The Legacy of Ezzard Charles: An Unmatched King
Photo by Keystone/Getty Images
“When I first decided to get into boxing, I’d listen to all of the older guys in the game. They’d all say the same thing: If you want to be a fighter, you;ve got to eat it and sleep it. Square that I was, I believed every word. I’d win a fight - and the very next day, I’d be back in the gym.”
The Resume
What exactly qualifies or measures greatness? If you were to ask a good number of people, the answers would differentiate. To simplify such a broad categorization, it’s often easier to ask in more specific contexts. Who was the greatest athlete? Who was the best at what they did?
Usually, most start talking about resumes - the achievements of the respective person. In the case of combat sports, discussing resumes can be rather complicated for a number of reasons. That said, to reinforce a point made by a previous article: “[W]hat demands or stipulates how [great] a fighter actually was is [usually] subjective [though, with rigorous study],” you can find the most special, greatest of pugilists were those who beat the best and had the numbers to truly be called special. To paraphrase, a good fighter resume shows that they beat strong competition; ergo, the best resumes will have wins over the cream of the crop
Ezzard Charles is, by any standard, one of the singular most talented fighters I’ve seen across all combat sports footage and holds a resume riddled with generational talents and all-time greats who were unlucky to be born in the same era as him. For anyone who knows their boxing history, the Cincinnati-born and fisticuffs-bred Cobra isn’t just great, he has a real argument for being the greatest boxer to have ever lived.
And yet, Charles’ reputation remains unexplored among even boxing aficionados and hobbyists. How does a fighter - known for being indisputably the best light heavyweight to have ever competed and a legitimate heavyweight world champion - not receive the exact same public accolades as many of his contemporary peers with comparably incredible achievements, such as Sugar Ray Robinson? To be honest, I cannot speak on the public memory of Charles, but I can tell you that being considered in the same conversation as Ray Robinson is not a hyperbolic claim in the slightest - Ezzard Charles really was that good.
Growing up in the poor streets of Cinnanati, a younger Charles was drawn to boxing at an early age and the prospects it gave him, an impoverished African American child, citing the Cuban great Kid Chocolate as an inspiration. By the time Charles was about to graduate from high school, he had amassed an undefeated amateur boxing record and had won several Golden Glove championships.
But, more impressively, he was considered, according to The Evening Review, “the third leading middleweight in the country” (25 May 1942, Page 9) when he was to face the esteemed Charley Burley, a prodigious fighter whose dexterous jab and catlike reflexes led opponents into counters all night long. Burley was famously claimed to be so talented that even world champions were refusing to fight him. Burley was placed in the “”Murderer's Row”, a select group of talented African American fighters whom weren’t given their rightful shots at championships and found themselves fighting one another or lesser matched opposition than anything else. And, to the surprise of many, then–twenty-year-old Charles won a thriller with Burley. A month later, he bested him again.
Charles was fed to the wolves at a young age, but he found that he was a predator himself. And, by the end of his career, he may well have been the most dangerous of them all. If you were to look through Charles’ resume, you’d discover that it’s littered with highly-esteemed scalps - and many of these fighters - royalty themselves- Charles didn’t just fight. He beat them, often decisively. Before being enlisted into the military before World War II, Charles was beating the likes of future light heavyweight champions such as Joey Maxim. And that’s to say nothing of what he accomplished after his enlistment.
From 1946 to 1951, Ezzard Charles went on a warpath, carving out a winning streak that saw his legacy as the uncrowned king of light heavyweights set in stone and a heavyweight championship that was only stopped by Jersey Joe Walcott delivering the finest left hook of his life. During that timespan, Charles’ only recorded loss was a controversial decision to Elmer Ray, a loss he avenged one year later. The light heavyweight champion, Gus Lesnevich, infamously known for avoiding many of the rightful top contenders, also kept Charles in the waiting line of deserving challengers that would have threatened his seat. Eventually, Charles’ career move to heavyweight was a financially-viable one to get some name value - and he did. Even after he was finished by Walcott and never regained the title, Charles remained a consistent force at heavyweight, giving everyone all they could handle with his unrivaled experience and depth.
As for the prominent names Charles did beat, barring the aforementioned Burley, here are some of the bigger fish:
-Archie Moore, considered one of the greatest fighters to have ever lived and renowned for his longevity, defense, and finishing ability. Holds the longest reigning Light Heavyweight reign in boxing history. Between 1946 and 1949, Moore was beaten by Charles three times - and was brutally finished in an eight-round shootout in their third encounter.
-Lloyd Marshall, an offensive boxer-puncher of the Murderer’s Row and the only boxer to score a finish on Charles at Light Heavyweight. Charles avenged the loss twice by finishing Marshall.
-Jimmy Bivins, another boxing prodigy never given his shot at the top, was a consistent force in the same divisions as Charles, even handing him a loss. Charles proceeded to edge Bivins in every proceeding contest.
-Oakland Billy Smith, a member of the Murderer’s Row, beaten by Charles on multiple occasions.
-Joey Maxim, a light heavyweight champion and skilled boxer who dethroned Lesnevich. He’s most famously known for his win over Ray Robinson in summer heat. Charles beat Maxim every time they met - according to reports - without issue.
-Jersey Joe Walcott, multiple time heavyweight title contender and slick counterpuncher. One of the best heavyweights of the post-Louis era. Charles defeated him over fifteen rounds in their first two matches and gave Walcott some of his stiffest challenges in their remaining two bouts.
-Joe Louis, former heavyweight championship and one of the most accomplished fighters in boxing’s history. Charles did face an aged Louis, though that Louis was still a very competent fighter - an excellent boxer-puncher with blistering power, accuracy, and nearly unrivaled finishing instincts. Louis was competitive, but the fight wasn’t close.
-Rex Layne, considered one of the best heavyweights of his generation to have never fought for the title. He bested Walcott and waged a titanic war with power-punching Bob Satterfield. Charles went two-of-three with Layne, decisively wearing him down into a vicious finish in their first meeting and outpointing him in the last one.
There are far more to cover, including the men who did overcome him - several of said winners saying he was their toughest opponent - though this should illustrate, over the span of two decades, just how special and versatile a fighter like Ezzard Charles was. These aren’t simply some of the best fighters of their generation; many of his wins came against the finest to ever live or, at worst, incredibly challenging opponents who could pose different stylistic challenges at any era.
And, in the process of taking on all of these men, even in losses, Charles molded himself into one of the most accomplished, skilled, and experienced fighters to ever compete in any combat sport.
Unfortunately, footage of Charles’ entire career is still very incomplete, particularly in regards to his Light Heavyweight days, but what we do have exemplifies that Ezzard Charles was absolutely one of the most natural boxers to ever grace the boxing ring.
Prime Charles
Charles is best described as an all-rounder ring general. That is, it’s difficult to classify Charles within a specific archetype because his skillset translates to a myriad of situations - it’s seemingly impossible to find a fight that Charles cannot find some way of competing in. If we were forced to identify Charles by style, then a boxer-puncher would probably be best, though that doesn’t necessarily tell the full story. This is why I think referring to Charles as a situationally-adept technician and tactician best underlies who he was in the ring: He did what was necessary to win. In a sense, the Cincinnati Cobra was a chess player locked in the confines of a boxing ring. And, like the finest game masters, Charles excelled at ensuring that each and every action was purposeful. But Charles was also willing to go to war.
Charles’ second meeting with Murderer’s Row standout and all-time great talent, Lloyd Marshall, is the only real footage of his light heavyweight run. On footage, Marshall is as good a fighter as you can find. His feints, pressure and ferocity epitomize him as a force of nature - even dropping Charles early. And yet, as extraordinary as Marshall looks, he finds himself in with someone who proves to be his better.
Charles wasn’t strictly an offensive fighter, but his punch selection is what best facilitated his ring generalship; ergo, each and every shot had a practical reason for being thrown. Against Marshall, whose threats relied upon his feints on entry, Charles needed to control the distance and the times they did engage. In what would be vintage Charles-fashion, he crafted these through his lead hand and counterpunches, particularly the check hook to keep Marshall at bay. If Marshall did get inside, Charles dug for underhooks to smother him.
Suffice it to say, it didn’t take long for Charles’ offensive potency to reveal itself once he could manipulate the distance and rhythm.
If Marshall did manage to get inside, Charles chose to clinch as a safety precaution. But, like anything Charles would do, there was always another option he would find and take advantage of.
Ezzard Charles was a horrific and consistent attrition puncher - and his attacks to his opponents’ midsections began from the opening bell and never let up. And, in what was arguably his signature blow, Charles loved his counter left shovel uppercut to the ribs - a blow scientifically-allocated to punish Marshall’s strategy and thrown with intent to debilitate him to his very core.
The Welder’s Toolbox
The attributes and tactics employed against Marshall imply several precepts about who Charles was as a fighter. Although Charles had imposing physicality and a will of iron, it's his experience, poise and intelligence that stands out, especially as his career progressed. Charles’ effectiveness was established by, in short, two features.
First, as stated, Charles built his game around what was necessary to win. A better way to phrase this is that Charles was far more tactical than strategic; in other words, Charles would start most fights feeling out what his opponents did - with the discipline to have preset counters and movements in mind - and, once he identified what they did, he would allocate his game appropriately to mitigating their efforts while maximizing his own.
Second - and this is what really corroborates the first aspect - is that Ezzard Charles holds one of the deepest toolboxes that you can find from any fighter on footage. Simply put, there was not a single phase of a fight where he couldn’t seem to have some answer for; he could compete anywhere and everywhere.
In particular, Charles’ versatility was established through his ability to meld his entire game together cohesively. This is best exemplified through a plethora of feints with similar telegraph - as Charles mixed up his threats with a ceaseless series of feints, his actions became harder to predict because they were nearly impossible to distinguish from one another.
Clip 1: Charles feints a level change and half step, throws out a jab feint to bait a response from Walcott, then steps in, and cracks him with a right.
Clip 2: Almost the exact same series of feints, but makes a committed jab and then steps into the clinch afterwards.
Ring generalship is all about how you properly allocate spatial management with specific actions - and nothing Charles threw was inherently pointless. Most prevalently, Charles’ jab, among the best you would find, was constantly probing and attacking at different levels - with many variations (up jabs, body jabs, shifting into jabs, et cetera) - all to lead his man to where he wanted in the ring or into the punches that were going to cause them the most pain,
Once Charles had his read on distance, he revealed what may well have been his most terrifying attribute: Setting up individual kill shots off of other punches.
That is, not every missed punch was a throwaway, but Charles understood that if he didn’t land, how to transfer his weight from one to another. Either way, he was going to ensnare them in a setup - once he had them trapped, he unloaded with venom.
One of the most basic combinations you can learn is how the right straight and left hook play off of one another. If you throw the left hook correctly, you’ve loaded your hips from your right side already. And then the right straight can be fired out like a spring. This can go the other way around: the right straight is easily transferable to a left hook, especially if you’re stepping in.
Subsequently, this meant Charles had an uncanny precision for his counterpunching: He knew what punches could be set up and how to punish them accordingly.
And if the opponent wasn’t minding their resets or had their punches drawn out, he made them have to think much more by attacking them proactively - he was never going to let them have easy initiative unless they worked for it. Basic feints, basic punches, basic movement - all were opportunities and openings.
And when Charles even so much as smelled blood, he went for it.
If it isn’t clear yet, Charles had an extraordinary propensity for crafting his strike selection and melding his offense and defense together seamlessly. How Charles succeeds is through his unique stance: If you pay close attention, Charles’s posture is always slightly folded over, right hand pinned to his head and left arm across or slightly adjacent to his body.
The largest benefit is that Charles almost never is compromised upstairs; he is constantly off of the centerline and defends behind his lead shoulder. Even if he loses his footing, his superlative timing lets him pull his head away from punches - especially with slips and dips - and counter.
When positioned adjacent to the head, the right hand can surprise the opponent with the shorter distance it has to cover on the lead. If he wasn’t catching his man unaware like his namesake, then Charles used his rear hand to catch opponent’s punches.
Charles’ hand positioning deserves special commendation. Having one of the most educated jabs in boxing history is one thing, but Charles' understanding of how to use the lead arm as a defensive tool is equally impressive. For instance, Charles was fond of converting his lead hand into frames.
To quote from a previous work: “Reaching across to an opponent creates a ‘bridge’ of sorts between yourself and them. This is what’s called a frame; it serves as connective tissue between offensive and defensive options [and] is easy to convert [because] it’s an extension of the arm [and can act as] a barrier.”
Moreover, Charles’ use of frames saw him utilize a variety of guards. Charles did use his traditional guard, but he would use long and cross-arm guards frequently to keep handtrapping his opponents or to catch punches off his limbs.
Speaking of convertible options, Charles’ inside game, despite not being as complex and suffocating as an Emile Griffith or a Henry Armstrong, was extremely competent. In particular, Charles crafted his entries through body shots or step ins (he was already often off the centerline). Once inside, he liked to establish underhooks or handtraps on the wrists while placing his head under his man’s own. Charles understood how the clinch was viable for effective moments of ring generalship and would aggressively change grips and his posture on the inside to ensure he could maintain consistent offense while his opponent was smothered.
That is, when Charles mixed up his ranges on the outside and inside - he was an extremely accurate, opportunistic technician in these transitions. The depth of his game and how he was a true all-rounder threat at any and every range is prevalent in the above clip selection.
An older Joe Louis proved to still be a dangerous enough counterpuncher in close quarters that he had one of Charles’ eyes shut one-third of the way through the fight. Charles proceeded to showcase his entire game’s fluidity and versatility with a plethora of feints on the outside to draw Louis’ counters, counter them and, at the same time, step in to inside, and attack off his handtraps. As soon as Louis even posed a risk to Charles, he found himself following and having to turn as Charles potshot him at a distance.
And, lest we forget: Charles loved to set his opponents up into counters - and transitions offered plenty of those opportunities by playing upon conventional expectations.
Walcott is an incredibly willing, powerful puncher and decent infighter. Charles breaks from the infight in a crouched-posture, which triggers Walcott to blitz forward into a left hook. This is a trap: Charles has already planted his feet, times a hop back and sends Walcott crashing with a perfectly-timed left hook counter. Breaking from an infight is dangerous if the other man is planted - and Charles uses that knowledge against Walcott to time a shot that only the best fighters who ever lived could have found.
I don’t think I need to extrapolate further that there are only a few fighters who could conceivably call themselves as good at boxing as Charles was.
The Gaps in the Armor
In many ways, identifying flaws in a fighter such as Ezzard Charles is more difficult than it was for Sugar Ray Robinson, whom I believe serves as a good comparative for Charles here. If anything else, Robinson’s game was incredibly predicated upon his athletic advantages, though he had an incredible lead hand and was arguably the most offensively potent boxer on footage. Charles isn’t quite the athlete Robinson was, though he was, arguably, a better technical, well-rounded fighter. Personally, I think discussing the weaknesses of well-rounded boxers feels like you’re grasping at straws, though there were definite ways Charles could be and was beaten.
It’s indisputable that Charles was an excellent ring technician; however, Charles can be held somewhat accountable for being too aggressive for his own good. In many exchanges, Charles relied upon his accuracy and thunderous power to seize the initiative. This meant that Charles could overextend on entry and that he was going to be foiled a number of times by effective counterpunchers.
Of course, this was easier said than done because of Charles’ versatility, though, if the counters were set up, then he struggled to take control of the fight consistently.
Ultimately, that is the main issue Charles would face: When he couldn’t establish any kind of mixups or control, he found himself in fights at a stalemate or could forced to fight his opponent’s fight at a pace and distance that was disadvantageous. Typically, this happened if he faced someone who could compete with or was better than him in a specific area.
Despite Charles’ situational awareness on the inside, if he fought someone who was as competent an infighter, he could be smothered.
Or, someone who could grab collar ties on Charles and the timing on the breaks could get to him in transitions.
One of Charles’ subtler issues was that, despite being defensively sound, his dip behind the lead shoulder left him open to a particular counter. And no one exploited this weakness better than Jersey Joe Walcott.
“I kept banging him to the body early in the fight to bring his guard down…Then I was to throw my right to make him throw his right in return, and then he would open for a left counter.”
Folding down at the waist is a good defensive tactic to step-in on the opponent or hop out, but it means that your lower body is grounded. Walcott’s strategy was to bait Charles’ level change and then punish him for it - it didn’t matter if it was to the body or head. Walcott also paired the left hook with a chopping right to punish Charles if he managed to bring his head up in time. Consequently, Walcott, a savvy feinter and powerful counterpuncher himself, could afford to jab with Charles at a distance and force a tepid contest that favored him - despite being the lesser jabber.
Jabbing with Charles was a good idea, but it was extremely difficult to pull off without an ancillary skillset or threat. Moreover, you would be hard-pressed to find someone who could claim to have a better jab than Ezzard Charles.
Former light heavyweight champion Harold Johnson was one of the few who actually could. In as close and as good a battle as you could find on footage, Johnson engaged a late career (and still elite) Charles and managed to narrowly win on the scorecards.
Johnson’s jab was, as expected, what controlled the engagements. Johnson never made the mistake of standing in front of Charles without keeping a jab out and taking a calculated step to his left to set up another - or two - all from the shoulder and never targeting the same location from the same angle.
Though, once again, no one was going to beat Charles with just a jab. Johnson was always on the move without an obvious beat in his step. But if he had to: he made sure to punish Charles’ patented entries with counters.
I’ve mentioned control being key to beating Charles, though it was always easier said than done. Rocky Marciano had to concede to an unceasing, swarming pace to keep Charles from boxing his face off and Marciano still had to take horrific shots to succeed in a fight he would call the hardest of his entire career. Even Walcott and Johnson above proved that beating Charles came down to margins of error.
I can’t entirely say I know what it would take to completely outfight, let alone outskill any good version of Ezzard Charles - to the point that he isn’t competitive at all. I certainly haven’t seen it on footage. But I have seen Charles actually have the consummate depth to answer some of the challenges above.
One Question, Many Responses
To be honest, much of Charles’ problem-solving could be boiled down to “Hit them really hard,” but sometimes that wasn’t enough. In the case of the aforementioned Johnson and the better jabber, that isn’t exactly the most practical solution - it doesn’t take away the problem.
Ultimately, how Charles chose to handle intricate problems was to utilize the depth of his game. You can introduce many problems that a single solution may not solve, but, when facing one problem, you can find multiple solutions.
Against most jabbers, Charles understood that the jab was a building block, but it also is still a punch that you can punish in a variety of ways. Against Harold Johnson, Charles shows the many ways to handle a jab.
1 - Jabbing with an opponent can keep engagements going. The one who doesn’t want a firefight is going to have to reset or have an answer on the inside. More often, they’ll look to reset.
2 - You can slip their jab and counter with a shovel hook to the body. This will give you some proximity - again, they’ll be forced to move.
3 - Alternative to #2, you can dip under their shot and counter to the body - which will open up the head.
4 - Level changes and changing the trajectory of your jab between the body and head throws off their rhythm and draws the jab out. You can then dip under it and attack the body. This, again, forces them to reset from a disadvantageous position.
5 - You can draw the jab out with upper body feints to get some read on its rhythm and the opponent’s positioning.
6 - Unique to Charles, he loved to catch punches with his rear hand and use step-in jabs. But, he would mix those up by performing the inside slip and countering with a right as the opponent reset.
In all of the above, there’s a twofold procedure: Establish momentum and nullify the opponent’s success. Although each answer Charles uses individually counters the jab (and there’s still many others he could use), he is thinking about other strategic outliers. Most of these responses force Johnson to reset. A boxer who can’t set his feet or has to reset his feet without a defensive weapon or position is going to become more vulnerable and predictable. Once Charles forces Johnson to reset, the less space Johnson has to move and the more Charles can pressure and mixup his entries on the outside - and the more opportunities he has for the above.
Once again, experience and depth matter - and the Cincinnati Cobra epitomized those concepts.
Conclusion
Placing Charles in the context of a seemingly incomplete history makes him one of the enigmas as far as boxing goes. What you have is an astounding career littered with wins over some of the finer pugilists to ever live, yet Charles himself publicly was known to isolate himself during and after his career. Lou Gehrig’s disease, which debilitated him for the rest of his days, and scarce financials kept him unknown to all save his former opponents and the boxing historians who remembered that he was that special and did their best to support him. Charles, in many ways, was demonstrative of who a boxer was, having achieved the greatest of highs yet still suffered the cruelty of being forgotten.
And yet, I don’t think there’s any dispute for how grandstanding Charles is as a figure for those who do know him and remember him. James Toney would mention that Charles influenced a great deal of his technique. Rocky Marciano would insist that Charles was the hardest man he ever stepped in the ring with. Archie Moore didn’t really acknowledge Ezzard Charles - but it’s absolutely understandable why; he probably knew who and what Charles was too well. As the writer of this article, it’s probably a given how much I adore the greatest light heavyweight in boxing’s storied history.
Less than a year ago, I wrote how if anyone argued Ray Robinson was the best they’ve ever seen, I don’t think I’m in a position to argue regardless of my own stance. I feel the same statement applies to Ezzard Charles. At the very least, he was one of the best because he did defeat the best - and that alone sets his legacy in stone.
“Just a simple, square sort of fellow, who believed in playing the game by the rules. But if I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t change a thing.”