Charles didn't go the Olympics. Patterson weighed lower than that there. And I 'cherry picked' the higher weights, coz he drained himself down to below 160 so he could maintain a MW ranking. Even so, 166lb to 161 is still only 5lbs. There's virtually no difference between Charles and Patterson. It's weird how you're acting like there is. Both Patterson and Charles both weighed around 165lb around the same age. Both moved up from 175 to compete at HW. Both are natural LHWs.
in terms of accomplishments, Charles has a better case for being a great heavweight than many people regarded as great heavyweights. He beat more top 10 heavies than Liston or Foreman for one. He can also claim to have been briefly the best heavyweight in the world.
This debate is pointless. Cherry picking numbers at certain ages, when context isn't added, is ridiculous. When both filled out and at their natural weight, there's less than 5lbs difference. And it's clear that they were virtually the same size. Both numerically and by eye. Dunno why you refuse to see it.
Cherry picking?excuse me, but at 21 patterson weighed in the 180s range always and Charles in the 160s range and it is a fact, not cherry picking at all. My point is that patterson was a lhw when he was very young but he weighed above the lhw limit since he was 21, HOWEVER Charles was a lhw until his late 20s. Obviously Patterson was naturally a little bigger heavier i don't know why do you have any problem admitting this fact?
Ezzard Charles didn't look at all fat or flabby weighing in the 180s-about what Patterson and Marciano weighed in their primes. He probably had similar muscle mass
Yeah it is cherry picking, actually. There's no context there, making the stat irrelevant. Charles wasn't a natural middleweight, meaning that this comparison is already null and void. Charles went to the military age 23 (whilst weighing around 165) and came back filled out and fully grown. He was a natural light-heavyweight, he just filled out later. Patterson never had to do that, hence why he weighed more at age 21. He filled out earlier on in life, hence why he weighed more at age 21. Putting muscle on to move up in weight isn't being 'naturally bigger'. That is why your 'point' is wrong. Capeesh?
I think he's unquestionably greater than Patterson, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Corbett, Spinks and Tunney I don't think there's any LHW sized HW who can compete with what he achieved in the division.
Few. Liston, Tyson, Holmes, Louis, Dempsey, Wladimir ect; all don't. All don't. On the flip side, Rahman does, so is he a great HW?
