Send in your ATG to outbox and/or beat Ezzard Charles at LHW

There's no such thing as too good for a division - you simply build a legend. Charles was that good he did without even getting a chance to win the title. His record at 175 is already brilliant and many rate him dog dog. Imagine what he could have done if he wanted to build his career there.

Of course he was a very good heavyweight in the end too, aided a bit by an era where heavyweights weighed closer to light heavy that subsequent era's did.

 

He couldn’t have built his whole career there!

That’s the whole point of what I am saying. in those days charles couldn’t have built a career there because there was no real money in America for the lightheavyweight championship until much later.

All the best lightheavyweights of that era fought as heavyweight half the time. Bivins, Maxim, Johnson, Moore, Pastrano (Patterson even) proving they were literally “lighter-heavyweights” rather than actual lightheavyweights who only fought other lightheavyweights.

Why on earth do you think Moore fight so many heavyweights between defending his title? Lesnavich And Mills too?

That’s why I think for many years the lightheavyweight championship was merely a token crown “within” the heavyweight division for the lighter-heavyweights among them.

Lightheavyweight was almost a phoney division if the champions were always beating heavyweights

 

That's what I think. While some of the names mentioned here could possibly beat him, I wouldn't favor them to do it.

Spinks
Conn
Tunney
Foster
Greb

Saad Muhammed couldn't beat him ,but what a war it would be!

 

If you'd followed comments over the years you'd know.

 

Of course he could have, he just would have been poorer.

Your overall point is sound tho - heavyweights at that exact time could be well and truly competed with by the better light heavyweights. With Charles we actually had a light heavyweight ruling them for a decent period of time.

 

Exactly, something similar could have been said about Floyd Patterson as HW champion.

Bottom line, charles, like Patterson, was good enough to beat heavyweights and win that championship.

probably because lightheavyweights in general were still a type of heavyweight themselves at that time rather than its own division.

 

Yes in a weak era. Still what i would call an extremely good heavyweight tho and i'd even accept someone calling him a great heavyweight given what he accomplished there regardless of the era. He chalked up some defenses there, more than many realize.

 

Yes, I often wonder how much better his career might have been if he fought less often?. Ezz could have been champ longer, he would have dropped less close decisions. But the Charles management were absolutely brutal giving him a schedule like that. He might have been an even better fighter without such a workload.

Although students of history really appreciate Charles now, maybe he didn’t sell that well? They had him fight twice as much just to make enough money out of him? Ezzard fought a lot.

 

Perhaps, many were on hard schedules tho.

I would agree Ezzard may have been underappreciated in his day, for sure. You look at some of the greats Futch used to champion yet curiously I've never come across anything he said about Charles. Given his record it's strange how so many didn't seem to notice what they had in him, probably more so than others that have followed a similar underappreciated path. It would be interesting to dig deeper.

 

It's not that weak an era, Marciano, (shot) Louis, Walcott, Ray and Layne. They just were smaller so they don't do to well h2h

 

Marciano beat Charles so i'm not overly including him. He did reign over near the same era. Walcott's a fine fighter but overall the era was weak. You even state yourself Louis was shot.

 

Good post, George

 

You’re missing some key young players. By 1951..undefeated Bob Baker and ferocious young puncher Clarence Henry squared off in the garden in a toe to toe classic! These guys were young and dangerous and a huge threat to walcott and Charles if given a title shot

I’d like to add..

Henry offered marcianos camp $ 40,000 to fight him in title eliminator in 52. Weill turned him down and signed to fight Lee Savold instead. Do I blame them? Not really, because marcianos knockout victories over Layne and Louis guaranteed him a title shot so Marciano had nothing to gain, other than extra credit points in his legacy talk. Stylistically Henry would have been the most dangerous young puncher Marciano ever fought. I have no doubt had Henry and Layne fought in 51, Henry knocks Layne out early. Layne had no defense and couldn’t handle Henry’s power. Baker and Layne did fight later on with baker beating him 3 times.

When Louis wanted rematch against Charles …he named two opponents “Marciano and Henry” as young contenders he wanted to fight to prove his worth. Louis-Henry almost happened

baker Marciano never really was talked about until 1955-56 when at that point Marciano was well aware of baker. Marciano wanted # 50 victory and he took baker very seriously as opponent the fight came close to being signed baker was even named most logical by nba in late 55 . Baker had beaten Valdes in title eliminator in 55. But ultimately baker just didn’t sell well enough, he had unimpressed in his win over Valdes. and he lost in 56 to hurricane Jackson (who Marciano had made double over and puke in a sparring session) .. Baker just didn’t market himself well enough to coax an annoyed Marciano (hated Weill at this point) into one more fight.