Ezzard Charles vs Evander Holyfield

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 11 Jan 2006, 14:04

Professor X wrote:
silkov wrote:
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)
Okay, barry. I'm gonna' be cool like Joe on this one.

It's Holyfield, not Holifield, silkof.

If you're going to correct my spelling, at least have the decency to spell my name correctly!.... 8)

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 11 Jan 2006, 20:19

[quote="Decagon"]It wasn't one punch that finished off Tyson.[/quote]

Well you know damn good and well that that overhand right would have KO'ed Charles. It's almost a miracle it didn't KO Tyson.

Other than Holyfield-Qawi I, nobody lasted the distance with EH at 190. Not even close... You saw Holyfield break Qawi in the rematch? Knocked him thru the ropes...That was at 190.

This is almost laughable. But it's not just that Holyfield was bigger than Charles, it's that he was more talented, too.

I think Holyfield could possibly KO Charles with a left-hook to the chest (see vs Ruiz II).

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Jan 2006, 05:13

Professor X wrote:
This is almost laughable. But it's not just that Holyfield was bigger than Charles, it's that he was more talented, too.

I think Holyfield could possibly KO Charles with a left-hook to the chest (see vs Ruiz II).

This quote is what's laughable. It's debatable that anyone in the spot was more talented than Charles. There's maybe a a small handful who are considered by the majority to have had more talent (maybe?). One of these is not Holyfield. I rate Holy very very highly but Charles was one of the most skilled fighters to have ever laced up a glove.

Then you think Holy could KO Charles with a left hook to the chest becasue he did it to Ruiz?

The comparison is not only insulting to Charles and to the intelligence of many of the people who post here, but it also makes you look like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Jan 2006, 07:07

Decagon wrote:190 has always sucked. So what if Evander Holyfield knocked out a bunch of fat, old light heavyweights?

I doubt that you have even watched Evanders fights at 190... many of his opponents were very good... Dwight Quawi was far from being just a 'fat old light-heavyweight'....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Jan 2006, 07:10

Ezzard wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is almost laughable. But it's not just that Holyfield was bigger than Charles, it's that he was more talented, too.

I think Holyfield could possibly KO Charles with a left-hook to the chest (see vs Ruiz II).
This quote is what's laughable. It's debatable that anyone in the spot was more talented than Charles. There's maybe a a small handful who are considered by the majority to have had more talent (maybe?). One of these is not Holyfield. I rate Holy very very highly but Charles was one of the most skilled fighters to have ever laced up a glove.

Then you think Holy could KO Charles with a left hook to the chest becasue he did it to Ruiz? The comparison is not only insulting to Charles and to the intelligence of many of the people who post here, but it also makes you look like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about.

He doesn't know what he's talking about... to compare Charles with Ruiz is plain stupid. Unfortunately the intelligence of some on this board is not what it should be... 8)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Jan 2006, 12:54

This is almost laughable. But it's not just that Holyfield was bigger than Charles, it's that he was more talented, too

more talented?

charles is probably the best pure boxer in history of heavyweight division, hes one of the most skilled boxers of all time.

in 1949 charles and walcott both at there peaks fought for the vacant title and charles thoroughly outboxed a master boxer in walcott. though the fight was probably the most boring out of there 4 fights, it was the most tactical and charles fought a incredible smart fight. i have 2 rounds of the 1st fight, its a rare fight to get.

pre baroudi when charles had the killer instinct, charles was an absolute terror for any heavyweight, in 1948 he knocked out elmer ray who i consider a top 30 heavyweight of all time. ray is extremeley underated today.

big joe baski was never stopped in his entire career until he fought charles who cut his face to shreds leaving baski looking like a bloody mess. poor joe was so cut up he couldnt see and asked the ref to stop the fght.

charles threw incredible sharp accurate punches from all different angles. that left hook he knocked down walcott with in there 2nd fight was delivered from the weirdest angle. charles was like leaning the other way with no leverage yet he was still able to deliver this sharp accurate fast hookwith his full body behind it despite the unorthodox angle. walcott didnt even see it coming and that punch nearly knocked walcott out who struggled to beat the count.

charles had this 1-2 that no one could get stop. it was beaiful the way he threw it. even walcott couldnt get away from charles 1-2 in there 2nd fight. charles knocked out the very durable valentino with the best 1-2 i have ever seen. in the 11th round of there first fight, charles knocked out rex layne with a 1-2 that was lightnighting fast, it literally came out of nowhere

what was great about charles was that he was a great fighter on the inside and outside. he didnt need to keep u outside and outbox u. he was a great inside fight and could bust u up on the inside as well. see his fights against joe louis and 1st marciano fight for some great inside fighting.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Jan 2006, 16:09

Decagon wrote:
silkov wrote:He doesn't know what he's talking about... to compare Charles with Ruiz is plain stupid. Unfortunately the intelligence of some on this board is not what it should be... 8)
Where did he compare Charles with Ruiz? He simply said that the left hook to the chest (more like stomach) Holyfield landed against Ruiz would fell Charles. I don't agree with him, but he was just comparing one punch to one fighter.

So saying that Holyfield would knock Charles out with the same punch that he landed on Ruiz is not comparing the two fighters?.... Hmmm, I don't think you've being doing your homework!...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Jan 2006, 17:03

If you think Holy wins then let's hear why. That's why I come here to listen to new opinions. If you're going to offer ridiculous reasons then what's the point.

It's not inconcievable that Holy wins, so tell me how he does it. That's the interesting bit; that's wy we all love this forum.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Jan 2006, 17:59

I see it as a close fight... to say that either Holyfield or Charles would win easily seems to suggest a lack of knowledge of the boxers....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Jan 2006, 18:11

Decagon wrote:
silkov wrote:So saying that Holyfield would knock Charles out with the same punch that he landed on Ruiz is not comparing the two fighters?.... Hmmm, I don't think you've being doing your homework!...
No, it isn't. It's comparing Holyfield's punch to Charles's ability to take a punch.

Whatever, Charles had a good chin and evander was never a big one punch knockout artist anyway... of the two Charles is the better puncher....

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Jan 2006, 22:23

silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:
silkov wrote:So saying that Holyfield would knock Charles out with the same punch that he landed on Ruiz is not comparing the two fighters?.... Hmmm, I don't think you've being doing your homework!...
No, it isn't. It's comparing Holyfield's punch to Charles's ability to take a punch.
Whatever, Charles had a good chin and evander was never a big one punch knockout artist anyway... of the two Charles is the better puncher....

At 190 lbs, Holyfield was the bigger puncher.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Jan 2006, 07:18

evndrbsn wrote:
silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote: No, it isn't. It's comparing Holyfield's punch to Charles's ability to take a punch.
Whatever, Charles had a good chin and evander was never a big one punch knockout artist anyway... of the two Charles is the better puncher....
At 190 lbs, Holyfield was the bigger puncher.

No, Charles was a murderous puncher in his prime... after the tragic death of one of his opponents he held back a bit, but before that he was as known for his punching as he was his skill... Holyfield was never a one punck ko artist even at 190...

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 13 Jan 2006, 13:05

silkov wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:
silkov wrote: Whatever, Charles had a good chin and evander was never a big one punch knockout artist anyway... of the two Charles is the better puncher....
At 190 lbs, Holyfield was the bigger puncher.
No, Charles was a murderous puncher in his prime... after the tragic death of one of his opponents he held back a bit, but before that he was as known for his punching as he was his skill... Holyfield was never a one punck ko artist even at 190...

Tell that to steel-chinned Dwight Qawi.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Jan 2006, 15:10

evndrbsn wrote:
silkov wrote:
evndrbsn wrote: At 190 lbs, Holyfield was the bigger puncher.
No, Charles was a murderous puncher in his prime... after the tragic death of one of his opponents he held back a bit, but before that he was as known for his punching as he was his skill... Holyfield was never a one punck ko artist even at 190...
Tell that to steel-chinned Dwight Qawi.

Holyfield didn't ko Quawi with one punch?. In their rematch Quawi was a ringworn fighter.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 13 Jan 2006, 15:37

silkov wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:
silkov wrote: No, Charles was a murderous puncher in his prime... after the tragic death of one of his opponents he held back a bit, but before that he was as known for his punching as he was his skill... Holyfield was never a one punck ko artist even at 190...
Tell that to steel-chinned Dwight Qawi.
Holyfield didn't ko Quawi with one punch?. In their rematch Quawi was a ringworn fighter.

From what I remember it practically was a single shot that got Qawi in trouble and after two knockdowns, Qawi didn't get up. So was Qawi shopworn in the first Holyfield fight?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:23

Quawi was never the same fighter after the first Holyfield fight... age and ring wear caught up with him. Koing a faded Quawi doesn't make Holyfield a great puncher. Charles koed a peak Archie Moore.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:25

silkov wrote:Quawi was never the same fighter after the first Holyfield fight... age and ring wear caught up with him. Koing a faded Quawi doesn't make Holyfield a great puncher. Charles koed a peak Archie Moore.

Charles didn't knock out a peak Archie Moore.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:29

DoubleM wrote:
silkov wrote:Quawi was never the same fighter after the first Holyfield fight... age and ring wear caught up with him. Koing a faded Quawi doesn't make Holyfield a great puncher. Charles koed a peak Archie Moore.
Charles didn't knock out a peak Archie Moore.

Umm, yes he did. Look at his record and the years 1947-48. Just b/c Moore didn't get a title shot until he was older doesn't mean he was at his peak in his 40s . . .

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:32

dempseyfire wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
silkov wrote:Quawi was never the same fighter after the first Holyfield fight... age and ring wear caught up with him. Koing a faded Quawi doesn't make Holyfield a great puncher. Charles koed a peak Archie Moore.
Charles didn't knock out a peak Archie Moore.
Umm, yes he did. Look at his record and the years 1947-48. Just b/c Moore didn't get a title shot until he was older doesn't mean he was at his peak in his 40s . . .

No - you look at his record please. Moore was in his prime from the early to mid fifties. In the late forties he was still developing his style. "Every time I fought him, he had a different style" claimed Ezzard Charles. Moore's record is very spotty from '45-'50. Check his winning streaks and the quality of his opposition from then on.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:43

DoubleM wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:
DoubleM wrote: Charles didn't knock out a peak Archie Moore.
Umm, yes he did. Look at his record and the years 1947-48. Just b/c Moore didn't get a title shot until he was older doesn't mean he was at his peak in his 40s . . .
No - you look at his record please. Moore was in his prime from the early to mid fifties. In the late forties he was still developing his style. "Every time I fought him, he had a different style" claimed Ezzard Charles. Moore's record is very spotty from '45-'50. Check his winning streaks and the quality of his opposition from then on.

The fact that Charles was able to ko Moore with one shot still shows that he was a superior puncher to Holyfield... you only need to look at their records to see that Charles was the better puncher!.......

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:48

silkov wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
dempseyfire wrote: Umm, yes he did. Look at his record and the years 1947-48. Just b/c Moore didn't get a title shot until he was older doesn't mean he was at his peak in his 40s . . .
No - you look at his record please. Moore was in his prime from the early to mid fifties. In the late forties he was still developing his style. "Every time I fought him, he had a different style" claimed Ezzard Charles. Moore's record is very spotty from '45-'50. Check his winning streaks and the quality of his opposition from then on.
The fact that Charles was able to ko Moore with one shot still shows that he was a superior puncher to Holyfield... you only need to look at their records to see that Charles was the better puncher!.......

I wasn't arguing that...

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:56

silkov wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
dempseyfire wrote: Umm, yes he did. Look at his record and the years 1947-48. Just b/c Moore didn't get a title shot until he was older doesn't mean he was at his peak in his 40s . . .
No - you look at his record please. Moore was in his prime from the early to mid fifties. In the late forties he was still developing his style. "Every time I fought him, he had a different style" claimed Ezzard Charles. Moore's record is very spotty from '45-'50. Check his winning streaks and the quality of his opposition from then on.
The fact that Charles was able to ko Moore with one shot still shows that he was a superior puncher to Holyfield... you only need to look at their records to see that Charles was the better puncher!.......

My recollection of when Charles KO'd Moore is shady at best right now, but didn't Charles floor Moore a few times en route to KOing him? Hardly a one punch KO. If he is KO'd by one punch after being dropped a few times, it isn't a "one punch KO" per se.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Jan 2006, 16:59

evndrbsn wrote:
silkov wrote:
DoubleM wrote: No - you look at his record please. Moore was in his prime from the early to mid fifties. In the late forties he was still developing his style. "Every time I fought him, he had a different style" claimed Ezzard Charles. Moore's record is very spotty from '45-'50. Check his winning streaks and the quality of his opposition from then on.
The fact that Charles was able to ko Moore with one shot still shows that he was a superior puncher to Holyfield... you only need to look at their records to see that Charles was the better puncher!.......
My recollection of when Charles KO'd Moore is shady at best right now, but didn't Charles floor Moore a few times en route to KOing him? Hardly a one punch KO. If he is KO'd by one punch after being dropped a few times, it isn't a "one punch KO" per se.

From what I remember Moore actually had Charles hurt and then Ezzard pulled out a punch and koed Moore.

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Jan 2006, 18:22

The fact that Charles was able to ko Moore with one shot still shows that he was a superior puncher to Holyfield... you only need to look at their records to see that Charles was the better puncher!......

Holyfield hurt and ko'd bigger, tougher men who Charles would be hard pressed to ko. I'm not saying Charles cant beat Holyfield but no way was he a harder puncher.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 13 Jan 2006, 22:44

The point that doesn't seemed to be addressed is if Charles lost to Valdes, Layne, and Harold Johnson , when he was close to his prime as a heavyweight, (this was before he ever fought Marciano) why wouldn't Holyfield beat him?

It's not not like Valdes,Layne and Johnson has some unique style. They were all different styles of fighters, yet all were able to beat Charles.

If he only lost to one of them maybe you could chalk it up to an off night. But the fact is he lost to 3 different opponents who clearly weren't in Holyfield's league. (Johnson was a great light heavyweight, but there is no way he was near Holyfield as a heavyweight).

If they could take Charles' punches, deal with his boxing skills and handle his speed, wouldn't Holyfield be able to do the same?