head to head Billy Conn Ezzard Charles

[billeau2]

Well that blowhard is at it again...won't mention names, everyone knows to whom I am referring. I am wrong here...But I cannot rid myself of the notion that exposing the blowhard is really the best medicine to fix the problem...I am too idealistic but never the less...

The blowhard is making a case that Billy Conn, a fabulous fighter in his own right, is a better fighter than Ezzard Charles. If you read through all the nonsense? He is pinning this on a fight with Bob Pastor... Yup. Thats what all the BS boils down to.

So before I post my opinion, lets hear your take, your comparison on these two fighters. Can a case be made that Conn is a better fighter than Charles? maybe I am missing something? By all means let me know...the blowhard in question certainly will!

Ohh and I learned that Charley Burley was a devistating puncher....that sort of broke the back of this proverbial camel. Really? who knew!

[cfang]

Conn was a great fighter. Hard ti see how his career would have panned out without ww2 but hes defo an all time top ten lt heavy. Hed have a chance against anyone.

Charles though is a level above. A superfighter who belongs in the same argument as srr, greb, langford etc. He beat moore 3 times, hed beat conn prob on pts.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Butt hurt much?


Want an easy fix to me picking on you? Stop making sh.it up.


Conn's clearly superior. No one could watch these two and draw any other conclusion.

While a UD win for Conn is most likely, Conn finishing Charles remains a high possibility.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Conn was a great fighter. Hard ti see how his career would have panned out without ww2 but hes defo an all time top ten lt heavy. Hed have a chance against anyone.

Charles though is a level above. A superfighter who belongs in the same argument as srr, greb, langford etc. He beat moore 3 times, hed beat conn prob on pts.

Yeah, Charles would KO Godzilla and King Kong. In the first round. At the same timen Probably without even throwing a punch.

Conn's performance against Louis was far, far greater than Robinson's against Maxim. And his wins over Yarosz and Aposotoli take a steaming hot sh.it over anything Ray did during his TWENTY years in the division.

I do rank Robinson higher, but not by much. And one of the few reasons why is owed to having a muuuuuuch longer career. If his career were also over at 25, it would almost be splitting hairs between them.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Has anyone considered anything said by Max BaUer?

[Willie Pep 229]

Is it relevant that Charles was knocked down 29 times in his career?

Ezzard Charles (The Cincinnati Cobra) a total of 29 times in 11 fights

Billy Bengal ::: (1) ::: Music Hall Arena, Cincinnati ::: 10/02/1941 ::: Down Round 7 ::: W UD
Lloyd Marshall I ::: (8) ::: Arena, Cleveland ::: 31/03/1943 ::: Down Rounds 1 (2) & 3 & 5 & 7 (2) & 8 (2) ::: L TKO
Jimmy Bivens I::: (4) ::: Arena, Cleveland ::: 07/01/1943 ::: Down Rounds 3 & 4 & 5 & 8 ::: L UD
Fitize Fitzpatrick ::: (1) ::: Crosley Field, Cincinnati ::: 14/07/1947 ::: Down Round 2 ::: W KO
Jersey Joe Walcott III ::: (1) ::: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh ::: 18/07/1951 ::: Down Round 7 ::: L KO
Rocky, Marciano II ::: (3) ::: Yankee Stadium, The Bronx ::: 17/09/1954 ::: Down Rounds 2 & 8 (2) ::: L KO
John Holman I ::: (3) ::: Auditorium, Miami Beach ::: 27/04/1955 :: Down Rounds 1 & 9 (2) ::: L TKO
Paul Andrews ::: (1) ::: Chicago Stadium, Chicago ::: 13/07/1955 ::: Down Round 2 ::: W SD
Harry Matthews ::: (1) ::: Sicks' Stadium, Seattle ::: 31/08/1956 ::: Down Round 1 ::: L UD
Donnie Fleeman ::: (3) ::: Memorial Auditorium, Dallas ::: 27/10/1958 ::: Down Rounds 5 (2) & 6 ::: L KO
George Logan ::: (3) ::: Fairgrounds Arena, Boise ::: 30/07/1959 ::: Down Rounds 1 & 3 & 8 ::: L KO

[ShoulderRoll]

Ezzard Charles is unquestionably more accomplished. One became heavyweight champion while the other didn't.

If Charles hadn't lost his ferocity after causing the death of Sam Baroudi who knows how much greater he could have been. As it was he still beat Walcott several times and could have been given the nod against Marciano the first time.

He could attack, he could be slick and defend, he could counterpunch. Just a complete fighter.

I think highly of Billy Conn but would put him a couple of notches below the Cincinnati Cobra.

[billeau2]

I just get sick of being the sole member here to deal with the blowhard. Statistically if one looks at his early days Charles seems to have lost a lot of fights. There comes a point where he obviously gets it together and proceeds to show greatness.

I will do a more detailed comparison later.

lets say for the sake of argument that Conn was a boxing prodigy, I actually have no problem with that. Conn being so able while so young and all...

Mozart and Beethoven were two of the greatest composers, which one was a childhood prodigy? Did that distinction make him better than the other one?

Maybe the Blowhard will get the point of this comparison? Maybe not?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Is it relevant that Charles was knocked down 29 times in his career?

Ezzard Charles (The Cincinnati Cobra) a total of 29 times in 11 fights

Billy Bengal ::: (1) ::: Music Hall Arena, Cincinnati ::: 10/02/1941 ::: Down Round 7 ::: W UD
Lloyd Marshall I ::: (8) ::: Arena, Cleveland ::: 31/03/1943 ::: Down Rounds 1 (2) & 3 & 5 & 7 (2) & 8 (2) ::: L TKO
Jimmy Bivens I::: (4) ::: Arena, Cleveland ::: 07/01/1943 ::: Down Rounds 3 & 4 & 5 & 8 ::: L UD
Fitize Fitzpatrick ::: (1) ::: Crosley Field, Cincinnati ::: 14/07/1947 ::: Down Round 2 ::: W KO
Jersey Joe Walcott III ::: (1) ::: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh ::: 18/07/1951 ::: Down Round 7 ::: L KO
Rocky, Marciano II ::: (3) ::: Yankee Stadium, The Bronx ::: 17/09/1954 ::: Down Rounds 2 & 8 (2) ::: L KO
John Holman I ::: (3) ::: Auditorium, Miami Beach ::: 27/04/1955 :: Down Rounds 1 & 9 (2) ::: L TKO
Paul Andrews ::: (1) ::: Chicago Stadium, Chicago ::: 13/07/1955 ::: Down Round 2 ::: W SD
Harry Matthews ::: (1) ::: Sicks' Stadium, Seattle ::: 31/08/1956 ::: Down Round 1 ::: L UD
Donnie Fleeman ::: (3) ::: Memorial Auditorium, Dallas ::: 27/10/1958 ::: Down Rounds 5 (2) & 6 ::: L KO
George Logan ::: (3) ::: Fairgrounds Arena, Boise ::: 30/07/1959 ::: Down Rounds 1 & 3 & 8 ::: L KO

Damn! That's impressive!

Charles was a tremendous fighter.
Definitely top 10 at Light Heavyweight. Definitely top 50 p4p. Possibly top 10 among the best fighters sub-200 lbs. Possibly top 25 P4P.

But he's also one of these fighters whose legacies have been greatly exaggerated by internet revisionists. While more traditionally celebrated fighters have seen their legacies attacked.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Ezzard Charles is unquestionably more accomplished. One became heavyweight champion while the other didn't.

If Charles hadn't lost his ferocity after causing the death of Sam Baroudi who knows how much greater he could have been. As it was he still beat Walcott several times and could have been given the nod against Marciano the first time.

He could attack, he could be slick and defend, he could counterpunch. Just a complete fighter.

I think highly of Billy Conn but would put him a couple of notches below the Cincinnati Cobra.

Why am I not surprised you'd be the kinda bonehead to believe the Baroudi myth? Mind sharing your evidence?

Sure, you're right, one won the Heavyweight championship and the other didn't.

One also fought a prime Joe Louis, the other one didn't.

One almost KO'd Joe Louis, the other didn't.

One lost to Joe Walcott, the other didn't.

One almost got KO'd by a shot Jimmy Bivins, the other didn't.

One lost to Harold Johnson, the other didn't.

One lost to John Holman, the other didn't.

One, by the age of 23 and in less than three years, had proven himself the best best fighter in the world at Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight (or just two rounds short), the other didn't.

One won Light Heavyweight championship and the other didn't.

Sorry, for turning your tonsils into jelly. You can come up for air, now.






Caught your breath? OK, open wide, back down you go.


What Billy wanted Billy got - even if it took a few attempts. Charles went his whole life without take the training wheels off, and couldn't say that.


When did Charles beat a Yarosz, Corbett or Apostoli?

A lot of Charles' legacy is based on beating guys who weren't at their best: Marshall, Bivins, Walcott, but who beat him when they were. The fights with Marciano were heroic, but he didn't almost beat Marciano in the first outing - you don't get Boxing if you'd "give him the nod". And as bad as Marciano's nose was before he KO'd Charles, it was caused by a foul. The wins over Moore are probably his career zenith. So, to that point, I would say between him and Conn, he has the best scalp on paper.


But watching Conn, even just from the Louis fight, there's no way he'd lose to Charles or Walcott. Style-wise Moore probably presents the stiffest challenge, but Conn's still the favorite.