Rigondeaux vs Lomachenko

Well i counted the little ones in your first paragraph. Can't say i was reading too intently tho

Suffice to say if Charles doesn't make your top 114 ydksab. To say the least.

 

In the 2000s: RING magazine, BOXING magazine, Bleacher Report, Sports Illustrated, The Sweet Science, Intelligent Boxing all have him as #1 LHW. ESPN AP Fighters of the Century rated him at #3 behind Conn and Moore.

You will find most All Time P4P lists have him inside the top 30 at the lowest. In 2009, Sports Illustrated rated him as #6 P4P.

So what general consensus are you referring to? I just laid down a sizable list of relevant names, can you? It wasn't hard to do.

And I personally take issue with people rating Moore over him, given Charles beat Moore 4 times at LHW and arguably has a better resume.

Charles had only two years of regional amateur experience before turning Pro. He lost to Overlin who was a leading MW contender (RING had him #1 in Feb. 41), and then fought him to a draw. So what is so embarrassing about a man who had only been boxing competitive for 3 years (1 professionally) losing to the top MW in the world and being competitive with him?

Tunnero wasn't so good, though he was rated as a contender by RING briefly. But again, Charles was fighting far more experienced fighters after just turning PRO with micro amateur experience by modern standards without much support or management. With raw ability, Charles also beat two far more experienced Hall of Famers at MW.

This makes no sense.

 

This guy don't know what he's talking about. He has to be trolling. I'm done with him.

 

Yet you rate Benitez over him? What are his elite wins?

Moore was arguably prime, Charles was the only guy really whipping him at the time.

Charles also beat Hall of Famers "Elite": Burley, Yarosz, Marshall, Bivins, Walcott, & Maxim..all while they were arguably prime.

 

Cobra, were you banned under your previous account?

 

That's a load of crap. He had limited amateur experience, 17 regional fights, and was taking on the #1 MW in the World within his first year as a Pro. It's a forgivable loss.

It's about contextually balancing the good and the bad. In this case, the good far outweighs the bad.

Overline was #1 in February of 41, four months before defeating Charles. Charles also had a MD against Overlin where one judge ruled in his favor.

Graziano didn't even turn pro into 42, what is wrong with you?

Charles never lost to Moore. He defeated him in every encounter, all were at Light Heavy, and Charles knocked him out in the last bout.

What is wrong with you? Both Moore and Charles were shut out of title scene, Gus refused to face them.

What? He lost one decision to Bivins. He then defeated him 4 times, once by TKO. There is no doubt Charles was the superior fighter to Bivins, he is 4-1 against him. He is actually 3-0 against Moore. He is 7-1 against these men and you are trying to argue they were better?

No wander you don't rate Charles, you don't anything about him.

 

What lists? I've produced all the lists, you have shown nothing.

Why does it matter if they are American, what do you have against American journalists? Are you suggesting a conspiracy to rate Charles over other Americans?

Bivins never stopped Charles, he beat him once by decision. Charles beat him 4 times.

 

Jesus ****ing Christ, he never fought Cuevas.

Charles was the HW Champion in an era where there was only one Champion. Charles was denied title shots at MW and LHW....is this the type of stupidity you have to put on to argue against Ezzard Charles?

He fought Maxim 5 times, only twice were at HW.

In their first two bouts, Maxim outweighed Charles by over 20 pounds.

And what's with this World Champion, criteria. Duran was not a World Champion but you rate that for Benitez. How about being consistent and not obviously biased.

Charles is 4-1 against Bivins.

Charles is 2-2 against Walcott.

Charles is 3-0 against Moore.

Charles is 5-0 against Maxim.

Charles is 2-1 against Marshall.

With exception of Walcott, He has dominated every series he fought againt Hall of Famers.

What gate keeper beat Charles at his peak? You mean #1 MW Overliln, veteran of some 100 plus fights, against a 17 fight novice Charles.

 

Seems like ignore a huge part of boxing history, mate.

The peers with an informed opinion - while what we are doing here is not a science, I think it generally aligns quote will with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Charles is generally considered as the greatest lhw there ever was - so far at least. Someone put a nice list of the most relevant boxing publications who support that view into this thread, the majority of posters on this board probably agree with that as well. It's not as someone came up with it and everybody fell in line. It is an opinion that many, many people discussed and mulled over again and again. And every time a new great lhw comes up it will get discussed again. So far, the outcome was always the same.
If you disagree with that, fair enough. Put arguments forward that challenge that status quo. This will be very hard because to argue that Charles was not even Top93 you need to argue that his resume and achievements were worse than those of the majority of fighters who are in front of him on your list. To do this you need to argue that his opponents weren't good or great either. Which means that their opponents cannot have been that good or great. You are pretty much doubting the fundament of the pyramid of boxing greatness of the a few decades. Maybe you are right, maybe not. You've certainly chosen a huge task for yourself. Good luck.

Sure, that's why direct democracy is generally not a good idea and why most countries rely on a representative democracy. Doesn't solve the problem but mitigates it somewhat. I don't like the guy but I agree with Churchill on that we have no better alternative to democracy.

 

You are one guy I hope never gets booted from here ,thanks a million for the entertainment so far,it is beyond price!

"Ah, but the strawberries, that's, that's where I had them, they laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the ward room icebox did exist, and I've had produced that key if they hadn't pulled the Caine out of action. I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer. [He pauses - looked at all the questioning faces that stared back at him, and realizes that he has been ranting and raving] Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory. If I left anything out, why, just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them."

 

This is not math or statistics. Just subtracting losses from wins is not how this works. The quality of a win or loss is even more important. And just because someone holds a belt or is winning often against nobodies doesn't mean one is great. Not all fighters are equal.

Charles beat more quality fighters than the vast, vast majority of boxers who ever lived. That should be obvious to anyone. You are fighting windmills here. Maske was a bum in comparison to Charles, defending some ABC-belt doesn't mean anything. That belt means you are a contender, nothing else.

If it's only better for some people, it's not an alternative.

 

I recognize everything within the most proper context possible.

So? Overlin was still rated at #1 just 4 months prior to facing Charles like I said. Overlin was no gate keeper as you erroneously kept claiming.

I recognize everything within the most proper context possible.

Overlin certainly performed better against Charles than Burley.

And the point stands that Overlin was a top MW.

No. That statement implies Lesnevich gave him his shot. It was Charles who gave a Gus a shot at his title.

I pretended nothing, I simply mixed up the number. The point stands that Charles never lost to Moore and beat him multiple times.

 

No, I'm pointing out your inconsistent logic where you penalized Charles' opponents for not being World Champion but don't do so for others.

Being a "super star" doesn't mean anything, and Duran at that weight isn't higher regarded than Moore at Light Heavy, Maxim at Light Heavy, Burley at Middle..etc.

I don't consider 2 fights a series, otherwise I would have counted Charles as 2-0 against Burley. Either way, Charles record is outstanding.

You are hopelessly biased.

You consider Charles' entire career as open season for criticism but nit pick his opponent's, you are claiming a 17-0 Charles should be held fully accountable for his losses but dismissing a 90+ fight Archie Moore as preprime to the point Charles wins over him don't count.

 

I understand this:

Invalid Facts:

* You claimed Charles lost to Moore (he did not)
* You claimed Charles was KOed by Bivins (he was not)
* You claimed Charles and Bivins were even (Charles won their series 4-1)
* You claimed Graziano was a top MW in 41 (he didn't turn pro until 42)
* You claimed Overlin was a gate keeper/journeyman (he was the #1 rated MW in Feb 41)
* You claimed Cuevas as a great win for Benitez to justify rating him over Charles(Bentiez never fought Cuevas)


Unsupported Claims:

* You claimed Charles is not recognized as a top Light Heavy or P4P fighter by modern media and fans, but have produced nothing to counter my listings that show he in fact is rated highly across the board.
* You are claiming an American Journalism bias of Charles, while offering no evidence at all or any sort of alternatives.


Biased Logic:
*World Title criteria only used to discredit Charles' opponents
*Charles entire career is open season for criticism, while you focus on other fighter's peaks
*You say Moore was pre Prime when Charles beat him. You list Moore's prime as 48. Charles KOed Moore in 48.
*Only rating Charles as a HW, when he fought in three divisions, while obviously not applying that to other fighters.
* Equating the World Titles in the ABC era with the single NBA title of the past.

There's more..but my god..you are a piece of work. Especially, the way you are carrying yourself like you are enlightened.