Ezzard Charles

I love Charles for all his great wins..but it's that brave stand vs Marciano I that impresses me as much as anything...considering it's post peak Charles.

 

^^^ this

to both your threads, he was GREAT and one of my favs too!!!

 

Charles was less mobile but still as effective since he was more of a power puncher when he came off his toes. Satterfield and Wallace wins were pin point devastating wins right before the Marciano fight. 6 of Charles’s 7 losses in 54 fights since his re-launch after the war could or should have gone the other way.

 

Had it not been for the Baroudi fight, there is no telling what Charles could have accomplished.

 

I don't think his fighting abilities were affected much by the Baroudi fight. He was never going to knock over everybody as a heavyweight. In fact a more safety first style may have served him well.

He accomplished about as much as a fighter can accomplish, only missing out on the light heavyweight title shot. Beating Gus Lesnevich or Freddie Mills wouldn't make a big difference when it comes to his overall legacy however.

 

I dont know, Charles had a crazy schedule and fought more rated fighters and ATG,s than just about any one. With less fights he would not have been robbed in the home town fights he took to stay busy against guys he kept beating. there was no need to fight so may of those guys so many times! Charles did beat everyone of his era in the heavyweight ratings anyway so he did ''knock them over'' as a heavyweight- Louis, walcott, bivins, lesnavich, oma, baksi, ray, maxim, layne, brion,satterfeild. charles was around jack dempseys prime size for his post war career, plenty big enough for his day.

exactly. Not winning the lightheavyweight title means nothing because the top lightheavys were also heavyweights. lesnavich and maxim fought in the heavyweight class when they were not defending the title, bivins was a full time heavyweight - Moore was soon to spend 70-95% of his career in the heavyweight class, mills could not cut it against guys charles beat.

 

He's among the best of the best in the history of boxing.
If boxing was a 100% fair sport he would have been middleweight champion, light heavyweight champion and Heavyweight champion. If he were around now. He'd add a super middleweight championship and his heavyweight championship would be a crusierweight championship. f he did not recive his shot at Louis and the heavyweight championship. He would have been rembered as the best of the harleded Murders Row.

 

I rank him 5th. He's right outside the door to the 4 Gods of the ring.

 

Its interesting that in the 60's Boxing Illustrated rated the heavyweight kings.I remember when it came to Charles, and Walcott, they said put them in the middle not the best , not the worst. Yet today their stock has risen sufficiently for them to be routinely talked of as great fighters.

 

I agree and disagree.

Charles is one of my favorites, and he is among the Very Best, absolutely NO question, but all theses different titles that you attach him too could be said of tons of great fighters...

I take fighters for what they are, passing through a division does not make one that weight, likewise finishing up in a division does not make a fighter that weight either.

Charles was a L-HW come HW and among the BEST in either division, and all these further disections to include modern weights I don't even go there, but rather I take the modern weight fighter and rate them against their peers at "their real weight" division... i.e Calzaghe & Bhop are L-HWs and Roy the boy like Charles would be a L-HW come HW.

This is where I leave it, because it is the truthfull reality to what division fighters belong in.

Charles was & IS always among the best of them!

 

He was indeed. One of the best ever,pound for pound.