Who would have beat Ezzard Charles at LHW?

From one extreme to the other, seriously? This time you put words in my mouth that I never said nor intended to say.

I said I wouldn't put him less than 50% with anyone.

I never said he'd be as dominant, as he was in his era, against the likes of those you mentioned.

 

I didn´t say he wuld be dominant, with "stuff" I meant getting away with his flaws. His speed and reflexes let him get away with a lots of stuff against inferior opposition that superior opposition would punish him for and with his not so great chin and given that all of the top lhws pack a good punch this spells doom against any of them. Jones was great, no doubt, but he was a class behind the real top guys. Perhaps, he wouldn´t have been if he would have come along in a tougher era but, well, he didn´t.

 

Charles had so many flaws in his technical skills, and with his not so great chin, and given that Jones has a good punch, this spells doom for him.

 

Maybe only Tunney could have beat him..I think Loughran would have caused him problems. The fight of Charles that lingers in my mind the most...that maybe defined his essential fighting heart, courage, toughness and guts was the first Marciano fight. I think Charles, even though past his prime, going metal to metal with a peak Marciano is one of the most impressive losing performances ever..and just subtract a few years and put him in the lightheavy class..aside from possibly Tunney, I don't see any lightheavy beating Ezzard.

 

In the same respect i dont think any of the fighters you mentioned have ever faced anyone with the cocktail of attributes that Jones had.

 

What does Tunney have that makes him special to beat Charles?

 

Perhaps but they all faced fighters of at least as high a calibre as Jones and proved themselves against them. Jones certainly is capable beating some of them but to say he is at least 50/50 against anyone at lhw 175 and that he is the h2h "king" there is ridiculous when you see who he actually was fighting. It´s the same as saying Naseem Hamed of 1996 to 1998 would be the h2h king at fw. Everybody would think this is ridiculous. Same here.

 

Charles was perhaps the best light heavy ever, but i would give Mike Spinks a good chance of beating him. I certainly don't think Spinks would lose 3 times out of 3. With his herky, jerky somewhat goofy and awkward style, deceptiveness and sneaky punching. I would give him the best chance. I think Charles was better than the other greats at 175.

 

As the quickest lhw in history you could also ask whether the other's could pull their "stuff" on jones.

The chin is a non issue, completely. Had jones retired after beating tarver (already noticeably past prime by this point) noone would question his chin at all.

A bunch of knockout losses whilst shot is certainly no indication of his prime punch resistance.

Saying he's a class behind is a bit short sighted imo, from 98-03 he was the daddy of the division. That's 5 years. Few in history can rival a 5 year spell as lhw king imo.

 

Assuming that Jones really is the quickest ( which is not the fait acompli that it is usually assumed), I would say that it is almost certain that other ATGs will do their thing at least to some degree. Look at Ali the quickest heavyweight ever (or at least very close to it) and by a decent way. Yet, if he didnt have an all time great chin and recovery powers, he would have struggled to make top 5 of his own generation. I dont see How Jones can remain untouched in a deeper division talentwise, when ali couldnt.

If Jones wants to come out on top against Ezzard Charles and many other atgs, he will have to go to hell and back to do it. I dont think he can do it.

 

Jones was brilliant against inferior opposition, and that's all I can say about him. Prime Jimmy Bivens was tough for Charles to handle. I give spinks a good chance, as well as Jonh Henry Lewis, who was great in another good era of LH's. Tunney also has a great shot of beating Charles.

 

None of them was as sloppy as Jones. Even in his prime he liked to lure guys in while having his back in the ropes. He might be able to do that with a Hall or Brannon or Frazier (not Joe ) but if he trys that against for example against Charles it spells doom. You think those guys couldn´t time him jumping in with a left-hook and a low right hand? His opposition simply wasn´t good enough to do that thus he could get away with this stuff. Those guys are good enough to do it.

And yes, the chin is an issue. You think his chin became suddenly worse with age? Nope, it was always there this weakness. The difference is, nobody was good enough to exploit this which has a lot to do with his at best mediocre competition. Not his fault but the lhw division of his time was pretty bad and the only true test was avoided by him. So, yes his losses past prime mean something ´cause they tell us something about his chin we didn´t know before.

Yes, he is a class behind those guys - perhaps not Bob Foster. Why? Simple, he never proved himself as much as they did. Jones wasn´t lhw king until he beat Gonzalez, you might be on a mission to rewrite history, doesn´t mean histoy changes though.

 

Well who's to say he'd use those tactics against greater fighters? He is quick enough to win by boring potshots against almost anyone his size.

His durability, stamina, conditioning and reflexes all got worse with age especially after moving back down. Non issue.

You recognise him as king from that fight. I recognise him from 98 and i'm giving my opinion. History does not need to be rewritten; the data is there and it is down to us fans to interpret it as we see fit.

As is said, in my opinion very few in that division spent 5 years as the best fighter there. To say he's a class below is nonsensical to be honest.

 

Who says he doesn´t? We don´t know. We have to go by what we know and there he is doing it.

I disagree. With age his speed and reflexes got slower which didn´t let him get away with stuff he did before and thus exposed flaws and weaknesses that would have been brought to light earlier if he would have fought better opposition - largely not his fault, you can only fight what´s there to fight.

which means I can twist it around as much as I want to get what I want. Great.

Well, neither did Jones. And you have to put it into context. It´s easier to stay on top of a division if you fight the Brannons and Feaziers of the world instead of the Delaneys, Loughrans, Grebs or Mooes, Bivins, Marshalls and Maxims for example, don´t you think?

 

And to some extent I agree. Why I said I wouldn't put him less than 50% against any of the other greats.