Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?
YES he is. 25 56.82%
NO he isn't. 19 43.18%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-11-2008, 07:46 AM   #46
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,262
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
I'll copy and paste this because it applys here:

Again its not about how many fights he has or even resume, its about they compete if they are the same size, thats the criteria of P4P.

Now if you want to make a new ratings system based on who had the greatest legacy regardless of weight class, do so but it wouldn't be called P4P

Tyson still has the same flaws P4P that see him getting beat in the later rounds, Whitakers boarderline top10
I don't believe that you grasp what is meant by "pound for pound" and instead your'e inventing your own definition and forcing it.

You'll notice that the H2H discussions around you are about guys in the same weight class. No one with any sense is going to make a comparison between a LW Ali and Benny Leonard. Or a HW Duran vs. Holyfield. You have to suspend reality completely and control for too many variables.

It makes no sense.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-11-2008, 08:37 AM   #47
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,642
vCash: 238
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loewe
Actually, I think Armstrong has a good chance against Whitaker and Duran and would beat RJJ, like Greb, at 168. In my oppinion you are overrating Jones very much. He was good but not that good.
I'm all for Armstrong in the top5, but how the heck is he going to beat Roy Jones?

The man is a 5'5" natural lightweight at best, or superfeather. Jones had tremendous power and speed at 168, and probably weighed about 175 for those fights. He also showed no vulnerability in terms of chin there, and considering Armstrong is a handful of weight classes lower, i think we can exclude him knocking out Jones. Again, what does he have on Jones? I think he'd be thrashed and probably stopped within 10.

Against Whitaker and Duran, of course that's a different story. But there is a gigantic difference between a super featherweight and a welterweight, not to mention a light heavyweight like Jones.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 08:55 AM   #48
Ezzard
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
I don't believe that you grasp what is meant by "pound for pound" and instead your'e inventing your own definition and forcing it.

You'll notice that the H2H discussions around you are about guys in the same weight class. No one with any sense is going to make a comparison between a LW Ali and Benny Leonard. Or a HW Duran vs. Holyfield. You have to suspend reality completely and control for too many variables.

It makes no sense.
Stonehands, you makes sense though.

You can't possibly imagine how a match up between Sonny Liston and Jimmy Wilde would go. It's basically a worthless exercise.

H2H between different eras is fraught with problems.

Seems to me like some people decide who they want their number one to be and then create a set of criteria which establishes this.
Ezzard is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 08:56 AM   #49
Ezzard
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
I think Armstrong would give a great account of himself vs Duran and Whitaker, and any other 135 in history to be honest. The man was a machine. He wouldn't give Whitaker a seconds respite or room, it'd be fascinating to see how the match developed and how Whitaker dealt with the constant blitz.
Agreed. if anything I'd say Armstrong would be the favourite against Whittaker. All close fights though.
Ezzard is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 09:03 AM   #50
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezzard
Agreed. if anything I'd say Armstrong would be the favourite against Whittaker. All close fights though.
I'd make Duran 6-5 or 7-5 over Armstrong and Armstrong 6-5 over Whitaker, at a glance.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 09:07 AM   #51
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
I don't believe that you grasp what is meant by "pound for pound" and instead your'e inventing your own definition and forcing it.

You'll notice that the H2H discussions around you are about guys in the same weight class. No one with any sense is going to make a comparison between a LW Ali and Benny Leonard. Or a HW Duran vs. Holyfield. You have to suspend reality completely and control for too many variables.

It makes no sense.
No you don't know what P4P means, the original P4P is exactly as I stated it. On boxing forums its been changed to say who had the greatest legacy BUT this is not the original definition of it at all. It first became big during the time of Robinson to say 'look he won't beat heavyweights but if he was the same size as heavyweights he would be the best'

You make a good point about comparing heavyweights and lightweights though. The human body as it adds more mass can not perform as quickly or with the same stamina. So if a heavyweight punches nearly as quick as a middleweight his P4P speed is much more impressive
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 09:09 AM   #52
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
I'm all for Armstrong in the top5, but how the heck is he going to beat Roy Jones?

The man is a 5'5" natural lightweight at best, or superfeather. Jones had tremendous power and speed at 168, and probably weighed about 175 for those fights. He also showed no vulnerability in terms of chin there, and considering Armstrong is a handful of weight classes lower, i think we can exclude him knocking out Jones. Again, what does he have on Jones? I think he'd be thrashed and probably stopped within 10.

Against Whitaker and Duran, of course that's a different story. But there is a gigantic difference between a super featherweight and a welterweight, not to mention a light heavyweight like Jones.
Were talking about upscaling Armstrong to 5'10 and 168lbs, he still loses
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 09:34 AM   #53
DINAMITA
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Past
Posts: 10,079
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
No you don't know what P4P means, the original P4P is exactly as I stated it. On boxing forums its been changed to say who had the greatest legacy BUT this is not the original definition of it at all. It first became big during the time of Robinson to say 'look he won't beat heavyweights but if he was the same size as heavyweights he would be the best'

You make a good point about comparing heavyweights and lightweights though. The human body as it adds more mass can not perform as quickly or with the same stamina. So if a heavyweight punches nearly as quick as a middleweight his P4P speed is much more impressive
No, you are the one who doesn't know what pound-for-pound means.

Here is a post from a while back:


Over the past few weeks, more and more I have seen pound-for-pound being worked out on this basis:
p4p = h2h / weight
This is wrong, wrong to the point of ludicrous.

One guy who continually promotes this absurd view of p4p is our village idiot and resident Calzaghe obsessive ChinahandJoe. In the thread 'Calzaghe The Greatest Fighter of the Last 25 Years', Joey dismissed me with comments like these, from page 43 of that thread:
_____________________________________________________________
The wisdom of CHJ is in italics:


P4P is head to head.
By definition all that matters is skill and weight. Greatness doesn't come into it.
A weight lifter can be given a P4P ranking, his greatness doesn't come into it. It is how much he lifts per pound of his own body. Any professor of semantics would back me up here and would agree Joe Calzaghe is the P4P aka H2H number one of all time.

P4P is H2H*(Weight)^-1
Weight and fighting ability, this is clear as you can make a P4P list of weight lifters. The ignorance on display here is almost moderately frustrating, but I will be patient.

____________________________________________________________

This way of thinking has led to laughable threads such as the current one:
'Who Beats Pacquiao Head To Head?'
With the poll including among others- Pavlik, Calzaghe, Mijares, Calderon.

To help in increasing awareness of what pound-for-pound and head-to-head actually are, I will include a post from yesterday and my response to it:
___________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Butcher
Even IF you believe Lewis was the best of British (which I most certainly do not) its a scandal that he should make a top 5 list of the last 15 yrs, thats outrageous.
Imagine every fighter was roughly the same size & weight but with their same abilities & strengths... there is NO WAY Lewis is gonna beat guys like PBF, Morales, Jones, Barrera, Whitaker, Calzaghe, Mosely, Pacman or DLH.... No way. Get real people.



Mate, seriously, this is NOT what pound-for-pound is and it is NOT how it is worked out, think about what you're saying here, it is absolutely ludicrous.

Do you mean to tell me that when deciding if Lennox Lewis should be placed higher than Ricardo Lopez p4p, you either imagine a 5ft 4in and 7 stone Lennox Lewis fighting Lopez, or a 6ft 5in and 17 stone Ricardo Lopez fighting Lewis??

I am honestly not being rude mate honestly, but I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it absolutely is NOT what pound-for-pound is, the very idea is psychopathic!!!!

If you imagine that you so so radically change the size of a boxer for a fight, then he completely loses exactly what made him the fighter he is- this CANNOT be done, it makes no sense whatsoever. Of course you are going to think Shane Mosley would box rings round Lennox Lewis because he would be much faster and has better skills etc, but that is only because by nature, a lightweight needs those attributes to compete at world level. A heavyweight does not. He needs bulk and strength and power. If you imagine Mosley to be a heavyweight then at 16st, he cannot be that same quicksilver mover and puncher, so he is then a completely different fighter. If you imagine Lewis to be a lightweight, you can't imagine a 5ft 7in 135lbs guy standing flat-footed and lining up head shots, as that is not what a lightweight could ever do.

You can determine who was better between current and past fighters by H2H- if they fought at the same weight. You can decide who was better between Hagler and Monzon by imagining what you think would happen if they fought, because then you aren't changing anything about them, you're just taking both men and putting them in the ring.

But to decide properly pound-for-pound who was better, the way you work this out is by looking at how they performed against the men they fought, how much better they were than the best fighters in their weight division at the time.

Example: In my opinion, Roberto Duran is a better fighter pound-for-pound than Joe Frazier. I think this because Duran showed he was better than the best fighters he fought by a greater margin than Frazier was. Duran at lightweight got the better of everyone he fought, looked far far better than most of the guys he fought, and he fought many great fighters and took on many difficult and dangerous challenges, and did this more regularly and with greater ease than Frazier did.
I do not think this because if I blew up Duran to 16st or shrunk Frazier down to 135lbs, Duran would win a fight between them, because by definition this is impossible.

It's the same as saying I think Laila Ali is better p4p than Roy Jones Jr, because if you imagine Ali as a man, she would win a fight between the two. But she isn't a man! And obviously imagining her as a man (aside from being very very wrong!) would completely change the fighter she is!!
___________________________________________________________


OK, so that was my explanation for this mental trend of h2h/weight not having any relevance or meaning or significance in boxing, and hopefully the many people who commented in the Pacquiao thread will see how ridiculous considering him fighting Pavlik or him fighting Calderon is.

To further prove the point about pound-for-pound not being h2h/weight, I refer you to the Wikipedia definition of the term:

Pound-for-pound is the term used in [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and other [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] to describe a fighter's value in relation to fighters of different weight classes.
It is often said to have been created to describe world [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] champion [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] Robinson is one of the most accomplished fighters of all time, but his supporters realized that, while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him.

To put it in my own words as simply as possible:

Pound-for-pound is for deciding who is BETTER between two boxers, not who would WIN.

H2H is for deciding who would WIN between two boxers.

Pound-for-pound can be used to decide between ANY two fighters at any weights, because you are rating them on how good they were at their own weight and their overall greatness, it has nothing to do with H2H unless the two fighters in question fought at the same weight.




You are wrong mate.
DINAMITA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 10:10 AM   #54
Robbi
Marvelous
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
What you are doing is transparent, Robbi.

You mentioned my name in a post last week where you implied that I am not impressed enough with Whitaker -and that if he were fighting in the 40s, I'd think better of him. That was false, and I offered you several names of more recent fighters who I very highly regard. In this thread, I (rightfully) criticized the goofy inclusions of Jones and Mayweather, and suddenly the 40s become the 80s.

--Coincidence? I doubt it.


How silly.

You need to get over your vicarious jealousy of Pep. Somehow I doubt that Whitaker himself would be so hell-bent on minimizing the obvious greatness of Pep -as you do in your strange crusade.
Originally Posted by Robbi
Today it's the 80's, last week it was the 40's, next week it could be the 20's, maybe it could be the 70's, but more than likely it will be the 60's.

How you managed to quote me on that I'll never know. I typed complete and utter nonsene and never knew myself what I was talking about.

Pep was great. Don't take me too serious when it comes to my comparisons on Whitaker and Pep. Some of i say I believe is true, some of it is simply 'goading' tactics.

Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 05:24 PM   #55
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,642
vCash: 238
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
Were talking about upscaling Armstrong to 5'10 and 168lbs, he still loses
Oh, like that. Well i think that sort of stuff is too speculative. You have to realise that as you increase a fighter's size, his workrate, speed, etc will go down. And vice versa.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 05:36 PM   #56
the cobra
Awesomeizationism!
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,982
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Just to get back to Charles, to those who don't have him in the top 5 I have two questions.

1. Is he in your top 10?

2. Who ranks above him for a top 5 spot and why? Based on resume and overall skill and ability, what 5 fighters were honestly greater than Charles?
the cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 06:11 PM   #57
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
1. Harry Strongmen
2. Gay Herrrb
3. Rôbin Rayôns
4. Randy Nobleen
5. Crasher Dazzlé
6. Wippee Lil
7. Booter 'Abound Terror' Randur
8. Echo Armoiré
9. Jag-Nôse
10. 'Noses' Barry
Nobody liked this then? I have to say, I was quite proud of myself. See if you can work out who's who.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 06:20 PM   #58
Robbi
Marvelous
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
1. Harry Strongmen - Henry Armstrong
2. Gay Herrrb - Harry Greb
3. Rôbin Rayôns - Ray Robinson
4. Randy Nobleen
5. Crasher Dazzlé - Ezzard Charles
6. Wippee Lil - Willie Pep
7. Booter 'Abound Terror' Randur -
8. Echo Armoiré - Archie Moore
9. Jag-Nôse
10. 'Noses' Barry - Barney Ross
The others? Mmmmmmm!
Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 06:51 PM   #59
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,262
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
No you don't know what P4P means, the original P4P is exactly as I stated it. On boxing forums its been changed to say who had the greatest legacy BUT this is not the original definition of it at all. It first became big during the time of Robinson to say 'look he won't beat heavyweights but if he was the same size as heavyweights he would be the best'
"Pound-for-pound" means "all things considered". What its meaning was in 1950 I don't know, but most agree that it asks the question: "if all of the name fighters were in one division, who would be the man to beat?" It considers factors such as record, skill, caliber of opponent, etc. It does not mean shrinking heavyweights or enlarging featherweights and if it ever did, it did so only until people realized that midgets fight differently than giants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
You make a good point about comparing heavyweights and lightweights though. The human body as it adds more mass can not perform as quickly or with the same stamina. So if a heavyweight punches nearly as quick as a middleweight his P4P speed is much more impressive
Right... and if George Foreman were a Jr. Middleweight, he'd be John Mugabi in slow motion. Maybe. It lurches into pure speculation when you think about it... so we should agree to avoid it.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 06:54 PM   #60
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Is Ezzard Charles in your top 5 pound-for-pound of all-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi
The others? Mmmmmmm!
Well done so far. Carry on.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013