BoxRec

It's a very close fight but Charles would be there for 15 rounds. Holyfield always took time off in a fight. In such an evenly matched encounter at HW this could be the difference.

Ambling Alp wrote:

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?

OK, but you can't dismiss the number of fights. Charles by 1954 had over 80 professional fights and had faced the cream of the crop, many numerous times (Bivins, Marshall, Moore, Ray, Walcott) . .even a good defensive fighter is going to take some punishment from those guys, I don't care if you are Pernell Whitaker. The fact he went 15 with Marciano after all of that baggage is incredible. He already had two careers worth of fights by 1950. So comparing it to the 16 fight novice in Holyfield who moved up to HW in 1988 really is not a solid comparison in terms of which fighter had slipped more. Look at Barrera . . .at 30 he was already an old man in fistic years . . .you can even see it on his one "baby-face".

But yes, in this matchup I'm placing the best Holyfield (circa 1990) vs the peak HW Charles (circa 1949) and I pick Charles to win a close decision (again, I'm not saying it's a cake-walk, but you all seem to think Evander cake-walks through Charles, which is ludicrous) As I said, I see Charles as being the much more skilled fighter overall . . .better timing, better counterer, much more slippery . . .Holyfield was great vs the come forward guys who wanted to basically brawl (Dokes, Foreman, Tyson, Cooper) . . .vs guys who were more technical, he always had a hard time (Moorer, Lewis, Byrd, Toney (I know the last two were when he was far past his best but I think their styles would have always given Evander problems . . . I'm not saying Toney beats a peak Evander) Holyfield had good fundamentals but no-one ever mistook him for being for being a 'smooth' or technically 'tricky' fighter, nor was he ever seen as being very intelligent in the ring (he got taken into toe to toe wars way too often, which he often won due to conditioning but he would'nt have the conditioning edge on Charles) . . .his "masterpiece" performance was against a Tyson in 96 who in retrospect was not nearly as good as people thought at the time.

Holyfield is my favorite 90s HW and I think at his best he beats Lewis. But Charles had skills and tricks that you just could not aquire in EVander's era of padded records and fighting 3 times a year. EVander would be befuddled and despite his superior strength fade down the stretch to the superdbly conditioned and durable Ezzard Charles.

I didn't mean to dismiss the number of fights. That as well as age takes it's toll. You sort of have two different situations with Charles and Holyfield. Charles fought a lot fights but was still not that old in when was losing to Valdes and Layne.
If you are going to say that Charles was over the hill by then, then you have to recognize that Holyfield was over the hill by the time he was in the fights that he had his losses and poor performances.

No I don't think this would be a cakewalk for Holyfield, I'm sorry if I gave this impression. I just think his advantages outweigh his disadvantages against Charles.
He hit harder than Charles, he had a better chin. He was at least as fast and was at least as accurrate.
I disagree strongly that Charles had better stamina. Holyfield never happended during the period that we are talking about. In fight after fight, Holyfield took over in the middle rounds and stopped his opponent.
It has been said that Holyfield occasionally took a breather during a fight. So did Chalres and anyone else. During his prime he had a very high workrate.

I do think that Holyfield was for the most part intelligent in the ring. He was very good at mixing up boxing and brawling in the same fight.

He easily beat fighters that were technical boxers such as Tillis and Thomas. When Dokes was at his best (which he was against Holyfield) he showed good skills as well. Holyfield stopped him as well. All 3 also had very good handspeed and Holyfield handled them.

Once again you bring up Moorer,Lewis,Byrd, and Toney; all after the time time period that we are talking about. (But Charles embarrassing loss to Valdes is off limits). You can speculate that toney and Byrd would have given Holyfield trouble and I strongly disagree. Regardless it's irrelevant. It didn't happen.

The win against Tyson was by no means Holyfield's "masterpiece." It wass just the win that he is most remembered for. Holyfield fought a great fight, but he wasn't as good as the fighter that he had once been. Why is the win not nearly as good as it seemed at the time? This is revisionist history. Watch Tyson's fight earlier that year against Bruno. He looked better against an improved Bruno than he did when he fought Bruno in 1989. Holyfield was 34 and had been in alot of tough fights. Tyson was only 30 and hadn't taken that punishment. He was a lot closer to him prime than Holyfield was.

Yes, I agree that many modern fighters have padded records and the best fight the best much too rarely. However, Holyfield was an exception. throughout his career, he took on the best. He seldom took on a journeyman. If you want to criticize the qauntity of his fights, fine. To me quality is a lot more important. He could have fought a couple of no-hopers cans each year a long with the top fighters that he fought, and if you want to criticize him for that, so be it. I don't.

Excellent post, AA.

And a good debate on both sides, dempseyfire brings up some good points about Charles, reminding us just how impressive his achievements mixing it with the best fighters in a class well above his ideal weight were. (Just that all his points about Holyfied are so *completely* wrong... ;))

....a past his prime charles was better than most fighters at their peak....and the charles most of you here saw was sliding into past-his-prime territory.

Jaclem wrote:....a past his prime charles was better than most fighters at their peak....and the charles most of you here saw was sliding into past-his-prime territory.

I was just thinking...where's Jaclem when you need him?.....

Ambling Alp wrote:I didn't mean to dismiss the number of fights. That as well as age takes it's toll. You sort of have two different situations with Charles and Holyfield. Charles fought a lot fights but was still not that old in when was losing to Valdes and Layne.
If you are going to say that Charles was over the hill by then, then you have to recognize that Holyfield was over the hill by the time he was in the fights that he had his losses and poor performances.

No I don't think this would be a cakewalk for Holyfield, I'm sorry if I gave this impression. I just think his advantages outweigh his disadvantages against Charles.
He hit harder than Charles, he had a better chin. He was at least as fast and was at least as accurrate.
I disagree strongly that Charles had better stamina. Holyfield never happended during the period that we are talking about. In fight after fight, Holyfield took over in the middle rounds and stopped his opponent.
It has been said that Holyfield occasionally took a breather during a fight. So did Chalres and anyone else. During his prime he had a very high workrate.

I do think that Holyfield was for the most part intelligent in the ring. He was very good at mixing up boxing and brawling in the same fight.

He easily beat fighters that were technical boxers such as Tillis and Thomas. When Dokes was at his best (which he was against Holyfield) he showed good skills as well. Holyfield stopped him as well. All 3 also had very good handspeed and Holyfield handled them.

Once again you bring up Moorer,Lewis,Byrd, and Toney; all after the time time period that we are talking about. (But Charles embarrassing loss to Valdes is off limits). You can speculate that toney and Byrd would have given Holyfield trouble and I strongly disagree. Regardless it's irrelevant. It didn't happen.

The win against Tyson was by no means Holyfield's "masterpiece." It wass just the win that he is most remembered for. Holyfield fought a great fight, but he wasn't as good as the fighter that he had once been. Why is the win not nearly as good as it seemed at the time? This is revisionist history. Watch Tyson's fight earlier that year against Bruno. He looked better against an improved Bruno than he did when he fought Bruno in 1989. Holyfield was 34 and had been in alot of tough fights. Tyson was only 30 and hadn't taken that punishment. He was a lot closer to him prime than Holyfield was.

Yes, I agree that many modern fighters have padded records and the best fight the best much too rarely. However, Holyfield was an exception. throughout his career, he took on the best. He seldom took on a journeyman. If you want to criticize the qauntity of his fights, fine. To me quality is a lot more important. He could have fought a couple of no-hopers cans each year a long with the top fighters that he fought, and if you want to criticize him for that, so be it. I don't.

Ok, I'll try to address some of what you stated.

1) Holyfield had very good stamina "in comparison to his opponents" . . .not in comparison to other all time great HWs. Yes, every fighter takes rounds off but Holyfield was worse than most . . .there were many rounds in which he just seemed to freeze . . .even at his best, he did it in the Dokes and Foreman fights. And these guys he were beating, were not superbly conditioned HWs. Poor Dokes got in the best shape his abused body could get in, but he was still much heavier than in his prime and although clean at the time, had been a massive drug abuser for years. Ditto with Bert Cooper. Foreman and Holmes were both heavy and in their 40s. Ray Mercer was overweight and always had stamina issues, fading in the 2nd half of fights. Moorer in the rematch was clearly overweight. Tyson hadn't gone past 4 rounds since 1992. Bowe in the rematch was heavier and clearly hadn't gotten himself into the condition of the first fight.

This isn't nit-picking . . .Holyfield excelled partly b/c he was a very disciplined, well conditioned Heavyweight in an era which saw the general condition of HWs decline (which has culminated into what we have now . . .anyone see Rahman-Sykes . . . it is just pathetic) Charles, in comparison, was a superbly conditioned guy in an era of extremely well conditioned and durable guys. The talent pool of fighters weighing in the 165-200 lb range in the 1940s was EXTENSIVE. That Charles rose to the top of this field speaks volumes.

2) Thomas had a great left jab, but beyond that his skills were definetely one dimensional and limited. I would not classify a win over a faded Thomas as proof he could easily handle "technical" fighters (and Tillis was getting KO'd by everyone by then . .come on . . .was Johnny DuPlooy now able to handle slicksters b/c of his Tillis result?) I would definetely point to Evander's issues with Moorer, Lennox, an older Holmes (Evander did not impress in that fight) and Bean rather than vs washed up 80s HWs at the beginning of his HW run.

3) Evander did fight the best . . .but the best of his era were not up to the par of the best of Charles's era.

dempseyfire wrote:Charles, in comparison, was a superbly conditioned guy in an era of extremely well conditioned and durable guys.

What's your evidence of this?

I'm asking about "an era of extremely well conditioned and durable guys". What's your evidence that it was such an era in the 1940s?

1940s is what demspeyfire wrote:

Charles, in comparison, was a superbly conditioned guy in an era of extremely well conditioned and durable guys. The talent pool of fighters weighing in the 165-200 lb range in the 1940s was EXTENSIVE. That Charles rose to the top of this field speaks volumes.

In response to some of dempseyfires points:
Holyfield took off more rounds than most? This is simply not true. In his prime he did this very seldom. He had a very high work rate in most rounds of his fights and didn't take many rounds off. Completely disagree with the statement that he did this against Dokes and Foreman.

Yes Holyfield did have good stamina compared to other other great heavyweights in other eras. Name one time when he faded down the stretch during the era that we are talking about. (1988-1991)

If you want to criticize Holyfield opponents, fine. You can find faults with any fighter, in any era. There are very few heavyweights in history that fought better overall competition than Holyfield and Charles wasn't one of them.
The late 1940's had some great fighters, particularly at middleweight and even more so at lightheavyweight.
However if you think Charles competition against heavyweights was better than Holyfield you are in dreamland.
Remember, Moore and Marshall were lightheavyweights when Charles beat him. Bivins was more of lightheavyweight than a heavyweight and usually lost when he fought a decent heavyweight. Same thing with Maxim and Lesnevich. Ray was very old when he fought Charles.
After Walcott, there is a huge drop off in heavyweight opponents that Charles beat.
The period that we considering to be Charles heavyweight prime was a very weak era in the heavyweight division. Walcott and Charles wouldn't have had fought 4 world title fights if there was any depth.

Senya13 wrote:1940s is what demspeyfire wrote:

Charles, in comparison, was a superbly conditioned guy in an era of extremely well conditioned and durable guys. The talent pool of fighters weighing in the 165-200 lb range in the 1940s was EXTENSIVE. That Charles rose to the top of this field speaks volumes.

I was including Charles tenure at light HW, since that's where he fought some of his best opposition. Late 1940s, early 1950s . . .who cares? The overall depth of talent was much greater, mostly due to the fact that you had a much greater number of fighters and fight clubs, plus more guys fighting often= greater experience and a much harder road to the top. If you really want to argue whether the HWs of 1995 were better conditioned than the HWs of 1950, all you have to do is look at the film. Holyfield was in an era where Tommy Morrison was a top 10 HW . . .case closed.

And in response to Alps post: No resume-wise strictly at HW I would rank Holyfield's opponents over Charles. That doesn't mean he beats him.

dempseyfire wrote:I was including Charles tenure at light HW, since that's where he fought some of his best opposition. Late 1940s, early 1950s . . .who cares? The overall depth of talent was much greater, mostly due to the fact that you had a much greater number of fighters and fight clubs, plus more guys fighting often= greater experience and a much harder road to the top. If you really want to argue whether the HWs of 1995 were better conditioned than the HWs of 1950, all you have to do is look at the film. Holyfield was in an era where Tommy Morrison was a top 10 HW . . .case closed.

All very logical. Nice summary.

Now we gonna limit it to heavyweights (instead of 165lb+) and to 1950s instead of 1940s? Fine. Do you want to look at the deviations of weight for major heavyweights of that era? How were they extremelly well conditioned if they had such difference in weight between the bouts? That's just another myth about old-timers being better conditioned and having better stamina.

Annual ranking for 1950
Ezzard Charles, Champion
1. Joe Louis
2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4. Clarence Henry
5. Bob Baker
6. Rex Layne
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10. Rocky Marciano

Ezzard Charles's weight in the 1950s varied from 182 to 204 lbs (22 lbs difference between min and max)
Joe Louis 203-218 (15)
Lee Savold 190-200 (10)
Joey Maxim 173-191 (18)
Clarence Henry 182-206 (24)
Bob Baker 196-229 (33)
Rex Layne 183-216 (33)
Jersey Joe Walcott 194-201 (7)
Jack Gardner 203-221 (18)
Lee Oma 190-196 (6)
Rocky Marciano 183-192 (9)

average difference between min and max is 17 3/4 pounds
You are calling that extremely well conditioned?

Senya

Without the dates of the weights it doesn't really mean too much. Starting the decade 15 lbs lighter than you end the decade (in the HW division) is not so damning. You also have to look at extenuating circumstances which may include the opposition for a particular fight.

It means a lot. Especially if one takes a look at fight reports and see how many times they were described to be in bad form, or them claiming it themselves as an excuse for bad performance, having a bad day, etc etc. It reminds me how Archie Moore was supposed to defend his title before assigned date and he was some 20 pounds above that weight and he said there's no way in hell he could drop his weight down like that. And it happened not once with him, but several times. And it wasn't only Moore, but many other fighters too. A lot of times you see reports that claimed heavyweights bouts were extremely boring, one or both fighters being windy and tired after several *slow* rounds without many punches thrown.
There's absolutely no evidence that suggests the fighters in those days were "extremelly well conditioned" or that they had better stamina than modern fighters.

That has got to be one ot the worst top 3 heavyweight rankings of all time. A washed up Joe Louis is #1, journeyman Savold is #2, and lightheavyweight Maxim is #3. That is pathetic. Maybe the rankings themselves were off, but when you consider that Marciano was still green, this a weak Top 10.

I don't agree that Dempseyfires last comments were logical.

Who cares about the late 1940's and early 1950's? Say what? You are the one that designated Charles heavyweight prime as 1948-1951!
His wins against lightheavyweight and middleweights prior to this period are absolutely irelevant.

Were the heavyweights of 1950 have better stamina than the heavyweights of 1950?
Maybe. However, picking one guy (Morrison) and saying "case closed" isn't making much of a case.
You could just as easily say" The 1970's heavyweights had poor stamina, look at Earnie Shavers. Case closed".

More importantly, how good was the competition?
I agree, by itself, that Holyfield beat better heavyweights Charles doesn't mean that Holyfield was better or that he would win. However, it's not a factor that can be brushed off either.
If you have two guys and one beat much better competion than the other, you should have some compelling reasons why the fighter who beat the weaker competion would win. I don't see this at all in this case.

Think you're on the wrong thread here as Mike Casey has just posted a great article on conditioning and training that you might want to discuss.

My point is simply that the way you have presented your figures could be misleading.

You have pointed out some examples but on the whole fighters who fight longer bouts, more times a year are more likely to be in better condition. And let's not forget that, strictly speaking, contemporary fighters SHOULD be better conditioned as they have more science and more resources at their disposal.

I saw that article at CBZ forum, but it's only in the ideal world or by careful picks of examples for the article, you can attempt to conclude that time to be paradise where training is concerned. But reality is much more disappointing than that. If you actually take time to look at the epoch as a whole, and read fight reports, it is very different than what the articles like that claim.

Also, it's not about available resources and science of conditioning. It's mostly about psychology of people, and people are no much different today than they were in the 1950's, they were just as lazy and lacked motivation just as often as fighters today.

So why not take it up in the thread?

Besides, basic tool for conditioning has been the same for at least two hundred years - walking or jogging. Nothing more efficient has been invented.

Senya13 wrote:Also, it's not about available resources and science of conditioning. It's mostly about psychology of people, and people are no much different today than they were in the 1950's, they were just as lazy and lacked motivation just as often as fighters today.

I completely disagree. Fighters today are much more lazy . . partly b/c they can get away with it (and other societal/cultural reasons that I'm not going to get into)

You talk about a fluctuation of 15 lbs over a decade. Buddy, you picked the wrong argument.

Look at the weight fluctuations of today's HWs (Tua, Peter, Briggs, Rahman, Kirk Johnson, James Toney, even arguably the most disciplined guy today Wlad Klitschko . . .fluctuations exceeding 20 lbs, and in many case, over 40 lbs . . .Tua, Rahman, Briggs are started looking alright in the 220s . . .and they've jumped into the 260s!!!

Top fighters in the 1940s could not get away with that crap, balooning up near or over 300 lbs between fights . . .mainly b/c they fought so often and they knew it would throw away their career. Top fighters also wern't making the millions they do now and living in mansions by 23.

Again, look at the films and what you see with your eyes. Fight writers have always been super-critical. Yes, fighters have always had bad nights. Yes, there were HW fights in 1950 that were boring.

But not close to the utter crap we've witnessed in the past decade. Many of the so-called "title fights" we've witnessed would've seen both fighters' purses withheld for non-performance.

Let's see. From lower weights to heavy.
Manny Pacquiao.
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Ricky Hatton.
Bernard Hopkins.
Roy Jones Jr (before moving back down to 175lb from heavyweight).

Give me 5 names from the 1950's, best conditoned men from same weights where the above 5 were fighting.
You can pick on bad examples as much as you want, I can do the same thing by browsing through 1950's Ring magazines and reading fight reports.

Psychology of people (and of sportsmen) hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

As for today's heavyweights. If you want to compare it properly, it has to be done in percentages instead, as average weight of modern top heavyweights is some 30-40 pounds heavier than top heavys of 1950's.

You are switching again, from 1950's to 1940's and back, will you stop at one time period instead? How many today's heavyweights baloon up to 300lb between fights, give exact examples? I can recall Buster Douglas, but he had an illness if I remember correctly.

I can just as easily find examples on film of fighters from 1950's who looked bad conditioned. The thing is it's hard to compare it, because of the difference in quantity of fights that are on film, there are hundred times more fight videos of today's fighters than of 1950's fights.

Examples of heavyweight fights.
Rahman vs Tua I, Hasim averaged 84 punches per round (according to Compubox), 44 power shots and 40 jabs.
David Tua in his fights vs Izon and Ibeabuchi averaged 63 punches per round. Tua-Ibeabuchi together threw 1730 punches in their fight, 975 for Ike (81 punches per round) to 755 for Tua (63 punches per round). Rahman-Maskaev I, Hasim threw 60 punches per round. W. Klitschko - Byrd I, Wladimir 59 punches per round. McCline vs Fields, McCline 73 punches per round, Fields 65 punches per round. Briggs vs Fields, Fields threw 89 punches per round, Briggs 51 punches per round.
Average for modern heavyweights is 46-49 punches per round.

Senya13 wrote:Psychology of people (and of sportsmen) hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

Interesting comment. I don’t think that there are many in the field of psychology or sociology that would agree with this statement, but it does shed some light on the differing opinions being expressed.