BoxRec

Footage of 1946 and 1948 Charles doesn't support the claim of him being particularly fast (he had a mediocre speed for light heavyweight) or skillful (he's good, but not special at either defense or offence).

Senya13 wrote:Footage of 1946 and 1948 Charles doesn't support the claim of him being particularly fast (he had a mediocre speed for light heavyweight) or skillful (he's good, but not special at either defense or offence).

Nothing to laugh about. Charles was no Ibragimov.

It's fine to have an opinion that Jones beats EZ.... but it's shocking to see the lack of respect towards Charles by some of the posts.

Let's face it. the live guy always has the advantage over men who have passed away. It's a matter of mobility.

BoxBuzz wrote:Let's face it. the live guy always has the advantage over men who have passed away. It's a matter of mobility.

You've been reading from the gospel of FourReal, haven't you?

dr_devious wrote:Try Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Bob Foster, Archie Moore, Mike Spinks, Ezzard Charles, Carlos Monzon, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler, and Harry Greb, not to mention Mickey Walker, Stan Ketchel, Bob Fitzsimmons, Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Marcel Cerdan and Harold Johnson etc. A lot of these would annhilate lil Roy, and all would be 50:50 at least to crack his china chin

Walker and Hagler, Marshall and yes, Robinson lose to Jones at middleweight in my opinion.

Ketchel, Fritzsimmons, and Cerdan get owned by Jones.

Langford, Burley, and Monzon...pick em. I believe Jones at his best was at least as good as these guys.

Tunney, Spinks, Foster, Moore, Johnson, and probably Bivins would be a bit too much for Jones to handle.

theone wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Try Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Bob Foster, Archie Moore, Mike Spinks, Ezzard Charles, Carlos Monzon, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler, and Harry Greb, not to mention Mickey Walker, Stan Ketchel, Bob Fitzsimmons, Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Marcel Cerdan and Harold Johnson etc. A lot of these would annhilate lil Roy, and all would be 50:50 at least to crack his china chin

Walker and Hagler, Marshall and yes, Robinson lose to Jones at middleweight in my opinion.

Ketchel, Fritzsimmons, and Cerdan get owned by Jones.

Langford, Burley, and Monzon...pick em. I believe Jones at his best was at least as good as these guys.

Tunney, Spinks, Foster, Moore, Johnson, and probably Bivins would be a bit too much for Jones to handle.

Jones was not in his prime at middleweight IMO. At that stage of his career he would have been too green for the likes of the middles you've mentioned

dr_devious wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Jones was the best fighter of the 90s imo. He didnt fight in the greatest of eras but its fair to say hes pretty high up in the p4p ratings.
Charles has one of the best resumes in boxing history, miles better than Jones. Charles is prob top 10 p4p in history.

The best fighter of the 90s was the great Pernell Whitaker....Beat better class of opposition than Jones and was DOMINANT almost all decade. Jones, LACKED the competitive matches that Whitaker had in his resume...We cannot go with talent alone. Jones was one of the most talented fighters ever, but he did not faced THE VERY BEST OF HIS TIME.

He beat Hopkins and Toney, who were the next best of his era. Who did he duck that were better than Hopkins and Toney, and who could have beaten him?

Hopkins win was good, but nothing extraordinary...Plus BHop was NOT THE SAME FIGHTER THAT BEAT FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD 8 years later. Jones vs Hopkins and Hopkins vs Tito were 2 different fighters.

There were excellent competition for Roy to face in the 90s: Nigel Benn, Dariuz Michaelweski, Gerald McClellan, Chris Eubanks and Michael Nunn...Do not forget Steve Collins, Tim Littles and Julian Jackson

Pernell Whitaker instead, fought the VERY BEST: Julio Cesar Chavez, Buddy McGirt, Felix "Tito" Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Julio Cesar Vazquez, Rafael Pineda and guys like Harold Brazier and Anthony Jones

That is 2 guys for Jones, but 8 for Sweet Pea.

elmersalsa wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: The best fighter of the 90s was the great Pernell Whitaker....Beat better class of opposition than Jones and was DOMINANT almost all decade. Jones, LACKED the competitive matches that Whitaker had in his resume...We cannot go with talent alone. Jones was one of the most talented fighters ever, but he did not faced THE VERY BEST OF HIS TIME.

He beat Hopkins and Toney, who were the next best of his era. Who did he duck that were better than Hopkins and Toney, and who could have beaten him?

Hopkins win was good, but nothing extraordinary...Plus BHop was NOT THE SAME FIGHTER THAT BEAT FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD 8 years later. Jones vs Hopkins and Hopkins vs Tito were 2 different fighters.

There were excellent competition for Roy to face in the 90s: Nigel Benn, Dariuz Michaelweski, Gerald McClellan, Chris Eubanks and Michael Nunn...Do not forget Steve Collins, Tim Littles and Julian Jackson

Pernell Whitaker instead, fought the VERY BEST: Julio Cesar Chavez, Buddy McGirt, Felix "Tito" Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Julio Cesar Vazquez, Rafael Pineda and guys like Harold Brazier and Anthony Jones

That is 2 guys for Jones, but 8 for Sweet Pea.

That is 9 for Sweet Pea , if you include the great Azumah Nelson

Still money to be amde out fo Jones so he's always going to get the rub.

Of course all the evidence is with Charles

nobudius wrote:It's fine to have an opinion that Jones beats EZ.... but it's shocking to see the lack of respect towards Charles by some of the posts.

If you're looking at Senya's post don't take pay too much mind to it.

Senya seems to be a dedicated boxing researcher who obviously loves the sport but he has a blind spot for Jones and it's the one subject where you won't get any sense out of him.

elmersalsa wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: The best fighter of the 90s was the great Pernell Whitaker....Beat better class of opposition than Jones and was DOMINANT almost all decade. Jones, LACKED the competitive matches that Whitaker had in his resume...We cannot go with talent alone. Jones was one of the most talented fighters ever, but he did not faced THE VERY BEST OF HIS TIME.

He beat Hopkins and Toney, who were the next best of his era. Who did he duck that were better than Hopkins and Toney, and who could have beaten him?

Hopkins win was good, but nothing extraordinary...Plus BHop was NOT THE SAME FIGHTER THAT BEAT FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD 8 years later. Jones vs Hopkins and Hopkins vs Tito were 2 different fighters.

There were excellent competition for Roy to face in the 90s: Nigel Benn, Dariuz Michaelweski, Gerald McClellan, Chris Eubanks and Michael Nunn...Do not forget Steve Collins, Tim Littles and Julian Jackson

Pernell Whitaker instead, fought the VERY BEST: Julio Cesar Chavez, Buddy McGirt, Felix "Tito" Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Julio Cesar Vazquez, Rafael Pineda and guys like Harold Brazier and Anthony Jones

That is 2 guys for Jones, but 8 for Sweet Pea.

Micalcewski might have given Jones a go at LH, but I think Jones wins wide on points. Out of the others, Benn and McClellan and Jackson would have a punchers chance, the rest no chance against Jones

theone wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Try Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Bob Foster, Archie Moore, Mike Spinks, Ezzard Charles, Carlos Monzon, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler, and Harry Greb, not to mention Mickey Walker, Stan Ketchel, Bob Fitzsimmons, Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Marcel Cerdan and Harold Johnson etc. A lot of these would annhilate lil Roy, and all would be 50:50 at least to crack his china chin

Walker and Hagler, Marshall and yes, Robinson lose to Jones at middleweight in my opinion.

Ketchel, Fritzsimmons, and Cerdan get owned by Jones.

Langford, Burley, and Monzon...pick em. I believe Jones at his best was at least as good as these guys.

Tunney, Spinks, Foster, Moore, Johnson, and probably Bivins would be a bit too much for Jones to handle.

Jones isnt as good as Monzon or Langford, they both knock him out imo
Ketchel and Fitz would be schooled by Jones, but if they landed well it would be goodnight Vienna; Ketchel was very fast if rather crude.
Cerdan was a great fighter, nobody owns him

Ezzard wrote:Senya seems to be a dedicated boxing researcher who obviously loves the sport but he has a blind spot for Jones and it's the one subject where you won't get any sense out of him.

I didn't say a single word about him in this thread. And I was saying the same thing about Charles ever since I saw the footage I mentioned in my post, regardless of what matchup is being discussed.

Anyone who says Jones would have remotely had a chance against the likes of Tunney, Moore, Foster, Spinks, Conn, let alone Ezzard Charles is not only Jones' biggest nut hugger, he/she is practically retarded and wearing too dim of rose colored glasses and obviously ignorant of past eras.

Senya13 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Senya seems to be a dedicated boxing researcher who obviously loves the sport but he has a blind spot for Jones and it's the one subject where you won't get any sense out of him.

I didn't say a single word about him in this thread. And I was saying the same thing about Charles ever since I saw the footage I mentioned in my post, regardless of what matchup is being discussed.

If he was so average why does he have so many wins against so many great fighters?

I said his speed (hands and feet) was average, not that he was average. As for his skills not looking anything impressive, there are plenty of other examples when fighters without anything special in their technical arsenal were still very effective with what they had. I just don't like it when old-timers are attributed with what they didn't possess, based on their greatness and the praise they have been receiving from experts and fans.
It is his resume which IMHO is the most impressive ahead of any other fighter in history (including Greb, Langford and Moore), that's why I consider him #1 light-heavyweight, and #8 P4P all-time. Head-to-head he's somewhat lower for me.

That's a contradiction in terms. You can't say you're very impressed with his resume, but at the same time argue that he is not that impressive on a, "head-to-head" basis. After all, the only way you get a resume as grand as Charles' is by besting all-time great opposition in the ring.

There are some fighters in history, who I rank high head-to-head, even though their resume is not very impressive, for different reasons, lack of quality opponents at the time, being overshadowed by another great fighter at the same weight, etc (Liston being the best example). With Charles it's the opposite for me, as I said, he doesn't impress me on film at all, even though this was supposed to be his best years. Before I saw it I always heard the explanation that his heavyweight footage cannot be used to evaluate his abilities, that he's past prime and above his best weight. Well he doesn't look much different in style, technical skills or speed in his fights with Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins, than he looks in 1949-51 footage at heavyweight.

Who you beat is the only real evidence anyone has. If it was so easy to predict they outcome of a head-to-head match up we'd all be wealthy men from betting on fights.

Most people in life pick someone they like for whatever reason and reverse engineer their argument to suit their outcome. We are all guilty of it.

When it comes down to it though the opponents someone faced and how they fared is the measuring stick that has the most validity.

Great boxing skills can be seen with Charles . . .his timing of the left jab, counters, subtle defensive moves. He didn't put all of his speed into 3 punch pitty pat combos like Roy . . he would get guys in a lull and then BOOM, hard counter puts them on their pants.

Boxing skill isn't leaping in with left hooks and doing a chicken dance vs Glen Kelly.

Boxing skill doesn't equate to flashiness.

As to the post that Cerdan gets "owned" by Jones wow some of the things you read on here are just too much.

Even greater boxing skills can be seen with RJJ. But some people prefer to put a blind eye on them, despite it being crystal clear video that you can slow down easily if you can't notice these things at normal speed.

I don't see the "greater" skills with Jones- I don't think it's any "better" or "worse". And luckily, I am not blind.....yet.

He & Charles don't even fight alike. One is flashy, while the other is subtle.

Now, Jones may be more explosive & dynamic. That, I can agree with.

Senya13 wrote:Even greater boxing skills can be seen with RJJ. But some people prefer to put a blind eye on them, despite it being crystal clear video that you can slow down easily if you can't notice these things at normal speed.

If Jones Jr had great boxing skills he would've never gotten beaten up by Glen Johnson.