Tweet
Charles was very strong for his size and could really punch, don't kid yourself. He had everything but killer instinct and he only lost that after he killed a man in the ring. Ezzard was that good of a boxer and fighter. He really was a cobra poised to strike at any opportunity: sleek, lethal, and with nerves of steel.
Ezzard Charles harks from a forgotten time in boxing when men were STUDENTS of the game and came up slowly developing their skills gradually in front of small audiences before moving up to the big time. They weren't rushed to become main event fighters like nowadays. The competition was fierce, the skill level was several notches above what you see today. When you compare the skills of Charles, Walcott, Moore, LaStarza, etc to everyone in the heavyweights except for James Toney, it's a joke. P4P Charles would slaughter any of the heavyweights alive today and even at 190 pounds he would give these brutes hell.
Boxing is about having a mastery over many small skills. It's not about being faster or hitting harder. Give me the quickest and most powerful man of all time, put him in there with a master like Charles, and he would get countered into a timid shell within a minute. Charles was an absolute master of various boxing skills. He was a counter puncher who could move, feint, slip, parry, handled himself in a clinch, fought well on the inside etc. When you compare Patterson to that, Floyd is just a forward moving puncher/stalker with decent reflexes, a paper mache chin, and great athleticism.
I just don't see the tiny edge in power (if any) and moderate edge in handspeed offsetting all of the skills Charles possessed in his arsenal as well as his cool, level headed relaxed mentality when fighting. Also it's not as if Patterson had the strength and determination of Marciano. You're making him out to be a tank when he would be the one having to look out for Charle's quick, fluid combinations.
I just don't see Patterson beating him bar a fluke left hook. If they fight fight ten times, I'd give 9 to Charles. Marciano beat Charles because he was incredibly strong for his size, hit a ton with every punch, and had the determination to walk through a hail of punches just to sneak in a punch. Patterson doesn't possess the qualities he'd need to take Patterson. Couldn't outfox him like Walcott, couldn't outslug him like Marciano. No, I just don't see it as being probable.
Ezzard Charles harks from a forgotten time in boxing when men were STUDENTS of the game and came up slowly developing their skills gradually in front of small audiences before moving up to the big time. They weren't rushed to become main event fighters like nowadays. The competition was fierce, the skill level was several notches above what you see today. When you compare the skills of Charles, Walcott, Moore, LaStarza, etc to everyone in the heavyweights except for James Toney, it's a joke. P4P Charles would slaughter any of the heavyweights alive today and even at 190 pounds he would give these brutes hell.
Boxing is about having a mastery over many small skills. It's not about being faster or hitting harder. Give me the quickest and most powerful man of all time, put him in there with a master like Charles, and he would get countered into a timid shell within a minute. Charles was an absolute master of various boxing skills. He was a counter puncher who could move, feint, slip, parry, handled himself in a clinch, fought well on the inside etc. When you compare Patterson to that, Floyd is just a forward moving puncher/stalker with decent reflexes, a paper mache chin, and great athleticism.
I just don't see the tiny edge in power (if any) and moderate edge in handspeed offsetting all of the skills Charles possessed in his arsenal as well as his cool, level headed relaxed mentality when fighting. Also it's not as if Patterson had the strength and determination of Marciano. You're making him out to be a tank when he would be the one having to look out for Charle's quick, fluid combinations.
I just don't see Patterson beating him bar a fluke left hook. If they fight fight ten times, I'd give 9 to Charles. Marciano beat Charles because he was incredibly strong for his size, hit a ton with every punch, and had the determination to walk through a hail of punches just to sneak in a punch. Patterson doesn't possess the qualities he'd need to take Patterson. Couldn't outfox him like Walcott, couldn't outslug him like Marciano. No, I just don't see it as being probable.
Comment