Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Jan 2006, 00:04

who do you think wins?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 06 Jan 2006, 00:15

This is a very interesting fight and I think tough to call.I like Charles on points.However he has got to use his boxing ability and not get drawn in to a lot of exchanges Evander was real good on the inside.Although, Charles knew alot of tricks. Good post man.

ferroz · Post by **ferroz** » 06 Jan 2006, 01:51

Holyfield UD

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Jan 2006, 07:38

Charles wins by out boxing Holyfield to a 15 round decision. Holy would battle all the way and was a great champion but he needed a few shots to get to someone and beat them and I just can't see a peak Charles getting tagged by 3 or 4 on a run.

barry · Post by **barry** » 06 Jan 2006, 07:50

I agree with Ezzard...Charles at his best would outpoint Holyfield at his best in a pretty good bout.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 06 Jan 2006, 10:09

To be fair, I think it is best to match the heavyweight Charles versus the cruiserweight Holyfield. Now that they are pratically the same in weight, it really would be a pitch battle. As two of my favorite heavies, I hate to call this one. Holyfield was very consistent at cruiserweight and didn't start having real off days until his heavyweight days. Holyfield was very fast at cruiser and very powerful and we all know how well he took a punch at cruiser and heavy. Holyfield by competitive decision in a great, great fight. In rounds, something like 9-6.

theone · Post by **theone** » 07 Jan 2006, 00:21

Although I believe Holyfield ranks higher than Charles in head to head rankings and ranking in terms of accomplishment, for heavywieghts that is,I believe Charles may win a match between the two. Charles style would trouble Holyfield, and as long as he doesnt stand and trade, he should win a harrowing but clear cut decision.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 07 Jan 2006, 13:24

i agree..as long as ezzard can move around the ring and use his speed..i think he could outpoint and frustrate holyfield, never lettin him do what holyfield wants. stand there and trade punches. if that happens then holyfield takes this fight by KO..i think that ezzard is to smart and to fast to just let that happen though.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 07 Jan 2006, 18:44

Have to go with the Holyfield in this one. Many people may be remembering his last several fights when he has been way over the hill. (Charles also lost several late in his career). If you go back to his early years as a heavyweight, (when he stopped Tillis,Thomas, Dokes, Stewart, Douglas etc) he was very impressive.

Charles wouldn't be able to hurt Holyfield, while Holyfield though not a huge puncher proved he could hurt guys like Tyson and Bowe with an accumilation of punches.
Occasionally Holyfield would fight a lackluster fight (1st Moorer fight and holmes fight) but in the rest of his fights in his prime he was very aggressive and was also a very accurrate puncher.
Charles was a slick boxer, but Holyfield should be able to get to him enough to win a decision or stop him in the later rounds. Would have been a good fight to watch.

theone · Post by **theone** » 07 Jan 2006, 19:56

Have to go with the Holyfield in this one. Many people may be remembering his last several fights when he has been way over the hill. (Charles also lost several late in his career). If you go back to his early years as a heavyweight, (when he stopped Tillis,Thomas, Dokes, Stewart, Douglas etc) he was very impressive.

Charles wouldn't be able to hurt Holyfield, while Holyfield though not a huge puncher proved he could hurt guys like Tyson and Bowe with an accumilation of punches.
Occasionally Holyfield would fight a lackluster fight (1st Moorer fight and holmes fight) but in the rest of his fights in his prime he was very aggressive and was also a very accurrate puncher.
Charles was a slick boxer, but Holyfield should be able to get to him enough to win a decision or stop him in the later rounds.

Good points Ambling. Athough I picked Charles to win a decision based on styles it wouldnt take much to sway me to pick Holyfield. Thats how close this match up is.

Would have been a good fight to watch.

Yeah, and it also has the potential to be an absolute borefest. Holyfield didnt like to lead and Charles would try his hardest to stay away from exchanges.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 08 Jan 2006, 02:54

Charles went the distance fightin on the inside with Marciano, in the first ight. So he could win by feeding Evander jabs from afar or uppcuts from..uh..anear

Just a superior boxer

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 08 Jan 2006, 17:21

If you're matching these two at their best then it would be the Charles of about 46/47 against the Holifield of about '88-90.... and I think it would be a very tough fight... I think Holifields high workrate would give Charles trouble while Charles jab and skill would trouble Holifield... this would probably be a good series with Charles edging it 2-1 or 3-2...

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 08 Jan 2006, 22:44

Well, as I've said, Holyfield is underrated, not overrated, as some, uhm, jokers, try to claim. No need to argue that.

Holyfield KO's Charles damn near every time. First, Holyfield was a "combo puncher/with power" second to nobody except for Louis maybe (see Holyfield-Dokes....for example, for starters). Charles would have two options if Holyfield combo'd him....take a knee, or get blasted out. Second, Holyfield was grade "A" as a body puncher... Holyfield just might get a bodyshot KO (see Holyfield-Ruiz III..give Ruiz credit, which you all never did, because Charles couldn't take that...H-E-L-L N-O).

Typical, and just stupid, of the classic boxing forums to suggest Charles would beat Holyfield, every time, like you always blindly pick oldtimers. Yeah, I know if EH was fighting anybody other than Tyson he could half-ass it sometimes...or maybe act like he cared...but a motivated Holyfield KO's Charles at heavyweight for sure, probably at 190 too, where he started.

Too much chin, POWER, heart, speed, talent, for Charles to take.

What about Tyson vs Charles. How do you all see that one?

barry · Post by **barry** » 09 Jan 2006, 03:29

Sorry Professor X, but Decagon is not someone that hardly ever picks the old-timers, but you need to lighten up with the insults...I'll dlete any such nonsense that I see...if you want to debate do so without calling people names...alright!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 09 Jan 2006, 06:30

Professor X wrote:Well, as I've said, Holyfield is underrated, not overrated, as some, uhm, jokers, try to claim. No need to argue that.

Holyfield KO's Charles damn near every time. First, Holyfield was a "combo puncher/with power" second to nobody except for Louis maybe (see Holyfield-Dokes....for example, for starters). Charles would have two options if Holyfield combo'd him....take a knee, or get blasted out. Second, Holyfield was grade "A" as a body puncher... Holyfield just might get a bodyshot KO (see Holyfield-Ruiz III..give Ruiz credit, which you all never did, because Charles couldn't take that...H-E-L-L N-O).

Typical, and just stupid, of the classic boxing forums to suggest Charles would beat Holyfield, every time, like you always blindly pick oldtimers. Yeah, I know if EH was fighting anybody other than Tyson he could half-ass it sometimes...or maybe act like he cared...but a motivated Holyfield KO's Charles at heavyweight for sure, probably at 190 too, where he started.

Too much chin, POWER, heart, speed, talent, for Charles to take.

What about Tyson vs Charles. How do you all see that one?

Try looking at Charles record sunshine... to just blindly dismiss Charles chances against Evander shows that you really know very little about him... while Holifield maybe underrated by some Charles is far more underrated... the Charles of the late 40s had more speed and power than Holifield, ........and by the way what are you a proffessor of?.... mice??? 8)

cultus · Post by **cultus** » 09 Jan 2006, 07:22

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who do you think wins?

Rocky Marciano wins

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 09 Jan 2006, 10:07

Charles' speed would be the key. He was better all around fighter than Evander. Charles was a complete fighter. He could do it all. Charles by decision.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 09 Jan 2006, 10:11

I totally agree that Holyfield is underrated and was a great fighter in any era. And I also think this is a close fight but Charles wins because Holy doesn't have that single KO power that is needed to get to Ezzard at HW.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 Jan 2006, 20:10

Many people don't seem to be thinking of many of Charles' fights as a heavyweight. As a heavyweight, he lost to Rex Layne, Nino Valdes, and Harold Johnson. These were all before he ever fought Marciano; it was before his downhill slide at the end of his career.

He was defintely beatable at heavyweight, and Holyfield should be able to do it. Some people have referred to Holyfield not being able to cope with Charles' speed. Is that foot speed or hand speed. Charles wouldn't be able to use foot speed to dance around Holyfield for an extended period of time.
Charles' hand speed wouldn't be that big an asset. Holyfield had pretty close to as good as handspeed as Charles. Holyfield was also able to deal with Tyson's handspeed which was certainly faster than Charles.

This wouldn't be a easy fight, but Holyfield would win this.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 10 Jan 2006, 20:28

[quote="Ezzard"]I totally agree that Holyfield is underrated and was a great fighter in any era. And I also think this is a close fight but Charles wins because Holy doesn't have that single KO power that is needed to get to Ezzard at HW.[/quote]

You're final statement is VERY wrong. Ask Buster Douglas. No, don't ask him...you saw it. Or maybe ask Tyson about the right hand that finished his career...you saw that too, didn't you? Surely, you saw the left hook that crushed Dokes chest and chin in...ruined him. Did you catch that uppercut that splattered Moorer across the ring? I could go on.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 10 Jan 2006, 20:34

[quote="silkov"][quote="Professor X"]Well, as I've said, Holyfield is underrated, not overrated, as some, uhm, jokers, try to claim. No need to argue that.

Holyfield KO's Charles damn near every time. First, Holyfield was a "combo puncher/with power" second to nobody except for Louis maybe (see Holyfield-Dokes....for example, for starters). Charles would have two options if Holyfield combo'd him....take a knee, or get blasted out. Second, Holyfield was grade "A" as a body puncher... Holyfield just might get a bodyshot KO (see Holyfield-Ruiz III..give Ruiz credit, which you all never did, because Charles couldn't take that...H-E-L-L N-O).

Typical, and just stupid, of the classic boxing forums to suggest Charles would beat Holyfield, every time, like you always blindly pick oldtimers. Yeah, I know if EH was fighting anybody other than Tyson he could half-ass it sometimes...or maybe act like he cared...but a motivated Holyfield KO's Charles at heavyweight for sure, probably at 190 too, where he started.

Too much chin, POWER, heart, speed, talent, for Charles to take.

What about Tyson vs Charles. How do you all see that one?[/quote]

Try looking at Charles record sunshine... to just blindly dismiss Charles chances against Evander shows that you really know very little about him... while Holifield maybe underrated by some Charles is far more underrated... the Charles of the late 40s had more speed and power than Holifield, ........and by the way what are you a proffessor of?.... mice??? 8)[/quote]

Okay, barry. I'm gonna' be cool like Joe on this one.

It's Holyfield, not Holifield, silkof.

theone · Post by **theone** » 10 Jan 2006, 21:33

the Charles of the late 40s had more speed and power than Holifield, ...

Speed, sure. But power? No way does Charles have anywhere near the power of Holyfield.

theone · Post by **theone** » 10 Jan 2006, 21:35

Charles had a stlye that could have worked against Holyfield. Charles's style would be useless against Tyson. Tyson would ko him easy in the first round.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 11 Jan 2006, 01:22

theone wrote:Charles had a stlye that could have worked against Holyfield. Charles's style would be useless against Tyson. Tyson would ko him easy in the first round.

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think Charles gets KO'd early by Tyson. He had enough guile and he did not fold from intimidation like other Tyson opponents (notably Michael Spinks). This is a hard fight for Charles though.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Jan 2006, 05:43

Professor X wrote:
Ezzard wrote:I totally agree that Holyfield is underrated and was a great fighter in any era. And I also think this is a close fight but Charles wins because Holy doesn't have that single KO power that is needed to get to Ezzard at HW.
You're final statement is VERY wrong. Ask Buster Douglas. No, don't ask him...you saw it. Or maybe ask Tyson about the right hand that finished his career...you saw that too, didn't you? Surely, you saw the left hook that crushed Dokes chest and chin in...ruined him. Did you catch that uppercut that splattered Moorer across the ring? I could go on.

Holyfield outboxed, outfought and outpunched these guys (maybe with the exception fo Dokes who he did seem to just take out) before landing the final KO. I don't see him having enough opportunities to break Charles down.

Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

re

re

Re: Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield