He did dominate the division for a couple of years and did well against Rocky when past his prime. What say you?
Yes. I've seen him in top 10s. He might squeeze into my top 10. I can't think of 10 others who are definitely above him.
People have placed him there before.. I personally have him in my top 20, but his career and legacy are truly spectacular.
I'm at the point where I really need to check now but I think I remember Charles being right up there for Ring ranked contenders bested. If that is one of your key criteria, and if my memory is right, sure you can. But you'd have to jump through some hoops, and IMO it would be the ranking you would have to defend above all others whether on this forum or in more polite company.
Probably true. He was fighting anybody and everybody at one point. His schedule was almost sickening to look at, especially when you factor the names on it. Probably one of the busiest top heavyweights of all time.
Number of wins/losses against top contenders is my main criteria. A bit boring, I know, but all you can do is do as well as possible in your own era. Speculation about how you'd do in another era is just that. I do adjust for eras that seem truly extra competitive (early 80's WW and JMW, and late 80's/early 90's MW, for example), but all in all if you're consistently doing well against the top opposition of your day, you're doing something right.
A case can be made for almost anything. In this regards, it's just not a very good case. I think top 25 is possible, tho. Depends on your criteria and how much you factor in the quality of the era (and your assessment of that).
A lot of people have Marciano in the top 5. If Marciano's top 5, it figures that Charles is top 10 (since he beat Marciano's possibly three other best scalps - Louis, Walcott, Moore - long before Marciano did ... AND he did very well over 15 rounds against Marciano when he was already a bit past it.) How wrong is it to have Marciano in top 5 ? Compare his resume to Dempsey or Liston, and I'd even say Johnson and Lewis (although that last one seems to be controversial), and it stacks up well.
The problem with that is, whose ratings do we use ? Ring magazine seem to be the standard, but there are deeply flawed often too. Also, there may or may not be, at any given time, something of a gulf between a contender ranked, say #8 or #10, and those ranked #3, #2 or #1.
The difference here is that Marciano went 2-0 against Walcott, whereas Charles went 2-2. Charles was 2-0 aswell at one point, but got KTFO on the way back. He was also 1-1 with Ray, so he's on an even keel with the two best he fought. He gets "pegged" by these results as I see it. Still, his core run is enormously impressive and you do wonder where he would have ended up if he'd retired after his defence versus Maxim. He couldn't have been criticised for "ducking" Walcott, that's for sure. I would argue Sam Langford ahead of him though, personally. Nip & tuck, but yeah.
Of course the other small difference is that Marciano never lost a professional fight, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion and is one of the few men at heavy to have met all of his mandatories on a consistent basis.
Excellent point. It could be argued that Marciano's greatest accomplishment was retiring at the correct time. Charles going on so long and becoming so mediocre certainly has an adverse effect on his legacy. I would certainly not put Marciano in the top 5... but on the back end of the top 10. Agreed regarding Dempsey, a bit less so regarding Liston, even moreso about Johnson... and wholeheartedly disagree regarding Lewis. But you make a good argument. This is an excellent point
Charles should've retired much, much earlier. Holyfield made the same mistake. It surely affects their rankings, though not on my list. Had Charles retired right after Marciano? Had Holyfield retired after Ruiz 1? I bet most people would've put them higher than they actually do now.