BoxRec

Who would have won this battle of the slick 180lbers?

Both men had great skill.

Charles was very good defensively & had a great jab.

Patterson had blistering speed, a tremendous leaping hook & a great peek-a-boo style.

I going with Charles on this one. He was a very underrated fighter.

It would have been a close though, as Patterson was no mug against fighters that didn't have massive KO power, so he would have given Charles a decent fight.

I think Charles would have won over 15 rounds in a close fight.

Both in they're prime...I'd pick Charles by knockout sometime after the fourth round.

..barry has this one pegged....charles was a kayo puncher at this weight

barry wrote:Both in they're prime...I'd pick Charles by knockout sometime after the fourth round.

Pick Charles if you like, but nobody 180 lbs. is going to stop Floyd.
Floyd was a better banger at HWT. Both were courageous, skilled fighters.
Floyd would be the agressor, & if their was going to be a ko. I like Patterson. Ezzard might outbox him, in a tough contest.
By decision I agree it's Ezzard.

Prime vs. prime Charles by decision.

Prime vs Prime This would have been pretty lop sided for Ezzard.

bill.lockhart wrote:

barry wrote:Both in they're prime...I'd pick Charles by knockout sometime after the fourth round.

Pick Charles if you like, but nobody 180 lbs. is going to stop Floyd.
Floyd was a better banger at HWT. Both were courageous, skilled fighters.
Floyd would be the agressor, & if their was going to be a ko. I like Patterson. Ezzard might outbox him, in a tough contest.
By decision I agree it's Ezzard.

I reckon Marciano & Dempsey would have have sparked Floyd out.

Charles without even second guessing it (KO 8 out of 10 times); Ezzard may well be the greatest L-HW ever!

..jimglen nails it....except make it ten out of ten times...

Patterson had one of the more fragile of chins of all heavyweight champions yet a fighter of 180 poounds is not going to stop him????

Well, very flawed is the reasoning!

So Jack Dempsey, who at his best around 185 and was often around 180, would not stop Patterson...or Bob Satterfield, light heavyweight who stopped tougher heavyweights than Patterson would not stop he of the lighter chin...Tommy Gomez, who stopped heavyweights who had never been stopped, knocked them out cold even, yet due to being 180 at his best, Gomez would not stop Patterson...give me a break...I could name several light heavyweights that could have done the trick! Size means nothing when a fighters has the china-chin and though Patterson's chin was certainly stronger than china, it wasn't a solid chin and chins like that taste the knockout.

sorry jaclem buddy, and i hope my resply doesnt send your blood pressure through the roof, but due to style i am going to have to pick floyd patterson by mid round KO.

patterson was harder hitting and had faster hands than charles, and floyd loved to brawl. strangely enough, so did ezzard! ezzard loved to fight on the inside a lot, and he chose to brawl alot. charles trying to fight patterson in the trenches will lead to his downfall IMO. considering pattersons superior power, combinations and handspeed, i believe patterson will knock ezzard out.

also consider floyd at his peak was 195lb, a good 15lb heavier than ezzard.

patterson KO 8 charles

I gotta agree with Brock. Although, I'd say P4P, Charles was the better fighter, the bigger, stronger Patterson knocks him out late.

I can't say I really agree with people saying Patterson's chin would be the difference. Certainly Charles' was better, but I'd hardly consider Patterson glass-jawed, for getting blown out by a guy who can easily be considered one of the ten best punchers in heavyweight history.

It'd be a good fight, but I'd definately favour Patterson by KO in a close fight.

..no brock buddy...no problem with my blood pressure.....just an amused smile ........no way, my young friend..no way at all.... :P

barry wrote:Patterson had one of the more fragile of chins of all heavyweight champions yet a fighter of 180 poounds is not going to stop him????

Well, very flawed is the reasoning!

So Jack Dempsey, who at his best around 185 and was often around 180, would not stop Patterson...or Bob Satterfield, light heavyweight who stopped tougher heavyweights than Patterson would not stop he of the lighter chin...Tommy Gomez, who stopped heavyweights who had never been stopped, knocked them out cold even, yet due to being 180 at his best, Gomez would not stop Patterson...give me a break...I could name several light heavyweights that could have done the trick! Size means nothing when a fighters has the china-chin and though Patterson's chin was certainly stronger than china, it wasn't a solid chin and chins like that taste the knockout.

I said nobody at 180. Dempsey at his best would beat Patterson. Marciano of course. However, they were more than 180. Patterson participated in with the exception of 2 fights every title fight for 10 consecutive years 1956-1966. That's staying power. That s impressive.

It really surprises me just how much Patterson gets overrated. He was good but nowhere near great. Charles wins this one late or on points.

Ezzard wrote:It really surprises me just how much Patterson gets overrated. He was good but nowhere near great. Charles wins this one late or on points.

Sadly his overating comes directly from an off night for Archie Moore.....who has no excuse for that loss. Flukes happen and they change perceptions.

Charles is a bit tougher, but Patterson has faster hands and hits harder. Both guys liked to mix it up on offense.

If one assumes both were in their primes, I'd side with Patterson to win. There would be a good chance that each fighter would be down before the winner is declared. It would be a heck of a fight.

Patterson gets unfairly tagged for having a glass jaw. Liston or Ingo best could turn a steel jaw into a glass one. Few fight fans know that Charles was actually down more often that Patterson was.

Patterson went the distance with fighters such as Quarry, Bonavena, and Chavalo. These three hit about as hard as Charles did. In fact Bonavnna might have hit harder than Charles.

..boxbuzz made this entry only to play grinch to me at christmas time. i shan't even comment on his sly omission of two more fights.

i doubt if anyone here saw charles in his prime as much as i did. quicker than patterson, harder punching...and many of the knockdowns were over a period of one hunded plus fights. well, actually, he was knocked down a whole bunch of times in two fights.....the back to back losses against marshall and bivins....check box rec...and see how many times he got back up again...plus there were others i know about...and saw....that most can't find on his record. he was knocked down by fitzie fitzpatrick...and i'm an honest reporter as well as an ezzard idolizer...and he got a long count....he was really in never-never land....but came back to kayo...brutally...fitzpatrick.

for those who think patterson...a nice fellow...would beat ezzard....i hope your christmas, hannukah or kwaanza dreams are more substantial.

happy holidays.

Back in the days when men were men and fighters fought quite often....they would show up to work even if they were sick or had a bad day with the family...or were sleep deprived. And since they only fought very good opponents they could go to work...and LOSE to an inferior opponent. Jaclem gives two examples of Ezzards "scars in the leather" of his excellent record.

I can think of a few for Archie as well. Floyd being one....and well...never mind.

excellent post BoxBuz,

yeah today fighters with every excuse under the sun and an easier time in the sport for titles & defences (lack of them) can loss 6 fights out of 30, be completely 'exonerated' and yet the great men of old after hundreds of fights against the greatest of opposition get 'slammed' for a dozen or two losses...

your right, some of these losses were while fighting against adverse conditions and the others no great loss (expected from time to time), against other greats...

Jaclem your a lucky man to have seen Charles and Co, my 3 favourite are Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles & Lloyd Marshall.

Jim.

Ezzard wrote:It really surprises me just how much Patterson gets overrated. He was good but nowhere near great. Charles wins this one late or on points.

overated? patterson is very much underated if anything. he gets picked against in almost all fantasy matchups, which is ridiculous.

....hey brockton..the real fantasy match would be d'mato putting floyd in the ring with ezzard. now floyd would fight any body....he proved that when he had plenty of excuses to avoid liston, but insisted on fighitng him...cus, however....was more circumspect...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:It really surprises me just how much Patterson gets overrated. He was good but nowhere near great. Charles wins this one late or on points.

overated? patterson is very much underated if anything. he gets picked against in almost all fantasy matchups, which is ridiculous.

I think his popularity as a man gets in the way. I am amazed by how many people pick him in match ups and just how high he ends up in many rankings.

He was better after he lost the title, in an odd way, but he's really not at this level.

Ezzard wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:It really surprises me just how much Patterson gets overrated. He was good but nowhere near great. Charles wins this one late or on points.

overated? patterson is very much underated if anything. he gets picked against in almost all fantasy matchups, which is ridiculous.

I think his popularity as a man gets in the way. I am amazed by how many people pick him in match ups and just how high he ends up in many rankings.

He was better after he lost the title, in an odd way, but he's really not at this level.

Floyd was beaten by nobody weighing 180 to 190 in his entire career.
Later in his career he lost to Ellis & Quarry both 195 or better. The controversy surrounding those fights is well known. Ezzard was at his best under 175. The fact both men won heavyweight titles speaks volumes about their skill & heart. Floyd is criticized unfairly.

Ezzard wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:It really surprises me just how much Patterson gets overrated. He was good but nowhere near great. Charles wins this one late or on points.

overated? patterson is very much underated if anything. he gets picked against in almost all fantasy matchups, which is ridiculous.

I think his popularity as a man gets in the way. I am amazed by how many people pick him in match ups and just how high he ends up in many rankings.

He was better after he lost the title, in an odd way, but he's really not at this level.

actually no, patterson was not better after he lost the title. pattersons sucess past his prime shows you just how special he was in his prime.


fact is Damato destroyed pattersons legacy by wasting pattersons peak years fighting either bums or a trilogy with johannsen or getting stomped by liston (1957-63). patterson during these years could and would have mopped the floor with guys like machen, folley, johnson, moore, valdez, dejohn, but Damato wouldnt give floyd the chance. floyds legacy would look alot better taking out those guys. BELIEVE ME. HE WOULD HAVE TOO!


i highly suggest you watch patterson vs machen 1964. eddie machen consistently claimed patterson had been ducking him for years and patterson shut eddies mouth good. pattersons gave machen one of the worst beatings of all time, knocking him down 5 times, winning every round and CARRYING machen the last 2 rounds cause he felt bad for eddie.


pattersons combination of speed and power are a uiniqe blend that very few in history could match, and too make him so deadly patterson was also one of the best technical boxers of all time. WHAT A DEADLY COMBO!!