Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Oct 2005, 20:01

I think ezzard takes a wide decision, too much speed and boxing skill for evander.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 31 Oct 2005, 20:20

Hmmm, at HW I wouldn't say Charles holds a big speed advantage at all.

Similar speed, probably similar punching power. Charles was the better counter-puncher but Evander had a better jab and right hand.

Tough battle but I favor Charles by a slim decision as he had the better boxing smarts and stamina.

And I'm talking about the Charles 1948-49.

The Charles of the mid-50s vs Evander is a pick-em fight.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 31 Oct 2005, 22:44

If it's at Cruiserweight I think a prime Ezzard Charles has a good chance of lasting the distance, though I still think it's Evander, who never lost at this weight, by about 145-141. If Evander comes in at 215 though, I think he knocks out Charles no later than the 6th round.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 01 Nov 2005, 05:58

Oh, well, lets take the Holyfield that fought Douglas vs the Charles that fought Rock. Holyfield had WAY too much foot speed (cutting off the ring highly aggressively), hand speed (consistently quadrupling the jab in a fluid manner in the space of one second) and aggression for Charles to last beyond seven or eight rounds.

Now, if you want to match the Holyfield that fought Moorer I (when Evander dislocated his shoulder in the second round) vs the Charles that fought Walcott I, you might be on to something.

Ezzard is a favorite of mine, but he AINT a better heavyweight than Holyfield. Holyfield could drop him with a wicked body shot or a wicked left hook...or a right hand. Holyfield threw every type of punch well, with excellent technique...he had to: the ONLY thing he didn't have was consistent one-punch KO power.

Rahman-Charles would be a good mythical matchup, too (Rahman is VERY strong, but Charles too fast).

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Nov 2005, 09:33

At lightheavy or maybe even cruiser, I say Charles by decision. At heavyweight, no contest. Holyfield would knock Charles out sometime before the fifth round.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 12:14

this is a joke, charles had way wayyyyy more hand and footspeed than holyfield and far more boxing skills.

charles would easily in my opinion outbox any version of holyfield.

michael moorer was a poor mans ezzard charles

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 14:10

Charles actually had more one punch KOs at heavyweight then Holyfield did.
The size difference is minimal here fellas. Holyfield at 210 vs Charles at 186. Charles also beat larger men then Evander and bigger punchers (Walcott, Ray, Layne, Louis)
I just re-watched Holyfield-Bowe 11 last night and now feel more comfortable picking Charles. Holyfield at HW had success against the big guys b/c he could outbox them and outlast them. Still, as an articifial 200+ heavyweiht, Holyfield tired and always had to take a few rounds off, even in the early 90s. He also was a good boxer but could get REALLY sloppy in there winging punches when he opened up. Charles could really make you pay coming in sloppy and I see Holyfield actually going down for a flash KD. Holyfield would also get very frustrated with Ezzard's defense. Bowe, Foreman, and Rahman were all BIG targets . . .Ezzard would have the best defense of anyone Holyfield ever faced save Byrd.

Charles would be bothered early by Holyfield's athleticism and strength but find his stride and sweep the late rounds on an increasingly frustrated Holyfield to a close but decisive decision win, like 9-4 or 7-5 on some scorecards.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 01 Nov 2005, 15:32

Well, Holyfield could outspeed Tyson, Dokes, (and I think he would have beat Byrd, even at his age, if he had more than one arm to use) etc Holyfield threw blinding punches. No heavyweight bothers prime Holyfield with speed alone (but Hoyfield was faster anyway, quadrupling the jab)...Holyfield would counter Charles with power (whomever said Charles was a better counterpuncher), just like he did to Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Mercer, Qawi (at 190lbs) etc. Charles hasn't got the chin for that. The only time Holyfield was a light-heavy was in the Olympics.

Holyfield-Bowe II isn't prime Holyfield, dempseyfire. Thats the start of Old Holyfield.

EH is arguably the fighter of the decade, the 90's, even though he beat Qawi in '86. He last held a title in '00. Charles is great, Holyfield is greater (in boxing parlance). For the record, Holyfield is/was underrated, Decagon, and its stupid to say otherwise. You don't remember all that hype/crap prior to Holy-Tyson I?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 15:56

Charles hasn't got the chin for that

u ever see the first marciano fight?? charles showed an incredible chin and incredible stamina. marciano hit a lot harder than holyfield.

charles will just stay on the outside and rip vicious faast combinations into evanders head. evander has a leaky defense and takes a lot of punches. if u think evander can outbox charles, then somethings wrong with ur head.

charles 15 wide unanimous

- even an old holmes, MICHAEL MOORER, lennox lewis, qawi outboxed holyfield

cultus · Post by **cultus** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:05

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Charles hasn't got the chin for that
u ever see the first marciano fight?? charles showed an incredible chin and incredible stamina. marciano hit a lot harder than holyfield.

charles will just stay on the outside and rip vicious faast combinations into evanders head. evander has a leaky defense and takes a lot of punches. if u think evander can outbox charles, then somethings wrong with ur head.

charles 15 wide unanimous

- even an old holmes, MICHAEL MOORER, lennox lewis, qawi outboxed holyfield

wtf.. you say charles would't be beaten by Holmes.. Id say even the old Holmes who was very active and in shape would give charles lot of problems. And Evander had good defence but tend to brawl alot.. thatäs why it seemed that way. Your bias is ridiculous. Why did you even start that thread when it's SO clear to you that Heavy's onward 70 have no chance against light heavy's of the 50's. You read lot's of articles form the old fighters but have seem to miss all current ones. Anyways you must have some sense that all the articles of the old fighters were as hyped as anything is about klitschko right now.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:06

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marciano hit a lot harder than holyfield.

http://img44. .us/img44/9177/orly54wn.jpg

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:09

cultus wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Charles hasn't got the chin for that
u ever see the first marciano fight?? charles showed an incredible chin and incredible stamina. marciano hit a lot harder than holyfield.

charles will just stay on the outside and rip vicious faast combinations into evanders head. evander has a leaky defense and takes a lot of punches. if u think evander can outbox charles, then somethings wrong with ur head.

charles 15 wide unanimous

- even an old holmes, MICHAEL MOORER, lennox lewis, qawi outboxed holyfield

wtf.. you say charles would't be beaten by Holmes.. Id say even the old Holmes who was very active and in shape would give charles lot of problems. And Evander had good defence but tend to brawl alot.. thatäs why it seemed that way. Your bias is ridiculous. Why did you even start that thread when it's SO clear to you that Heavy's onward 70 have no chance against light heavy's of the 50's. You read lot's of articles form the old fighters but have seem to miss all current ones. Anyways you must have some sense that all the articles of the old fighters were as hyped as anything is about klitschko right now.

no i watch the films buddy and take a look at the styles. its clear to me charles had the better speed and greater boxing skills, and he would simply outbox holyfield. look what michael moorer did to holyfield.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:12

Tantum wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marciano hit a lot harder than holyfield.
http://img44. .us/img44/9177/orly54wn.jpg

http://www.onlinesports.com/images/ssg-urm-16a.jpg

one of the greatest punches ever landed, the "suzy Q" right hand. did holyfield have a punch like that??

im guessing u never seen the marciano-layne bout either

cultus · Post by **cultus** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:15

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Tantum wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marciano hit a lot harder than holyfield.
http://img44. .us/img44/9177/orly54wn.jpg

http://www.onlinesports.com/images/ssg-urm-16a.jpg

one of the greatest punches ever landed, the "suzy Q" right hand. did holyfield have a punch like that??

im guessing u never seen the marciano-layne bout either

one of the best punches ever landed... you have some cheese humor.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:53

I disagree with BB saying Charles wins easy but come on . . .Mercer, a post-rehab Dokes, Bowe . . .these were bigger guys who faded down the stretch. Charles would have the best stamina by far of anyone Holyfield ever fought and that would be a huge problem for him, as as a heavyweight he just HAD to take some rounds off. And Holyfield could counter a lazy, long armed shots by Bowe and Lewis but countering a craftier Ezzard would be a much bigger problem. Look at Charles vs Louis and Walcott . . .and then tell me Holyfield was the counter-puncher Charles was . . .Ezzard could knock you into next week with punches you wouldn't even think about. And this talk of his chin vs Evander isn't an issue. Charles went the distance twice with Elmer Ray who hit much harder then Holyfield. And twice beat Walcott who was as fast and a better boxer (much more awkward to face) then Holyfield.

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Nov 2005, 17:56

Charles actually had more one punch KOs at heavyweight then Holyfield did.
The size difference is minimal here fellas. Holyfield at 210 vs Charles at 186. Charles also beat larger men then Evander and bigger punchers (Walcott, Ray, Layne, Louis)

the over twenty pound difference was all muscle. holyfield was bigger stronger hit harder beat bigger, stronger, men and took punches from bigger stronger and faster men. louis is one thing, but its redicules how you confidently make the assumption that Walcott,Ray and Layne hit harder than Holyfield. Based on what? The way you turn off all common sense and deify these fighters is amazing.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 18:02

Based on what? These men were known as PUNCHERS. They could turn around a whole fight with ONE PUNCH. This is noted by all who faced them and saw them. And you can look at the number of KOs on their record for further proof.

Holyfield naturally was not much bigger then Charles. Do you understand this? He had a weight training/nutrition program that gave him a chiseled physique at 210 lbs but if he hadn't been on that he would've fought at about 189 as well. That extra muscle increased his strength but also made his muscles grow weary at times in fights and hurt his ability to pull the trigger . . .even against Foreman he took some time off, and then was in the middle of the fight when Foreman was already gassed out and ready to go. Holyfield is my favorite heavyweight of the past 15 years, but it is completly FALSE to say he was in a different league in terms of punching power, calibre of comp etc. In fact I would favor Jersey Joe to SOUNDLY defeat Holyfield more comfortably then I pick Charles to beat him. This is a guy who had problems with Alex Stewart . . .but he's in a different class to friggin' Ezzard Charles? Where do you come up with this stuff . . . . ?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 18:37

cultus wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Tantum wrote: http://img44. .us/img44/9177/orly54wn.jpg

http://www.onlinesports.com/images/ssg-urm-16a.jpg

one of the greatest punches ever landed, the "suzy Q" right hand. did holyfield have a punch like that??

im guessing u never seen the marciano-layne bout either

one of the best punches ever landed... you have some cheese humor.

so what are u implying??? that marciano didnt have a lethal right hand?

i bet u never even seen the knockout.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:05

Michael Moorer is not a good example. In his prime he was a hard hitting southpaw and in there first fight, Holyfield had a strange health problem he initially thought was heart trouble. Even then it was a close fight, and Evander managed to deck him. In the rematch, Holyfield took about 5 rounds to adjust to Moorer's natural awkward style, and then he destroyed him. Someone mentioned Bowe v Holyfield II, and in that fight Evander boxed beautifully, he slipped Bowe's punches and countered throughout the fight. Actually, I think Holyfield may have become a better boxer at heavyweight that at cruiser where he sometimes had a tendency to stand and trade punches.

As for Ezzard Charles just look at some of the guys who beat him in his prime at HW, Layne, Valdes, Johnson. Plus some of his other opponents, Maxim took him to a 15 r MD, Beshore lasted into the 14th, and this was a guy who had just lost 3 of his last 4. Gilliam took him the distance. I can only imagine what some posters would be saying if these blots were on the resume of a 90's fighter. But because Ezzard Charles gave Marciano a couple of tough fights he too becomes a great heavyweight. I guess LaStarza, Vingo, Mogard, Lowry. Applegate etc would all be good heavies today based on there performances against the Rock.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:19

Seamus wrote:Michael Moorer is not a good example. In his prime he was a hard hitting southpaw and in there first fight, Holyfield had a strange health problem he initially thought was heart trouble. Even then it was a close fight, and Evander managed to deck him. In the rematch, Holyfield took about 5 rounds to adjust to Moorer's natural awkward style, and then he destroyed him. Someone mentioned Bowe v Holyfield II, and in that fight Evander boxed beautifully, he slipped Bowe's punches and countered throughout the fight. Actually, I think Holyfield may have become a better boxer at heavyweight that at cruiser where he sometimes had a tendency to stand and trade punches.

As for Ezzard Charles just look at some of the guys who beat him in his prime at HW, Layne, Valdes, Johnson. Plus some of his other opponents, Maxim took him to a 15 r MD, Beshore lasted into the 14th, and this was a guy who had just lost 3 of his last 4. Gilliam took him the distance. I can only imagine what some posters would be saying if these blots were on the resume of a 90's fighter. But because Ezzard Charles gave Marciano a couple of tough fights he too becomes a great heavyweight. I guess LaStarza, Vingo, Mogard, Lowry. Applegate etc would all be good heavies today based on there performances against the Rock.

The Layne fight is a known robbery . . .Valdez and Johnson were in his prime? I suggest you investigate the career of Charles a little more.

And to put things in perspective, Charles had 113 fights. Holyfield has had 48.

cultus · Post by **cultus** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:22

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

so what are u implying??? that marciano didnt have a lethal right hand?

i bet u never even seen the knockout.

Lewis vs Rahman KO's .. both of them were far more supperior than any of Rockys punches ever. .. anyways iv seen it... it didn't even trop charles cold. It's silly to say that about one not very skillsfull rocky's punch that doesn't even drop they guy cold in the light of over 100 years of boxing history and countless punches thrown.

you know your history well and have seen many old fights that I have not.. so it's always interesting to hear what you have to say but sometimes you go too far with the Rocky. iv just watched some of his fights and try to find somethin in him that you say exists but can't find it. If I put Evander in that fight With rocky vs charles.. the first one... I just don't see charles all that fast or skillfull.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:35

Dempseyfire

The Valdes and Johnson losses were less than a year before Marciano v Charles I, isn't that prime enough ?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:49

Mogard, Lowry. Applegate

marciano shut these guys out, lowry in the 2nd fight. and besides, these fights were when rocky was inexpereinced and green

- cultus, too see the best ezzard at heavyweight waatch the charles vs louis and walcott fights. charles was 32 and slightly past his prime for the first marciano fight and watch the early rounds where charles display fine inside fighting and shows very fast speed and combinations. if u watch the fight from the 6th round onward, charles becomes more flat footed because he got hit with a punch to the adams apple which slowed him down and marciaano wore him down. it was a gruelling fight, and marciano overtrained and he said himself "this was my worst fight". marciano knocked a heavier charles out in the rematch.

charles displays amazing speed against louis and walcott and very good boxing skills.

charles WAS NOT in his prime vs valdez, johnsson. the 1950 charles would have eaten them both alive and even the charles of the first marciano fight beats them.

. iv just watched some of his fights and try to find somethin in him that you say exists but can't find it.

well what are u looking for??

watch marcino-layne, marciano-walcott I, marciano-lastarza II, marciano-louis, marciano-moore

Lewis vs Rahman KO's .. both of them were far more supperior than any of Rockys punches ever.

watch marciano-layne knockout, u see the delayed reaction followed by falling to the ground out cold, thats REAL POWER. and layne had a very good chin. marciano knockout over walcott was far greater, any historian or boxing writers would agree. rahman was a 2nd rate contender and was not knocked out unconsious like walcott was.

and sadly, they dont have a lot of marcianos earlier fights like vingo-marciano on tape which was a helluv slugfest but marciano ended vingos career when he knocked 6'4 vingo uncoinious into a coma with one left hook.

When Marciano was destroying all challengers with his blockbuster assault, the U.S. Testing Co. was asked to measure the power of Rocky's wallop. Its findings:

"Marciano's knockout blow packs more explosive energy than an armour-piercing bullet and represents as much energy as would be required to spot lift over 1000 pounds one foot off the ground." Boxing Illustrated December 1963

that means marciano PSI was over 1000 PSI. out of the BIG MODERN HEAVYWEIGHTS that were tested, only wlad compared to marciano with a 1100 PSI. that means 185lb marciano hits just as hard as one of the hardest hitters today 6'6 250lb. NOW WHAT MAKES MARCIANO MORE DEVASTATING IS MARCIANO THROWS FAR MORE PUNCHES THAN WLAD AND HAS MORE SNAP ON HIS PUNCH.

How does a 187 pound man hit harder than a 200+ pound man when both are trained fighters? There's an axiom in boxing that says "You can’t teach power. Either a fighter is born with it or not." Hundreds and hundreds of fighters have proven it to be true. One heavyweight is a formidable knockout artist while another rarely hurts an opponent and must win by points, even though they might be identical in height, weight, and the size of their muscles.

Where the power came from might be best illustrated in a letter I received from a doctor who works with internal medical problems and trauma. He told me this: "Now what determines the power of a punch? I mean the formula… The effect of a punch is calculated by the energy applied at the sight of the hit. So the kinetic energy of Marciano's punch, that is the degree of damage the punch would generate, is equal to 1/2 mass x velocity x velocity (1/2mv2). Rocky's was equal to the mass of the arm plus the weight he shoved forward with body weight. Next, he hit in close. As your arm moves forward the time from beginning to end increases as you increase the distance of the thrown punch. Since velocity = feet per sec, that means the longer the range the less velocity. Now the energy generated is, remember, mass times vel x vel. Well if your punches are so much shorter, traveling only a few inches, your velocity is incredible! And the transmitted energy at impact is enormous! That calculation of energy is the destructive force (damage) to the body. Basically he broke his opponents up inside.

if u want to know more about marciano cultus, heres an article

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=4488&more=1

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Nov 2005, 20:57

1950 charles had far more boxing skill and speed than evander, he would cut evanders face to shreds.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:12

Seamus wrote:Dempseyfire

The Valdes and Johnson losses were less than a year before Marciano v Charles I, isn't that prime enough ?

I disgaree with BB and assert that Charles was most definetly a few years past his prime by the time of the first Marciano fight. Charles's prime was at 175 but he was very dangerous at HW until he lost the title and then he started to slip.

I also disagree that Charles had "far more" speed then Evander. This wouldn't be a blowout.

But Charles wins the decision.