BoxRec

i doubt if anyone here saw charles in his prime as much as i did. quicker than patterson

jaclem buddy.


i have film of charles 1946 vs lloyd marshall II, and im not sure what you mean by "quicker" but charles did not match floyd in handspeed. footspeed? yes defintley . handspeed? no.

harder punching

i dont know jaclem,

floyd seemed like the harder puncher too me. charles p4p at 175lb hit harder, but floyds power was more damaging in the heavyweight division. floyds left hook was absoltuley lethal. floyd threw better combinations than charles too.


at 175lb p4p scale, charles did everying better than floyd, but floyd seemed like more of a heavyweight to me than ezzard did. offensivley, floyd seemed to have more of an effect on heavyweights than ezzard did.

....ignore the boxrec weight given for ezzard when he beat the hell out of tough joe baksi....a strong heavyweight....ezz weighed about 170 for that one....and that is just one example...

..hey kiddo...how did you get that bootleg of charles/marhsall II? is it shot from several rows back from ringside..which is the only one I know about? that was made by his management team. it was supposed to stay in the family. if it's the one, i'm kinda glad somebody got it. a real piece of history....two of the greatest fighters ever going at each other.

At lightheavy, Charles destroys him...Charles is top 3 All Time @ LHW, if not #1...At heavy, the 1949 Charles wins also...over any version of Floyd...Patterson, like Marciano before him...is lucky to have fought when he did...any other era & Floyd's in Trouble...hell, he had trouble in his own era...(Johansson, Liston...later Ali)

It must be the same copy of Charles v Marshall that I have. Great fight with Charles on the floor from a body shot in the first round. My copy is missing the third round.
It is hard to pick a winner in a Floyd Patterson v Ezzard Charles fight. If hard pressed I would go for Floyd, but is a hard pick.

Søren Woller

Sweet Scientist wrote:At lightheavy, Charles destroys him...Charles is top 3 All Time @ LHW, if not #1...At heavy, the 1949 Charles wins also...over any version of Floyd...Patterson, like Marciano before him...is lucky to have fought when he did...any other era & Floyd's in Trouble...hell, he had trouble in his own era...(Johansson, Liston...later Ali)

the 1949 charles who struggled alot in his fight with half blind B level pat valentino?? valentino actually gave charles a helluva struggle in the trenches for 9 rounds.

Sweet Scientist wrote:At lightheavy, Charles destroys him...Charles is top 3 All Time @ LHW, if not #1...At heavy, the 1949 Charles wins also...over any version of Floyd...Patterson, like Marciano before him...is lucky to have fought when he did...any other era & Floyd's in Trouble...hell, he had trouble in his own era...(Johansson, Liston...later Ali)

How can you possibly be so sure? Floyd didn't fight L.H. for that long but put on the most dominant showing in the history of Olympic boxing at the 52 Olympics in the 165 lb.class. In his 13th pro fight he fought Joey Maxim who was a master boxer, I mean he beat Ray Robinson 2 years before, & wasn't far removed from the L.H. title himself. He didn't win ,but
should have. Ezzard wasn't fighting people like that in his 13th fight? Don Grant, Jimmy Slade & Yvon Durelle were dispatched easily. Moore couldn't handle his speed when Floyd was 182. How was he going to handle a 175 lb. Patterson? Floyd would have won the L.H. title. Until Marciano retired that was the goal. Who would have beat him? He would have ruled without challenge until Bob Foster's era. Foster was good but Floyd was faster & just as good a belter. Foster could hit, but he wasn't Johannson or Liston.
In fact, Floyd could have held the L.H, Cruiserweight, & Heavyweight titles all at the same time. He was that good. People criticize him for what he failed to accomplish, ie; beating Liston or Ali. It is absolutely ridiculous.
He was a great , great fighter.