I assume you are saying that because of his soft spoken characteristics he was not considered much of a public speaker. Or even a great candidate for interviews. Even when no symptoms were apparent. So when he began losing his ability in this area it went less publicly noticed than what would have been the case for the other champions of the era. Am I correct on that assumption?
My guesses of what it was he may have experienced:
Fredrich's Ataxia
Lytico-Bodig disease
Lou Gehrigs disease (ALS)
Parkinson's Disease
Parkinson's Syndrome
Only Parkinson's would have been related in any way to head trauma. The others are curses of the genes.
Do you know what his diagnosis was? Key questions: did he lose his ability to control all of his lower body? Arms, legs, ambulatory ability eventually his own breathing process etc?