ezzard charles underated heavyweight.

[L.A. kidd]

was ezzard Charles underated? heres a guy who gave Marciano a good 15rd fight,
and in their second meeting cut his nose off. he beat archie moore 3 times. some
say after he killed a man in the ring, he was never the same. but, I feel he was
vastly underated do you ?

[Tomasino]

was ezzard Charles underated? heres a guy who gave Marciano a good 15rd fight,
and in their second meeting cut his nose off. he beat archie moore 3 times. some
say after he killed a man in the ring, he was never the same. but, I feel he was
vastly underated do you ?

Yes, by the boxing press at least. I notice on here however a lot rate him as best at Lt Heaveyweight and top 5 pound for pound. An incredible fighter who had it all.

[Caractacus]

Check out the props that The Rock gives to Ezzard Charles in this rare documentery.
at about 7:10 of this clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUM27Zh958

[L.A. kidd]

great clip, thank you for that. rocky says Charles is underated and rocky fought
him twice. now we should keep in mind , that by todays standards the second fight

would have been stopped by the condition of rocks nose, Charles was truly underated.

thank you for a great clip,

[Caractacus]

BTW check out about 3:05 of the clip.
1`3 years later in 1967 you can still see the scar from the torn nose from the second fight with Charles,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUM27Zh958[/quote]

[Ezzard]

Definitely. He is a top 20 HW and really only kept out of the top 10 by the sheer size of the monsters who came after him. Even so Charles would have a great chance of upsetting a Foreman or a Liston.

[Ambling Alp II]

As a heavyweight, I don't think he is underrated now. He was a bit under-appreciated at the time he was fighting.

He is usually rated rated around 15-20. I have seen him in the Top 10. He usually seems to get the benefit of the doubt over several other heavyweights who were roughly even with him; Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, McVey, Jeannette, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Walcott, Patterson, Norton, etc.

[The Great John L]

Definitely. He is a top 20 HW and really only kept out of the top 10 by the sheer size of the monsters who came after him. Even so Charles would have a great chance of upsetting a Foreman or a Liston.

Yes Ez would have been a stylistic nightmare for Foreman and Liston.

[Broomhall]

Rose tinted glasses. Charles was clearly good, but was only 30 when Walcott chinned him and 31 when he lost again. He also lost to rex layne, nino valdes and harold johnson, and Marciano beat him twice when Charles was still only 33. Also lost to Bivins and Marshall in his peak years.

So no real chance of upsetting Foreman or Liston. Patterson was a similar sized, techically gifted heavy weight but Liston bashed him up.

[The Great John L]

Rose tinted glasses. Charles was clearly good, but was only 30 when Walcott chinned him and 31 when he lost again. He also lost to rex layne, nino valdes and harold johnson, and Marciano beat him twice when Charles was still only 33. Also lost to Bivins and Marshall in his peak years.

So no real chance of upsetting Foreman or Liston. Patterson was a similar sized, techically gifted heavy weight but Liston bashed him up.

And you do know that George struggled with a past his prime LH contender twice? I feel pretty confident that Ez was a much better fighter than Peralta.

Maybe you've never seen them fight, but Floyd's style was absolutely nothing like Charles. And George never fought Patterson.

[HomicideHenry]

Rose tinted glasses. Charles was clearly good, but was only 30 when Walcott chinned him and 31 when he lost again. He also lost to rex layne, nino valdes and harold johnson, and Marciano beat him twice when Charles was still only 33. Also lost to Bivins and Marshall in his peak years.

So no real chance of upsetting Foreman or Liston. Patterson was a similar sized, techically gifted heavy weight but Liston bashed him up.

You're not factoring in, also, that Charles by the time he was in his 30's already fought 66 times by the time he fought Walcott the first time. I will argue the point, that Charles didn't "fall apart" until AFTER Marciano, because that is when the losses became more frequent--- Marciano had that effect on fighters. Prior to that Charles was more talented as a heavyweight, in my view, than Walcott the great ring wizard. His knockout loss to Walcott, in my view (also) is in the same vein as the Pacquiao/Marquez fights. You fight someone enough times, odd results will occur. The kayo loss, is the only fight in the series where Walcott looked impressive--- the other times he looked hapless or mediocre against Charles. What people tend to forget is that in their final fight, it was highly controversial and many believe Charles beat him.

Charles, as a heavyweight, was far better than people realize. Mind you, he beat Elmer Ray. The same Elmer Ray many were convinced Joe Louis was ducking. And he did it when he was only 165-170 pounds. And he duplicated the feat. Style wise, Charles was a nightmare for every sort of fighter that came down the pipe.

[Broomhall]

Rose tinted glasses. Charles was clearly good, but was only 30 when Walcott chinned him and 31 when he lost again. He also lost to rex layne, nino valdes and harold johnson, and Marciano beat him twice when Charles was still only 33. Also lost to Bivins and Marshall in his peak years.

So no real chance of upsetting Foreman or Liston. Patterson was a similar sized, techically gifted heavy weight but Liston bashed him up.

And you do know that George struggled with a past his prime LH contender twice? I feel pretty confident that Ez was a much better fighter than Peralta.

Maybe you've never seen them fight, but Floyd's style was absolutely nothing like Charles. And George never fought Patterson.

Seen them both. Charles was a very good boxer but nothing in his record suggests he could cope with the size or power of Foreman or Liston. Lloyd Marshall weighed 165 lbs and he knocked Charles down umpteen times. I am sure both liston and foreman carried more power than marshall-or any other heavyweight who knocked charles out.

[Broomhall]

Rose tinted glasses. Charles was clearly good, but was only 30 when Walcott chinned him and 31 when he lost again. He also lost to rex layne, nino valdes and harold johnson, and Marciano beat him twice when Charles was still only 33. Also lost to Bivins and Marshall in his peak years.

So no real chance of upsetting Foreman or Liston. Patterson was a similar sized, techically gifted heavy weight but Liston bashed him up.

You're not factoring in, also, that Charles by the time he was in his 30's already fought 66 times by the time he fought Walcott the first time. I will argue the point, that Charles didn't "fall apart" until AFTER Marciano, because that is when the losses became more frequent--- Marciano had that effect on fighters. Prior to that Charles was more talented as a heavyweight, in my view, than Walcott the great ring wizard. His knockout loss to Walcott, in my view (also) is in the same vein as the Pacquiao/Marquez fights. You fight someone enough times, odd results will occur. The kayo loss, is the only fight in the series where Walcott looked impressive--- the other times he looked hapless or mediocre against Charles. What people tend to forget is that in their final fight, it was highly controversial and many believe Charles beat him.

Charles, as a heavyweight, was far better than people realize. Mind you, he beat Elmer Ray. The same Elmer Ray many were convinced Joe Louis was ducking. And he did it when he was only 165-170 pounds. And he duplicated the feat. Style wise, Charles was a nightmare for every sort of fighter that came down the pipe.

So I guess stylewise he was a nightmare for all the guys that beat him, or KO'd him.

[HomicideHenry]

Rose tinted glasses. Charles was clearly good, but was only 30 when Walcott chinned him and 31 when he lost again. He also lost to rex layne, nino valdes and harold johnson, and Marciano beat him twice when Charles was still only 33. Also lost to Bivins and Marshall in his peak years.

So no real chance of upsetting Foreman or Liston. Patterson was a similar sized, techically gifted heavy weight but Liston bashed him up.

You're not factoring in, also, that Charles by the time he was in his 30's already fought 66 times by the time he fought Walcott the first time. I will argue the point, that Charles didn't "fall apart" until AFTER Marciano, because that is when the losses became more frequent--- Marciano had that effect on fighters. Prior to that Charles was more talented as a heavyweight, in my view, than Walcott the great ring wizard. His knockout loss to Walcott, in my view (also) is in the same vein as the Pacquiao/Marquez fights. You fight someone enough times, odd results will occur. The kayo loss, is the only fight in the series where Walcott looked impressive--- the other times he looked hapless or mediocre against Charles. What people tend to forget is that in their final fight, it was highly controversial and many believe Charles beat him.

Charles, as a heavyweight, was far better than people realize. Mind you, he beat Elmer Ray. The same Elmer Ray many were convinced Joe Louis was ducking. And he did it when he was only 165-170 pounds. And he duplicated the feat. Style wise, Charles was a nightmare for every sort of fighter that came down the pipe.

So I guess stylewise he was a nightmare for all the guys that beat him, or KO'd him.

To make a blanket statement that "This man would lose to this guy because he lost to that guy," is one of the oldest and most unfounded arguments in boxing. Charles' losses as a professional either came early in his career, or when he was an old man. In his prime, he defeated the likes of Ray, Walcott, Louis, Satterfield, Layne, Bivins, Maxim, Lesnevich, Beshore, Moore, Burley, Marshall, etc.

When he ever lost in his prime years, he avenged these losses often multiple times. So I don't necessarily understand your logic or argument against Charles. Sure he lost to Marciano. So did 40 some odd others. Sure he got caught cold by Walcott, but its no disgrace because he defeated Walcott twice and was robbed blind in the last contest. Sure he never won the LHW title, but there's alot of guys who never got title shots for one reason or another. Sometimes people are so damn good it doesnt matter what titles they won, or none at all. Seldom ever do you ever see a fighter so consistent as Charles was, and very few can claim to be better at it than he was.

You bring in size. Well, that argument can be said of alot of people. But does it really mean anything? It cant be proven either way, that it would of been that much of a difference. If Louis at 190 pounds, and Dempsey at 187 pounds could defeat men who were 6'6" and 240+ pounds, then I can see Charles who was just as good, doing the same to our modern heavyweights. One needs only look at someone like David Haye, James Toney, etc. in recent years and see how they made some heavyweights look like amateurs in comparison, to believe.

You say, "Well he was never hit by Foreman," and that's true. But Foreman never fought a man like Charles. There's no "given" here that Foreman would of dominated Charles, or that Charles would of given Foreman problems. But the reasonable answer would be Charles, tough, conditioned and skilled as he was would of given Foreman some issues, and Foreman would be imposing his size and power--- hoping to create openings and opprotunities. Just how often he would of got those chances is up for debate. The closest thing to Foreman that Charles ever fought was Elmer Ray--- and one can argue that Charles was robbed in their first match, and then in the return Charles managed to kayo Ray to solidify the fact that he was the superior fighter.

So style wise... yes... Charles could (in my view) defeat a powerful, dangerous, heavyweight, because he did it twice against Elmer Ray, the man many felt Louis was scared to death to fight. And in Charles' later years, he survived knock downs to stop another murderous puncher in Bob Satterfield. And his fights with Marciano, show that Charles could stand up to power, and that he was incredibly tough.

That doesnt mean it would be easy. Nothing ever does come easy in boxing. But to make a blanket statement that this man would lose to this man, because he lost to that man--- is not a strong enough argument. I'm sorry.

[The Great John L]

Seen them both. Charles was a very good boxer but nothing in his record suggests he could cope with the size or power of Foreman or Liston. Lloyd Marshall weighed 165 lbs and he knocked Charles down umpteen times. I am sure both liston and foreman carried more power than marshall-or any other heavyweight who knocked charles out.

And as I said, I think just about anyone who knows anything about boxing considers Charles vastly superior to the blown up late career LH Peralta that gave Foreman hell on two ocassions. I consider Liston more skilled than George, but he was also quite slow a foot so a prime Charles frustrating him to a loss hardly seems a stretch.

You probably aren't aware that the 21 year old Charles had a severe injury when he lost to Marshall. A 24yo (or older?) Liston had his jaw broken and lost to a journeyman LH as well. I don't really find that fight particularly relevant, but since you seemed so fixated on a young injured Charles losing to an ATG early in his career then I guess it should at least get mentioned.

[The Great John L]

You say, "Well he was never hit by Foreman,"...

The issue is would George have been able to land a solid enough shot on Charles before George slowed down after the midddle rounds?

[HomicideHenry]

You say, "Well he was never hit by Foreman,"...

The issue is would George have been able to land a solid enough shot on Charles before George slowed down after the midddle rounds?

I think Charles, for all his skill and conditioning and ability, could have kept himself on his own two feet into the later rounds... where Foreman would of got slower, and more sloppy... maybe then Charles would of gotten his own second wind, and won the last remaining rounds... Of course, we will never know. It's all speculative.

[The Great John L]

You say, "Well he was never hit by Foreman,"...

The issue is would George have been able to land a solid enough shot on Charles before George slowed down after the midddle rounds?

I think Charles, for all his skill and conditioning and ability, could have kept himself on his own two feet into the later rounds... where Foreman would of got slower, and more sloppy... maybe then Charles would of gotten his own second wind, and won the last remaining rounds... Of course, we will never know. It's all speculative.

Yep.

[Broomhall]

Seen them both. Charles was a very good boxer but nothing in his record suggests he could cope with the size or power of Foreman or Liston. Lloyd Marshall weighed 165 lbs and he knocked Charles down umpteen times. I am sure both liston and foreman carried more power than marshall-or any other heavyweight who knocked charles out.

And as I said, I think just about anyone who knows anything about boxing considers Charles vastly superior to the blown up late career LH Peralta that gave Foreman hell on two ocassions. I consider Liston more skilled than George, but he was also quite slow a foot so a prime Charles frustrating him to a loss hardly seems a stretch.

You probably aren't aware that the 21 year old Charles had a severe injury when he lost to Marshall. A 24yo (or older?) Liston had his jaw broken and lost to a journeyman LH as well. I don't really find that fight particularly relevant, but since you seemed so fixated on a young injured Charles losing to an ATG early in his career then I guess it should at least get mentioned.

Not fixated on anything, Charles could be beat, and was beaten several times both in his prime and beyond. He could be knocked out and knocked over by bigger men and men his own size.

I think once you get an idea in your mind you then look for evidence to support that view and then like many guys who idolise old timers you get sarcastic and insulting if someone dares question your wisdom. No worries though.

Charles was a not a dominant heavyweight in the era when he was in his prime, getting chinned by the 37 year old Walcott, so I dont see him as being dominant in anyone elses era.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think some of these fighters are irrelevant. For example, the Peralta fights were very early in Foreman's career. He had not even been a pro for 8 months for the first one. In the rematch, he had been a pro for less than 2 years. If anything, it should show that Foreman's stamina wasn't that bad.

Likewise Charles' loss as light heavy really should not be considered.

You would have to give Charles a shot. However, Foreman is going to win the majority of the time.

[Tuan_Jim]

The notion that Champion A was not dominant in his era and therefore shall not dominate in any other era is as facile and myopic as Champion B was dominant in his era and therefore could dominate in any other era. How blind to boxing history do you have to be to fail to recognise one crop that cannot be dominated and one that is wide open should the right sort of man come through? Any such statement immediately brings into question the ringside IQ of the poster.

The innumerable chances of fistic fate hurled Ezzard Charles deep into a frightening pack and yet he performed beautiful wizardry in the ring, on par with any light-heavy and heavy we have footage of. A criminally underrated heavyweight!

[Broomhall]

The notion that Champion A was not dominant in his era and therefore shall not dominate in any other era is as facile and myopic as Champion B was dominant in his era and therefore could dominate in any other era. How blind to boxing history do you have to be to fail to recognise one crop that cannot be dominated and one that is wide open should the right sort of man come through? Any such statement immediately brings into question the ringside IQ of the poster.

The innumerable chances of fistic fate hurled Ezzard Charles deep into a frightening pack and yet he performed beautiful wizardry in the ring, on par with any light-heavy and heavy we have footage of. A criminally underrated heavyweight!

Not really because the era in which Charles reigned as champ was not particularly good post louis. Losses to Marciano, Walcott do not make him great, dominant or underrated. He made 4 successful defences. He was a good heavyweight but If he was on par with any heavyweight then he wouldnt have lost the fights he did.

Generally you get beat because people are better than you.

[Tuan_Jim]

It's pointless arguing the quality of Ezzard Charles with a poster who spends most his time on the British forum, discussing with great interest domestic journeymen type boxers and their obscure belts, only to pass through here and sneer at an all-time great.

Again, I can only bring it back to ringside IQ. Boxing fans by and large are simple souls. To appreciate a fight they need the bells & whistles of modern television production. It's much easier to quickly glimpse a record, pull up some losses and dismiss one of these dusty old black & white fighters rather than try to learn something. That would be a distraction from all those enthralling bills from Hull, Preston, and Skegness.

[Broomhall]

It's pointless arguing the quality of Ezzard Charles with a poster who spends most his time on the British forum, discussing with great interest domestic journeymen type boxers and their obscure belts, only to pass through here and sneer at an all-time great.

Again, I can only bring it back to ringside IQ. Boxing fans by and large are simple souls. To appreciate a fight they need the bells & whistles of modern television production. It's much easier to quickly glimpse a record, pull up some losses and dismiss one of these dusty old black & white fighters rather than try to learn something. That would be a distraction from all those enthralling bills from Hull, Preston, and Skegness.

Meeeoooow

I dont think I am "sneering" at anyone. I just dont feel Charles is underrated. I have been a fan of the game since I got involved in boxing aged 12, including 20 years as an active boxer to international amateur standard, around 42 years in all as fan, competitor, coach and spectator. I do take great interest in small hall boxing as my view is that is the lifeblood of the sport, and I am sure even the great Ezzard Charles began his career boxing on such bills around the US. But IF YOU CHOOSE TO INSULT THE MEN WHO FIGHT IN THOSE BILLS so be it.

I dont however feel the need to insult you because you disagree with me. You are clearly nobodys fool, but maybe somebody will adopt you someday.

I have watched much footage of Charles over the years, and yes he is a good top quality fighter-but is he underrated? By who? I dont think so. 4 defences and KO losses to both Marciano and Walcott during his peak would say he found his level as a good, but not great heavyweight champion.

If you keep the rattle in the pram it wont make so much noise when you throw it. ;;-)

[Ambling Alp II]

Here a is a question for people that think Charles is an underrated heavyweight: Where should he be rated?
Top 20? Top 15? Top 10? Top 5? Where?