BoxRec

Charles is one of the all-time greats, but I think Floyd comes through here.

Any opinions?

as you can see by my user name floyd patterson is my fave boxer ever.

however i don;t think he beats ezzard charles. a masterfully defensive boxer with probably better jab and hand speed than floyd. he also has a better and great chin so i think he takes a late stoppage.

charles ko 10

I think Charles was the greater overall fighter, and I think he could have beaten a lot of guys who would have beaten Patterson, but styles make fights and I like the trigger-fisted Patterson in this matchup.

Mr E wrote:I think Charles was the greater overall fighter, and I think he could have beaten a lot of guys who would have beaten Patterson, but styles make fights and I like the trigger-fisted Patterson in this matchup.

Agree!

Charles better overall, but Floyd gets it done in this one.

I'm not so sure. Charles is under-estimated as a Heavyweight (he had a run as champion which is sorely under-appreciated), & he was the smarter, tougher fighter. I think he'd set his traps & be successful in doing so. Patterson's combinations were often clumsy --- can't think of too many smaller, fast Heavyweight titleists who could take advantage of this better than Charles. On the other hand, Patterson's left hook & high-punch output would threaten his man, & though he lacked a great chin, he showed in some fights he had an extraordinary heart & will to go on, & Charles lacks the true hammerblow of a Johansson or Liston to really put Patterson away.

This could get real close.

goodnight floyd...

Floydp55 wrote:as you can see by my user name floyd patterson is my fave boxer ever.

however i don;t think he beats ezzard charles. a masterfully defensive boxer with probably better jab and hand speed than floyd. he also has a better and great chin so i think he takes a late stoppage.

charles ko 10

- An honest assessment on one of the classiest warriors in the history of boxing.

Floyd for all his heart and talent, was a better, more mentally adept fighter after his physical prime, in spite of being cursed with one of the shakiest chins in history. Charles wouldn't buy into the flash and talent, having plenty enough of his own with much better fundamentals and experience against the best in history.

I echo your sentiments and results.

I think it would be a great fight.

jaclem2 wrote:goodnight floyd...

Seconded, yancey you have veered off course once again.

Five say Patterson, two say Charles, one (Me) undecided.

The two that say Charles...actually saw them both.

BoxBuzz wrote:The two that say Charles...actually saw them both.

So what?

Bert Sugar has been ringside for 100's of fights.

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:The two that say Charles...actually saw them both.

So what?

Bert Sugar has been ringside for 100's of fights.

Collins, to see is to witness, to witness is to observe, to observe is to watch and to watch is to lay eyes upon. So there is your SO and your WHAT. It is what it is, nothing less nothing more. However it's very very special. Those who are blind simply don't know what they are missing.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:The two that say Charles...actually saw them both.

So what?

Bert Sugar has been ringside for 100's of fights.

Collins, to see is to witness, to witness is to observe, to observe is to watch and to watch is to lay eyes upon. So there is your SO and your WHAT. It is what it is, nothing less nothing more. However it's very very special. Those who are blind simply don't know what they are missing.

Which Ezzard Charles fight did you attend?

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:The two that say Charles...actually saw them both.

So what?

Bert Sugar has been ringside for 100's of fights.

Collins, to see is to witness, to witness is to observe, to observe is to watch and to watch is to lay eyes upon. So there is your SO and your WHAT. It is what it is, nothing less nothing more. However it's very very special. Those who are blind simply don't know what they are missing.

What a steaming pile of crap.

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: Collins, to see is to witness, to witness is to observe, to observe is to watch and to watch is to lay eyes upon. So there is your SO and your WHAT. It is what it is, nothing less nothing more. However it's very very special. Those who are blind simply don't know what they are missing.

What a steaming pile of crap.

Yeah, but that's our Buzzy for ya.

Steaming pile of crap eh? Well, mebbe sew, And yet Charles would win this fight and I would collect on this bet and smile as I walked out with my winnnings provided by the likes of those who would place their money on Floyd.

Stench or no stench, I invite you to poke your eyes out and test my theory. Report back and tell me if that "stench" dissipates a bit for ya. If your too busy to report back, I understand.

"What a steaming pile of crap.

" - Yancey

Modus operandi, essentially.

Boxbuzz, which Ezzard Charles fight(s) did you attend?

Collins2000 wrote:Boxbuzz, which Ezzard Charles fight(s) did you attend?

Collins I like your forensic questions. Never....I was extrapolating regarding Jaclem and Jaclem2. HOWEVER you've reminded me of a gem that I may be able to get my hands on. My dad took his old standard 8MM bell and howell camera to the Charles Albright II fight and I KNOW I've seen a few rounds of that fight via our home movies as a kid. Pretty murky but good enough to know what was going on. I also saw the end where it seemed somewhat confused as Albright could not make it into a later round.....I just looked it up and it was the 7th I guess. He also had some shots of Ezz a day or two before the fight talking with some local fight fans. I havent thought of it for decades but if the acetate has not become brittle and unusable my older brother might be able to commit it to DVD.

That just might be my greatest gift to the sport if I can somehow resurrect that bit of old celluloid. Hopefully it still exists but no guarantee. Archies last fight also had my dad's camera rolling (with me in attendance on that one) but that one I tried to track down years ago and the story is it was lent to a friend and never seen again. Since this is the first I've thought of this memory in decades it could also be lost to the years.

I would absolutely put that on youtube if it can be found and processed.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Five say Patterson, two say Charles, one (Me) undecided.

Im close to being undecided. I could also see it going either way.

Robinson wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Five say Patterson, two say Charles, one (Me) undecided.

Im close to being undecided. I could also see it going either way.

Of the two that say Charles, one claimed to have seen Charles boxing live but now has admitted he was making that up...

What a weird mob post here.

Collins2000 wrote:

Robinson wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Five say Patterson, two say Charles, one (Me) undecided.

Im close to being undecided. I could also see it going either way.

Of the two that say Charles, one claimed to have seen Charles boxing live but now has admitted he was making that up...

What a weird mob post here.

Nonsensical blabbering based on your own errant assumption. Jaclem and Jaclem 2 are the ones who saw him. You have now flunked your forensic class and show little hope in terms of rehab in the critical thinking dept.

However as follow up, I have had several conversations on this subject with my brother who had seen him on more than one occasion. And he feels that Ezzard would have prevailed as well. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Robinson wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Five say Patterson, two say Charles, one (Me) undecided.

Im close to being undecided. I could also see it going either way.

Me too.

I think it's a tough one to call, but my bias (I'm a big Floyd Patterson fan) would lead me to think that Patterson would take this one, but I can't say with any certainty.

"So put that in your pipe and smoke it" ---- BB


Well, I'm sure you can tell us a bunch about smoking things in pipes.