Theoretical: Ezzard Charles VS Ken Norton

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Mar 2006, 18:10

I just want to get this straight. The 1951 Joe Louis who fought Marciano was dangerous and formidable, and Jerry Quarry in 1975 was washed up.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 02 Mar 2006, 18:12

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I think charles was at his best AS A HEAVYWEIGHT in 1948 and 1949 when he was weighing 175-180lb and dominating the likes of elmer ray, archie moore and jersey joe walcott.

also joe louis was 6'2 218lb when charles destroyed a well past it but still dangerous louis. charles was giving up 36lb.

Joe Louis wasn't Joe Louis then though, as you said, well past it.

That's like giving credit to Trevor Berbick for beating Ali.

theone · Post by **theone** » 02 Mar 2006, 20:51

quarry was defintley past his prime vs norton, it was very noticeable on film.

I dont know, Brock. Quarry looked very impressive in the early goings. Norton just seemed to be able to outfight and out tough him that night.
I'm not saying Quarry was in peak prime time position, but it sure looked pretty damn close to it.

elmer ray is a very underated heavyweight. Herbert goldman rates elmer ray in his top 20 heavyweights of all time. Ray was defintley one of the best heavies never to win a title. He was a boxerpuncher who had great power and arsenal of punches, as well as sound boxing skills and solid defense. he also had perfect size for a heavyweight 6'2 200lb. i rate ray in my top 30 heavies of all time.

I'm not familiar with Herbert Goldman but I cant respect any heavyweight top 20 alltime list with Elmer Ray on it. Really, Brock what was so great about him besides the fact he narrowly beat Walcott once? Most of the other guys he beat were mediocre. So what if Charles knocked him out? The guys career was just about done when Charles ko'd him, and alot of other guys did before that, including a guy named Turkey! Not to mention he was defeated in his 23 fight by a fighter making his pro debut. Maybe I'm missing something, but what was so great about him?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Mar 2006, 21:01

I watched the fight Quarry-Norton on the big screen at the Richfield Coliseum before the Ali-Wepner fight and it was quite exciting for about 2 and a half rounds before Quarry ran out of gas. As I recall, Quarry took the fight on about 10 days notice. Originally Bonavena was to fight Norton that night, but Ringo backed out due to injury and Quarry was called in. While Quarry hadn't been training, he had fought about 3 weeks before he was called so he took the fight. You are correct that Quarry did well in the first few rounds, but he was quite soft and heavy for the fight and clearly ran out of gas.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Mar 2006, 21:17

Mattyp151 wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I think charles was at his best AS A HEAVYWEIGHT in 1948 and 1949 when he was weighing 175-180lb and dominating the likes of elmer ray, archie moore and jersey joe walcott.

also joe louis was 6'2 218lb when charles destroyed a well past it but still dangerous louis. charles was giving up 36lb.
Joe Louis wasn't Joe Louis then though, as you said, well past it.

That's like giving credit to Trevor Berbick for beating Ali.

no way! joe louis may have been past his prime, but he was still a formidable fighter and a dangerous top contender. ali wasnt even good enough to be a contender anymore when he fought berbick, he was completley shot.

louis in his comeback was only beaten by great fighters marciano and charles. charles win over louis counts for a lot more than berbicks over ali!

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 02 Mar 2006, 21:39

..of course norton could hurt charles.....most fighters, especially hweavyweights, can hurt each other. no disputing. charles would be able to hurt norton, which is significant here, because he would do that...and do it often.

as for ezzard not being able to dance around norton.....no problem.charles would not choose to dance around norton....ezzard didn't dance around anybody. he moved in and out with superb speed and then around a little and in and out again. he was an aggressive boxer/puncher...and when he moved in on norton he'd bang him with combinations....body...head..body...head..head...usually working off the jab ...and left hook...(maricano said his ability to hook off jab was the greatest he'd ever seen....and much of the time didn't see.) plus...he had a damaging right hand.

norton was an okay fighter...'tis not that i think less of him..i think more of ezzard.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Mar 2006, 02:09

I'm not familiar with Herbert Goldman but I cant respect any heavyweight top 20 alltime list with Elmer Ray on it. Really, Brock what was so great about him besides the fact he narrowly beat Walcott once? Most of the other guys he beat were mediocre. So what if Charles knocked him out? The guys career was just about done when Charles ko'd him, and alot of other guys did before that, including a guy named Turkey! Not to mention he was defeated in his 23 fight by a fighter making his pro debut. Maybe I'm missing something, but what was so great about him?

the one,

im glad u asked. Elmer ray is a fighter who theres more to than just his record.

as you can see, ray lost a lot pre 1940. I think its clear going by elmer rays record that he was a bit of a late bloomer. he was a much better fighter in the 1940s.

elmer rays prime was around 1943-48 with his absolute peak being 1946. in his prime he lost just 3 times to turkey thompson, charles, walcott. the thompson fight was a case of elmer ray getting caught early and blown out by a top contender who was also a huge puncher. I might add all the credit goes out to turkey thompson, no exuses. this is a legit victory for thompson. Turkey was a very good contender of the 40s and was one of the avoided black contenders like harry bobo. ray and thompson also fought a NC in the fight before. someone once told me ray was dominating thompson until the fight ended, however i cant back that up and i dont have a fight report on how it turned into a NC.

his 2 other losses were to all time greats charles, and walcott. so really the only loss you have to question is the turkey thompson loss.

ray from 1944-47 was rated in the top 5 by RING magazine. In 1946-48 ray was rated in the top 2 and when you take into fact u had greats like charles, walcott, louis then thats impressive. ray during the mid 1940s was avoided like a plague from some of the top contenders(especially white ones), they wanted no part of ray. so instead, ray was forced to fight a lot of journeyman and bums in the 40s. Also ray's lack of good management was a cause. However, Ray was still unproven until he completley destroyed top 10 contender lee savold in 2 easy rounds. Ray now proved he was a threat to louis. Ray probably deserved a shot at louis title in 46, but never got it.

from 1945-48 Ray was a top contender. however, no one wanted to fight him. only the likes of ezzard charles and jersey joe walcott would fight him. that was the peak of ray's career. don't let the fact that elmer ray was 36 years old fool you, he got better with age.

in his peak, he went 1-1 with charles and walcott. both charles and walcott were pretty much at the peak of the careers. now you have to admit, thats damm impressive. charles only loss at his absolute peak was to ray.

now you can say the first ray-charle loss fight was a highly questionable decision that most thought charles won , but the fact that ray was fighting a peak charles 10 close even rounds is a high accomplishment itself!

i have the new york times report, and let me say the article isnt kind to both fighters. it even mentions both won't be able to compete vs louis if they fight him for the title. of course(this is before they realize how good ezzard is). ray in this fight was able to win so many rounds and earned the judges eye because of agression. Ray was very aggresive, even wild. Ray was a swarmer so thats not uncommon. in this fight the judges thought more of ray's aggresion than charles cautious counterpunching approach. charles outboxed ray in this fight and made ray miss alot in his aggresive offensive burts( now remember, charles defense is nothing short of spectacular). ray scored his points from some of the big power punches that were able to go home. ray's aggression, power punches, and inside fighting are what won him the fight because charles outboxed him the whole way from long range. and it wasnt like ray just landed here in there. elmer ray put together some very good combinations on the inside. you dont penetrate charles defense unless ur a good all around puncher. now its tough to determine how good rays defense in this fight was, since reports did say ray did leave himself open at times in his wild attacks. im sure that didnt mean he was wild hands low herky jerky. just that when he unloaded his artillery, his guard was vunerable. Remember Ray is a swarmer and a power punching agressive swarmer tends to do that. however, ray couldnt have been bad technically, or else he wouldnt have even stood a chance at winning rounds vs charles. Ray was able to get inside and land on charles because he was elusive and had a good punching arsenal. the times had charles winning only 6 rounds to 4, so that shows you basically the fight was even and the winner would be what you were looking for(rays aggresion, charles counterpunches).

charles knocked ray out in the rematch which shows charles greatness more than anything. ray was ruined by that fight, and retired a year later. even after the charles loss, he managed to beat top 10 contender huge punching sid peaks.

the two walcott bouts were close. the first one could have gone either way, but ray got the close decision. the first fight some big punches were landed, but the bout was fought at close quarters so it wasnt too exciting too the crowd apparently. Ray was a swarmer and was at his best on the inside. Walcott however is a master boxer and showed great inside fighting skills throughout his career. Ray staggered walcott many times in the fight nearly flooring walcott in round 3 with a right hand which buckeled jersey joes knees.

"throughout the encounter it was a case of walcott's left hook against ray's short right, with the head the target most of the time. the targets, in the main were mighty elusive, for there seemed to be as many punches missed as landed." - new york times on walcott-ray I

that must mean ray is pretty damm slick if there comparing his defense and elusiveness to walcotts.

since the fight was so close, they fought a rematch with the winner deemed a shot at joe louis title. both were # 1 and # 2 contenders. walcott however knocked ray down 3 times and won a close but clearly convinsing decision though one judge voted in favor of ray . It was walcott who then got the shot at joe's title.

Of course all that stuff I said was just a intro to what I am gonna say to you to convince you about ray. I know how your thought process is, so I am going to use post 1960 HW modern standards to explain elmer ray.

Now I think we can both agree that charles and walcott at there peaks look great on film and have very modern styles correct? if you have seen any late 40s tape of charles like the 2 rounds of walcott I 1949, I think you will agree with me charles looks fabulous. even in ladder rounds, charles was still on his toes dancing and the rythm of his footwork looked like he was dancing and his feet were so light it looked like he was floating. your a smart guy i dont need to say more of a peak charles. charles had very good combinations(more accurate and fluent than walcotts). a 1-2 combo now a days is very basic 1.01 stuff, but very effective if done in perfect form. charles had perhaps the best 1-2 combo in fighting history. it was done with absolute perfect timing, accuracy, and done with crisp fluent straight punches.

the only 2 punch combo ive seen better than charles 1-2 is alis double right pump. ali's doubling up on the right is godly like IMO. ali's 2 punch combo is the greatest of all time.

ok NOW IM VEERING OFF TOPIC!...................

youve seen walcott in 1947 vs louis, walcott on film is fabulous. you can critizie walcott by saying would throw only one punch at a time, but really that was his style and he only did that once in a while. he was a cutie who would set a trap for you and then nail you his sucker short right, or his powerful left hook. but walcott did show very good combination punching(especially in marciano fight) at times throwing way more than 2 punches at a time. i dont need to say much on walcott as im sure uve seen the louis fights, but i think u can agree with me both walcott and charles had very modern styles and both were great fighters.

as for ray, let me first say i have never seen film of him. I have not heard of any ray film out there. perhaps some is out there in some incredible rare place, but as of now i dont know where to get film of ray. but u know me, and im not gonna bullshit you about rays style compared to modern fighters. so i guess u will have to take my word on this.........

as u know, ray came about in the mid 1940s. is it ok to say by that time, most of the top heavyweight contenders especially the best ones fought with there hands held high, put together combinations of more than just 2 punches, moved a lot more, more polished? the difference is most of them were under 200lbs. but automatically, we must assume that ray had at least some modern style in him.

now, when you take into the fact ray was able to beat walcott and charles, i think we can both assume ray isnt going to beat both of them by keeping his hands down, fighting herky jerky, not moving, or throwing one punch at a time right?

Elmer "violent" Ray at his peak was 6'2 190-200lb and was strong as a bull. I have a picture of walcott-ray fight which i will dig up later and ray was ripped.

from the studying i done of ray, He was a puncher-swarmer who fought out of a crouch bobbing/weaving. Interesting to know when you consider elmer rays body type. I always thought ray was a standup boxerpuncher until i read fight reports talking about his bobbin and weavin out of a crouch style. as for the hands held high, Now i think its safe to say that if ray was to fight walcott and charles out of that position with his head sticking out, had he kept his hands low his face would have got taken off. So we can assume Ray kept his hands high. as far as I have read(which isnt much) Ray held his hands high, he was elusive, and not a stationary target, he put together accurate and powerful combinations. Ray was known as a devastating puncher by the press. Elmer "violent" Ray recorded 70 out of 85 KO's in his wins. Ray's biggest punch was his right hand which was viewed as one of the best punches in the heavyweight division at the time. ray as a puncher was aggresive but threw threw accurate combinations which made him deadly. Lee Savold a durable top contender had no idea how to stop ray's offense. according to the new york times, ray's punches were very crisp and sharp punches(modern trait) that savold was overwhelmed by. sounds similiar to joe louis punche huh? savold was eventually knocked out cold face down on the canvas by a huge right cross. Ray however proved he was more than just a puncher. Ray was very skilled boxer who established this against great fighters like walcott and charles. now ray was not as technically sound as walcott or charles , but he was much more powerful. so if you add his aggression and power punching arsenal to his good boxing skills, it makes him a very hard fighter to outpoint. Ray as a boxer was very elusive, and had good head movement with his bobbin and weaving style. Ray had a decent jab but it wasnt one of his specialties. and like most swarmers ray was good inside fighter. ray used his combination of size, power, strength well on the inside to wear down opponents. Ray was defintley not easy to hit in his crouch or this would have showed vs accurate first class counterpunches like charles and ray. Ray was most vunerable when he was on the attack, leaving his guard open at times, but you got to remember thats the other guy has to worry about defending ray's deadly punches before he concentrates on taking advantage of ray's open gaurd.

Rays record at his peak is impressive, but of course its flawed. he fought a lot of nobodies for years and didnt beat a good wide range of depth at all. however, you got to look at ray's record and realize quality counts more than quantity. ray beat on a bunch of nobodies, but when he did step up and face 1st teir great fighters, he was able to win. ray beat two top 20 heavyweights of all time. he should get critizied for the lack of depth he beat, but also remember that no one wanted to fight him. at his peak as contender( 46-48) the only other top 10 guy he faced was lee savold and he completley dominated him. after that easy massacre, no manager wanted to throw there fighter in vs Ray. its too bad we didnt get to see ray vs some of the other top contenders or ray in a rematch vs thompson but as we know, ray did fight the two best heavyweights of the 40s(besides louis) in walcott and charles and the fact he was able to defeat them both shows his greatness. quality over quantity. im sure what ray did to savold he would have done to most of the other top contenders of the day. Savold beat in the prior 3 years had beat many of the top contenders out there like lem franklin, gus dorazio, lou nova, joe baski.

Had ray got a title shot vs louis, it would have been in 1946 right after the win over walcott. this would have been a tough fight indeed for an aging louis vs a fighter of ray's calibre, but i have no doubt louis would have won by KO. ray's biggest flaw was he had a shaky chin. Thomspon took advantage of ray's shaky chin and knocked him out. charles also knocked ray out, and walcott floored ray 3 times in there 2nd encounter. in the 1930s before ray's best, he was knocked out often. a fight between louis and ray would have been a fearce slugout and I could see ray dropping louis. However, rays shaky chin and lack of good defense during his attack will spell his downfall to joe louis' punching arsenal on the inside. louis by early KO in action packed battle. not a good style matchup for ray.

ray and louis actually fought a exhibitions in late 40s. in the first one, ray gave louis a whooping accoring to the papers. in the rematch, in a slow paced battle ray apparently decided to turn it into a real fight and slugged louis hard staggering the champion. to show you a testament to louis greatness, an angry louis went after ray and knocked him out!

its too bad theres no film(as least im aware of) of ray to back up my theories and that theres not a lot of good info on him out there. he continues to remain one of the most underated heavyweight contenders of all time.

ray is a guy who because of his hard punching aggresive swarming style, he will spell nightmares to some of the boxers in history. however due to ray's wildness and shaky chin, I suspect he will be very vunerable against some of the top all around big punchers.

I myself rate elmer ray in the top 30 heavyweights of all time. its a very questionable rating, and considerd a stretch but i stand by it. he was a top contender in a good underated heavyweight era filled some great fighters. ray also was able to beat two top 20 heavyweights all time. Ray at his best was a very good heavyweight. ray had good size 6'2 195-200lb for a heavyweight. Ray's heavy hands mixed with his strength, agression make him a formidable puncher. His inside fighting skills, elusiveness and sound defense make him more than just a puncher. If you put all that together, you get yourself a formidable heavyweight like Elmer Ray. Also the mark of a fighter is how his all around skill test against great fighters. In elmer rays case, he showed just how good he was. He proved himself a step above the other heavyweight contenders of that era, IMO.

Elmer Violent Ray is a heavyweight contender who will continue to be misunderstood and vastly underated. there is not a lot of info out there, and the fact there is no easy film to get of him(if there is any) makes him a hard figure to study. you can go to google and type in "turkey thompson" and you will get a picture of him. however try typing in "elmer ray" and you will get nothing. pics of elmer ray are even hard to find. perhaps someday, elmer ray will get his respect.

for a comparison to a modern heavyweight whos similiar? well ill im not sure.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Mar 2006, 02:38

Decagon wrote:You make excuses for every heavyweight of the 1940s and 1950s.

back up ur allegation with facts

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Mar 2006, 15:04

theone,

about herbert goldman, if u saw his top 10 heavyweights, you'll find he is very unbias and has an accurate set of rankings. So im sure he had his reasons for putting elmer ray in his top 20. perhaps hes seen ray fight, or he knows things about ray that we dont that show his greatness.

did my 'modern' anaylsis of ray up top clear things up a little about ray?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Mar 2006, 15:31

decagon,

you once said something very intelligent about marciano being a 'puncherswarmer' and how rare it is.

Elmer Ray was also a puncher-swarmer, so i suggest taking more of a in look at him.

theone · Post by **theone** » 04 Mar 2006, 03:00

theone,

about herbert goldman, if u saw his top 10 heavyweights, you'll find he is very unbias and has an accurate set of rankings. So im sure he had his reasons for putting elmer ray in his top 20. perhaps hes seen ray fight, or he knows things about ray that we dont that show his greatness.

Elmer Ray was not great fighter. Besides his disputed win over Walcott there is no evidence that he was nothing more than a legitamite contender. Greatness in a fighters career is apparent; one look at Ezzard Charles career, you know he was great; same thing with Ali, Louis ,Patterson,Holmes, Hearns, Leonard,Duran Dempsey etc...
There is no way anyone today should have Elmer Ray in thier top 20 heavies of all time.

did my 'modern' anaylsis of ray up top clear things up a little about ray?

It is clear to me everytime I see his record that you are overating Elmer Ray to an extreme degree.