What Made Ezzard Charles such a fantastic fighter. From a technical Viewpoint.

[billeau2]

Some of my fellow members wrote some spectacular posts responding to one of Unk's (Uncle Ben) head to head matchups. Specifically in a match up between Spinks and Charles.

So this gave me pause to think of something that sticks in my craw lol. I have watched Charles on tape, and can sort of recite sound reasoning for his greatness... But I must also confess, when I think and discuss Charles there is a level that I am missing in my understanding when it comes down to reducing exactly what elements about his greatness made him one of the best.

What is it that Charles did that made him so great? Technically speaking here....
Help a brudda out! lol!

[markusmod]

I thought he was pretty sound technically, but not as technically sound as Spinks.

[QueensburyRules]

- - All the footage of Ez is past prime as Hvy, not his prime middle to LH years. His record up until Rocky trumps 99% of the IBHOF.

Yup, you could look it up!

[billeau2]

- - All the footage of Ez is past prime as Hvy, not his prime middle to LH years. His record up until Rocky trumps 99% of the IBHOF.

Yup, you could look it up!

Yeah I am not questioning his greatness. Just trying to get a feel for what technical points he brings to the table:
For example, Burley's efficiency, Armstrong & Grebb's constant attack, etc. There apparently was a time when Charles was a fantastic puncher...

We don't have footage of many fighters yet have a feel for what made them great

[DeeMoney]

- - All the footage of Ez is past prime as Hvy, not his prime middle to LH years. His record up until Rocky trumps 99% of the IBHOF.

Yup, you could look it up!

There is that one choppy film of him out there from the second Marshall fight. He looks like a punching machine in that thing. As was stated most of what we have from Ez is heavyweight, post prime; there is also the belief that he lightened up a bit after the Baroudi tragedy. But from what little I can see of a young Charles he looks great. I think it was Ray Arcel who said, 'prime Charles was like SRR with less power.'

[billeau2]

One thng that occurs to me: If you watch a fighter like Frazier... Its easy to point out what makes him great. Some guys are incredibly well rounded, Ray Robinson could do everythng...maybe thats how it was with Charles.

[QueensburyRules]

Yeah I am not questioning his greatness. Just trying to get a feel for what technical points he brings to the table:
For example, Burley's efficiency, Armstrong & Grebb's constant attack, etc. There apparently was a time when Charles was a fantastic puncher...

We don't have footage of many fighters yet have a feel for what made them great

- - What little we have of Burley is him looking as sorry as the guy he's fighting, Oakland Billy or some such on a few minutes of a sorry clip. What we do know is he was death to promoters, so he musta been a runner/stinker pioneer where he had to go begging hat in hand for a fight.

He said Greb!

[The Old LefHook]

One could always point to who he beat, as an indirect answer. Under heavyweight, he beat everyone in sight, usually multiple times. That is evidence he is great. But not what makes him great.

Since I only have the same films to go by as everyone else, I don't know what makes him so great, either. Underrated-ness and overrated-ness seem to run in cycles, favoring certain fighters to dump on.

Counter punchers are generally hella boring, though that is a fantastic skill. Against heavyweights in the later films, I just see a competent boxer in Charles, not necessarily one of the greatest ever. Maybe I don't know what to look for. With younger film evidence I would not have to look so hard at what does not seem to contain what I am looking for anyway.

I am glad you asked the question. I almost asked it a number of times myself.

If one were asked to describe the reasons Hopkins was great, that would be a difficult opinion, too, in my opinion. Style itself may sometimes obscure a fighter's greatness.

* * * * *

We may have to settle for the best boxing wordsmiths of the time and whatever they say about Ezzard., since there never will be film of his early years.

[billeau2]

- - What little we have of Burley is him looking as sorry as the guy he's fighting, Oakland Billy or some such on a few minutes of a sorry clip. What we do know is he was death to promoters, so he musta been a runner/stinker pioneer where he had to go begging hat in hand for a fight.

He said Greb!

Dude... Those same promoters and his contemporaries site Burley as being a top dog. School much? Don't need to see more than that fight to see Burley's genius. Then again your the guy who said Young ran all night from Foreman... come on queen B. NOW to he fair, Burley was no Valuev! of Chamberlin... Lol.

[billeau2]

One could always point to who he beat, as an indirect answer. Under heavyweight, he beat everyone in sight, usually multiple times. That is evidence he is great. But not what makes him great.

Since I only have the same films to go by as everyone else, I don't know what makes him so great, either. Underrated-ness and overrated-ness seem to run in cycles, favoring certain fighters to dump on.

Counter punchers are generally hella boring, though that is a fantastic skill. Against heavyweights in the later films, I just see a competent boxer in Charles, not necessarily one of the greatest ever. Maybe I don't know what to look for. With younger film evidence I would not have to look so hard at what does not seem to contain what I am looking for anyway.

I am glad you asked the question. I almost asked it a number of times myself.

If one were asked to describe the reasons Hopkins was great, that would be a difficult opinion, too, in my opinion. Style itself may sometimes obscure a fighter's greatness.

* * * * *

We may have to settle for the best boxing wordsmiths of the time and whatever they say about Ezzard., since there never will be film of his early years.

Very well said Lefty, very well said. That is the crux of my craw booger.