I agree wholeheartedly. Ezzard was a great heavyweight. This is why I have Ezzard #14 rated at heavyweight, not in the LHW top ten because he didn’t win that title (since he was in both divisions simultaneously he did not need to). However, I rank Ezzard very high in my all time pound for pound top ten. He is my #3 pound for pound for sheer volume across the divisions.
He beat the likes of Maxim, Moore, Bivins, Marshall, Smith, Fitzpatrick, Baroudi, Beckwith, Chritoforidis and Yarosz all as a LHW when his opponent always weighed as a LHW.
So you don't rank fighters who started their careers below HW division? I guess that you don't rank Holyfield or Schmeling as well?
Holyfield was much bigger than Charles, he was a natural 200 pounder ,plus he was one of the top dogs in one of the strongest eras ever against big hws. Schmeling was not a great thing regardless his weight
He was natural CW, not HW. Stop changing your criteria all the time. How about Patterson? That's funny as hell
Patterson was much better at hw than Charles actually and h2h too, he was naturally bigger wider than Charles and Holyfield much bigger. Charles was a skinny 165-175 guy, he started his career weighing 157 pounds. Peak patterson weighed 190 pounds and peak Charles weighed 175.
No, Patterson is a natural LHW who bulked up to compete at HW - similary to Charles. He's not "much better at hw" than Charles either, as Charles has better resume and was more dominant HW champion. Patterson fought below 190 lbs when he won and defneded the title, he wasn't bigger than Charles at all.
Yeah but he was beating up heavyweights at the same time. He was simultaneously in both divisions at a time where the LHW title was a mere springboard for the heavyweight crown. Bivins was a heavyweight for most of his career. Maxim beat heavyweights too. Even if Charles was scaling as low as a LHW against heavyweights, he’s a lightheavyweight beating up heavyweights. And It was almost the same division. Lightheavyweight was not really an exclusive division. I checked one time and I think it wasn’t until Mate Parlov that there was a lightheavyweight champ who had not faced a HW opponent. Back in the days where a light heavyweight literally was a lighter type heavyweight but still a heavyweight. In this circumstance two championships were open to him and the heavyweight title took precedence.
What makes Patterson a natural HW? He's not bigger than Charles. What makes Patterson a better HW? He doesn't have better resume than Charles.
great point. I often wonder that sizeism is responsible for those who can’t be bothered to research. The only thing that bothers me are those people who have an inexplicably strong, vitriolic opinion done no research back up such emotion driven voicing of their opinions. I'm enthusiastic about critical thinking skills being utilized, instead of parroting things they've heard. It makes no difference to me if one's self-education leads to a different conclusion than mine has. But to just use sizeism? No way. There was nothing natural about Evan Fields. And I say that as a compliment. Everything that man achieved he worked really hard for, including changing his body. Even halving the number of wins at heavyweight that Charles had the best ones are at least comparable to Patterson. Elmer Ray And Joe Baksi were as powerful as Bonavena and chuvalo. Probably better fighters. Johannson =Walcott. Harold Johnson=Jimmy Ellis.
This thread makes as much sense as,is Ali the number 1 heavyweight? ie It's all down to personal criteria . Who one guy calls great another may class ,as very good,or even just good. I pick Charles to beat Patterson, but rate neither as great heavies,many others would call both great. There's no right or wrong answer here. For me Charles is a great lightheavyweight,maybe the greatest.
