BoxRec

I think Ezzard would win a decision he was a better boxer with a solid jab which always caused Holyfield problems look at the Bowe, Moorer and Lewis to name a few.

Senya13 wrote:I base my opinion about Charles on what I've seen of him.
Marshal, Bivins, all 4 Walcott, Louis, Reynolds, Brion, Layne, Wallace, Oma, Satterfield, Valentino, both of Marciano fights (true, some of them only highlights, but still). He's flat-footed and not very quick mover, and he chooses to slug it out most of the time, and he gets hit a lot while doing that (although he rolls with punches well to reduce the effect of punches that land).
He is the best 175lb in history, but he's not what many people try to make him to be.

Correct, no he's better!

Ezzard wrote:So you think he's overrated?

Accomplishments-wise he's the best fighter in history, in my opinion. But head-to-head he's not as good as some other fighters, and thus he's only my #8 P4P of all time.

Senya13 wrote:I base my opinion about Charles on what I've seen of him.
Marshal, Bivins, all 4 Walcott, Louis, Reynolds, Brion, Layne, Wallace, Oma, Satterfield, Valentino, both of Marciano fights (true, some of them only highlights, but still). He's flat-footed and not very quick mover, and he chooses to slug it out most of the time, and he gets hit a lot while doing that (although he rolls with punches well to reduce the effect of punches that land).
He is the best 175lb in history, but he's not what many people try to make him to be.

Senya, Charles is not a flashy fighter on film for the most part. WHen I first saw footage of Charles, I too was not impressed. But then I gained some boxing experience (and greater knowledge) and went back, watched more footage, and made a big re-evaluation. So much of what he did was so sublte, it's easy to miss. He was an expert at timing . . one of the best ever. Look at who he beat (and a good number of his opponents look great on film) . . .to have that kind of resume, you have to be better than you are giving him credit for.

As for the flat-footed comment, you are wrong . . .Charles was almost always on his toes . . .being on your toes doesn't equate to dancing around.

As a lightheavyweight he was arguably the best in history. Pound for pound, he was probably Top 10.

As a heavyweight, some people do overrate Charles as a heavyweight. He wasn't a Top 10 heavyweight, and Evander Holyfield was.

Of course if you invoke the Jersey Joe Walcott/Mike Tyson clause (his losses don't count for one reason or another) than his case does look better.

Yet, Holyfield's fights with Lewis when he was 36 somehow is relevant.

People keep bringing up the idea that Charles is going to out jab Holyfield. The guys mentioned who supposedly had so much success with the jab were taller and had a much longer reach than Charles. Holyfield was taller and had a better reach than Charles and had a very good jab himself.

Holyfield had great handspeed and was an extremely accurrate puncher. (Some thing that many people don't seem to consider.) Charles is going to get hit more than he ever was by any heavyweight he ever fought.

Ambling Alp wrote:As a lightheavyweight he was arguably the best in history. Pound for pound, he was probably Top 10.

As a heavyweight, some people do overrate Charles as a heavyweight. He wasn't a Top 10 heavyweight, and Evander Holyfield was.

Of course if you invoke the Jersey Joe Walcott/Mike Tyson clause (his losses don't count for one reason or another) than his case does look better.

Yet, Holyfield's fights with Lewis when he was 36 somehow is relevant.

People keep bringing up the idea that Charles is going to out jab Holyfield. The guys mentioned who supposedly had so much success with the jab were taller and had a much longer reach than Charles. Holyfield was taller and had a better reach than Charles and had a very good jab himself.

Holyfield had great handspeed and was an extremely accurrate puncher. (Some thing that many people don't seem to consider.) Charles is going to get hit more than he ever was by any heavyweight he ever fought.

Moorer and Mercer were both shorter than Evander . . .

Ambling Alp wrote:As a lightheavyweight he was arguably the best in history. Pound for pound, he was probably Top 10.

As a heavyweight, some people do overrate Charles as a heavyweight. He wasn't a Top 10 heavyweight, and Evander Holyfield was.

Of course if you invoke the Jersey Joe Walcott/Mike Tyson clause (his losses don't count for one reason or another) than his case does look better.

Yet, Holyfield's fights with Lewis when he was 36 somehow is relevant.

People keep bringing up the idea that Charles is going to out jab Holyfield. The guys mentioned who supposedly had so much success with the jab were taller and had a much longer reach than Charles. Holyfield was taller and had a better reach than Charles and had a very good jab himself.

Holyfield had great handspeed and was an extremely accurrate puncher. (Some thing that many people don't seem to consider.) Charles is going to get hit more than he ever was by any heavyweight he ever fought.

Alp, you must have seen a greater hand speed than I did. Holyfield was accurate, I will give you that but his hand speed is anything but fast. If you want to use the 'going to get hit more than he ever was by any heavyweight he ever fought' then surely defensive-wise Holyfield never fought anybody as defensively skilled as Charles and Holyfield would find it harder to hit Charles more than any heavyweight he fought...

theone wrote:

At Cruiser, I pick Charles by a solid decision.
At heavyweight Holyfield by late stoppage or wide decision.

We've disagreed on other topics, but on this one i believe Alabama is right on the money.

It's okay to disagree, it's just boxing chat.

..dempsey fire scores a knockout when he writes about how subtle charles was.....a point that so many observers, even ezzard's fans, miss. i can't recall the opponent, but one of them said (slightly paraphrased)..."you think you're doing okay...holding him even. then as the rounds go on you find yourself cut up around your face, and you're getting more tired in each round...and you look at him and realize you haven't landed a really good punch. "

i might write more on this later, but i have take care of my jock itch...

BoxBuzz wrote:This could boil down to which of you would be selected as judges.

Perhaps you should run this through the simulator...

I can see subtle things, thus my remark about him rolling with punches well. But the rest of what I said I stand by. I've seen plenty of footage and watched it attentively (having heard so many times how extremely skillful Charlez supposedly was), and it's not on film, sorry. Not on the film of heavyweight Charles, not on the film of Marshall fight either, something people always brought up, that he was different at 175lb than he was at heavyweight. Well I saw it, and there's no difference, his style and his skills weren't any different. And it's not him trying to attract the spectators either, you can't attract anyone with such repetitious/boring style he often showed.
His resume is top-notch, that cannot be argued against, and he defeated most of great and borderline-great fighters he faced, that's why I think he's all-time #1 in this department (regardless of weight), but head-to-head.. he's outside of Top 10 (thus summing up the two categories, he gets my #8 P4P).

dempseyfire wrote:Moorer and Mercer were both shorter than Evander . . .

But both with roughly the same reach (78" and 77"), respectively as Evander's 78" reach. And both were excellent technical boxers, as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:

People keep bringing up the idea that Charles is going to out jab Holyfield. The guys mentioned who supposedly had so much success with the jab were taller and had a much longer reach than Charles. Holyfield was taller and had a better reach than Charles and had a very good jab himself.

This was going to be my exact point about the Jabbing thing,Charles is a great fighter but IMO was not the greatest lightheavy of all time and I don't think he beats Holyfield either.

Responding to a few points;
Holyfield didn't get outjabbed by Mercer, who was taller and had a longer reach than Charles.
Holyfield did look bad in the first Moorer fight, but can we throw that out since there is always an excuse for Charles' losses?
Holyfield destroyed Moorer in the rematch even though he was past his prime.

If as a heavyweight, Charles was so great defensively, why were guys able to get to him as often as they did? Guys that didn't have Holyfield's hand speed, or his accurracy?

The prime Holyfield had tremendous handspeed. If people would actually watch his fights when he was in his prime (the ones his detractors never want to talk about, Thomas,Dokes,Tillis etc.) they would see that.

Ambling Alp wrote:Responding to a few points;
Holyfield didn't get outjabbed by Mercer, who was taller and had a longer reach than Charles.
Holyfield did look bad in the first Moorer fight, but can we throw that out since there is always an excuse for Charles' losses?
Holyfield destroyed Moorer in the rematch even though he was past his prime.

If as a heavyweight, Charles was so great defensively, why were guys able to get to him as often as they did? Guys that didn't have Holyfield's hand speed, or his accurracy?

The prime Holyfield had tremendous handspeed. If people would actually watch his fights when he was in his prime (the ones his detractors never want to talk about, Thomas,Dokes,Tillis etc.) they would see that.

Senya: your argument makes no sense. You say he "he defeated most of great and borderline-great fighters he faced, that's why I think he's all-time #1 in this department (regardless of weight), but head-to-head.. he's outside of Top 10"

How the heck does that add up? If he was BEATING GREAT FIGHTERS, presumably he would do well head to head, regardless of whether you think his style was boring or not (and I'll be the first to say Charles was not a particularly exciting fighter to watch)

Alp: Holyfield cracked Moorer's china chin several times leading to the TKO in their rematch, but outside of that did NOT look impressive and yes was getting outjabbed by Moorer throughout their fight. If you can't see Mercer outjabbing Evander for the first 5-6 rounds of their fight (before Ray gassed out) I recommend contacts. Yes their reach was longer (not meaning to much since Charles didn't have big broad HW shoulders) and they were all around 6-6'1 . . .arguing an inch or two is ridiculous.

Charles was only great at HW for 3-4 years tops 1948-51 before he began slipping a great deal, which happens when you are a veteran of 70 + professional fights. And in that time period he did NOT get hit cleanly very much at all (besides of course the KO loss to another all time great Walcott)

You are pointing out bouts after Charles had been in 75-80 pro fights . . .by the time Holyfield was a veteran of 40 fights he was looking like complete crap and getting embarassed by John Ruiz.

One has to look at the details of those wins (and at losses too) to determine the head-to-head status of a fighter. Natural abilities, skills, cleverness, adaptability, domination, etc etc. While Charles ranks high on many of these categories, there are more than 10 fighters that were better than him, summing up these criteria. Chin, footspeed, handspeed, reflexes, timing, defense, combinations, footwork, counter-punching. Charles was above average on all, but there were enough fighters who had a better set of qualities than him, to be ahead of him head-to-head.

Senya13 wrote:One has to look at the details of those wins (and at losses too) to determine the head-to-head status of a fighter. Natural abilities, skills, cleverness, adaptability, domination, etc etc. While Charles ranks high on many of these categories, there are more than 10 fighters that were better than him, summing up these criteria. Chin, footspeed, handspeed, reflexes, timing, defense, combinations, footwork, counter-punching. Charles was above average on all, but there were enough fighters who had a better set of qualities than him, to be ahead of him head-to-head.

Are you talking about Light HW head to head, or PFP?

PFP top 10 I could perhaps agree with you . . .that includes a LOT of great fighters.

Regardless of weight 10 best boxers head-to-head. Charles is in top 20, but not in top 10 for me.
At light-heavyweight it's near impossible not to rank Charles in top 3 head-to-head (and very good argument can be made to make him #1 here).

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Dempseyfire,
Holyfield was a big heavyweight for any era prior to the 90s. He is a legitimate 6-2.5, and he weighed well over 200 pounds. You keep mentioning Michael Moorer vs. Holyfield. Moorer was undefeated, had been a dominant fighter, his confidence was high, and he was a southpaw. All of that makes for a tough fight.

Did Charles ever face a southpaw? I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but I do know that in the past southpaws were rare because they could not get fights. Almost all of them were turned around to the conventional stance.

No you are wrong. A big HW does not have to artificially pump themselves up to get over 200 lbs in their late 20s, as Evander did. Louis in his late 20s trained DOWN to the low 200s . . .Dempsey for the Tunney rematch for example basically went into isolation for several months to bust his body into shape and cut his weight down.

Evander trained very hard as well, but during his training camps he bulked UP in weight. Weight doesn't equate to size. Put the 6'1, 215lb Chris Byrd next to 6'1, 215lb Liston and he would look clearly the smaller man.

I think it's very fair to say that without all of the legal (and probably illegal) supplements Evander took, he would've been a HW of around 193 lbs. Bigger than Charles for sure (who was small even for his era) but not big for the 19teens, 1940s, or 1970s. And I would say it's very arguable whether EVander would have had any less sucess at HW weighing in the 190s than 210.

dempseyfire wrote:
Senya: your argument makes no sense. You say he "he defeated most of great and borderline-great fighters he faced, that's why I think he's all-time #1 in this department (regardless of weight), but head-to-head.. he's outside of Top 10"

How the heck does that add up? If he was BEATING GREAT FIGHTERS, presumably he would do well head to head, regardless of whether you think his style was boring or not (and I'll be the first to say Charles was not a particularly exciting fighter to watch)

I have to agree the logic here is flawed.

If you can beat some of the greatest names in boxing then you have to be great head-to-head. How can you not be? The two things are obviously linked. If you can beat Moore, Marshall, Bivins, Burley, Maxin, etc... then you've got to rank high head-to-head.

The logic is not flawed. This is not limited to 175lb division. How would Charles have done against best fighters from other weights if we were to make them the same size? Robinson. Benny Leonard. Armstrong. Etc.

Senya13 wrote:The logic is not flawed. This is not limited to 175lb division. How would Charles have done against best fighters from other weights if we were to make them the same size? Robinson. Benny Leonard. Armstrong. Etc.

I see...you rate him, perhaps, #1 p4p on achievements but top 20 in terms of head-to-head p4p...

The problem was that you seem to be saying he achieved so much in his career but at the same time you cast doubt on his skills.

IMo the only true gauge of a fighters ability is how great were the fighters who he beat.

I don't do p4p head-to-head fantasy fights. The likes of Jimmy Wilde versus Marvin Hagler is just too far from reality to make sense.

Another example would be Jake LaMotta. He has to be ranked high in the middleweight division for his achievements (sure top 10, argueably top 5), but head-to-head, there are plenty of fighters I'd give good chances to beat him, so he'd be outside of my Top 30 head-to-head middleweight list.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Responding to a few points;
Holyfield didn't get outjabbed by Mercer, who was taller and had a longer reach than Charles.
Holyfield did look bad in the first Moorer fight, but can we throw that out since there is always an excuse for Charles' losses?
Holyfield destroyed Moorer in the rematch even though he was past his prime.

If as a heavyweight, Charles was so great defensively, why were guys able to get to him as often as they did? Guys that didn't have Holyfield's hand speed, or his accurracy?

The prime Holyfield had tremendous handspeed. If people would actually watch his fights when he was in his prime (the ones his detractors never want to talk about, Thomas,Dokes,Tillis etc.) they would see that.

Senya: your argument makes no sense. You say he "he defeated most of great and borderline-great fighters he faced, that's why I think he's all-time #1 in this department (regardless of weight), but head-to-head.. he's outside of Top 10"

How the heck does that add up? If he was BEATING GREAT FIGHTERS, presumably he would do well head to head, regardless of whether you think his style was boring or not (and I'll be the first to say Charles was not a particularly exciting fighter to watch)

Alp: Holyfield cracked Moorer's china chin several times leading to the TKO in their rematch, but outside of that did NOT look impressive and yes was getting outjabbed by Moorer throughout their fight. If you can't see Mercer outjabbing Evander for the first 5-6 rounds of their fight (before Ray gassed out) I recommend contacts. Yes their reach was longer (not meaning to much since Charles didn't have big broad HW shoulders) and they were all around 6-6'1 . . .arguing an inch or two is ridiculous.

Charles was only great at HW for 3-4 years tops 1948-51 before he began slipping a great deal, which happens when you are a veteran of 70 + professional fights. And in that time period he did NOT get hit cleanly very much at all (besides of course the KO loss to another all time great Walcott)

You are pointing out bouts after Charles had been in 75-80 pro fights . . .by the time Holyfield was a veteran of 40 fights he was looking like complete crap and getting embarassed by John Ruiz.

Interesting that Charles slipped so much after 1951. You are right that he had a lot of fights, but if he was so hard to hit, he wouldn't have taken much punishment and shouldn't he have had a lot left since he was only 30?

As for heights and reaches, Holyfield had a slight advantage over Moorer and Mercer. Moorer and Mercer had slight advantages over Charles. Holyfield would have a 5 inch reach and 2 and a 1/2 height advantage over Charles. Certainly not insurmountable, but if you don't have faster hands that is very hard to overcome.
When talking about the Mercer fight, I thought we were actually talking about the entire fight, not just the early rounds.
How can you possibly say that Holyfield didn't look good in the 2nd Moorer fight. He started a little slow, but he beat Moorer pretty badly.
The Ruiz fights? Once again, Holyfield was 37 in the first Ruiz fight. That's not a valid comparison regardless of how many fights Holyfield had.

Ok, lets try to talk apples to apples. Compare Charles from 1948-1951, to Holyfield from 1988-1991. Both in their first few years as heavyweights.
Are you still going to say that Charles would win? If so, would like to know how. What strategy would work?