Ezzard Charles Championship Claim

Here's what Nat Fleischer (founder and editor of Ring Magazine) said at the time:

“In the wake of Ezzard Charles’ decisive victory over Jersey Joe Walcott on points in fifteen rounds in Chicago and his still more emphatic success in stopping Gus Lesnevich in seven rounds at the Yankee stadium, the Cincinnati heavyweight who has been crowned world champion by the National Boxing Association must be acknowledged as the best of the American fighters. However, to call Charles the official and legal successor of Joe Louis on the basis of these victories, as the National Association has done, is contrary to boxing custom and unfair to Britain’s interest in the heavyweight championship of the world.

The world title is not something that may be presented as one gives away a suit or a pair of shoes. The heavyweight championship belongs to boxing, and boxing covers the world. Ergo, the thesis that Charles became the champion when he whipped the aged and fading Walcott and retained the title when he knocked out the yet more helpless Lesnevich, is founded on a line of reasoning which long ago was broken down in boxing. There can be no movement towards clarity in the heavyweight situation until Bruce Woodcock, British champion, meets American Lee Savold, in London. The winner will unquestionably meet Charles, and then - and only then - will there be an official successor to Louis.”

 

Intresting piece, good find.
The mighty Woodcock prevents Charles from being recognised as the true champ.. Crazy lol

 

Unfortunately the book I have by him was published in 1949, so I don't know exactly what his thoughts were. I do know that they recognised the fight as for the vacant title, and presumably this was because they thought a returning lineal champion with a short retirement against their #1 ranked contender was a good enough match to crown a champion. By this time the British interest had been eliminated as Woodcock had lost to Savold in June 1950.

 

They possibly looked at that as a lineal transition.

 

Savold was certainly in the conversation at the time, and was highly regarded. You can absolutely say that Charles wasn’t “undisputed” until Savold lost, but generally he is recognised when he beat Louis at the latest, and when he beat Walcott at the earliest.

 

You could be right, but Boxrec says this about the Louis vs Savold fight:

Prior to this match, Savold was recognized as Heavyweight Champion by the British Boxing Board of Control;
following this fight, the BBBC recognized Louis until he was beaten by Rocky Marciano.

 

In yours and my reasoning but Ring magazine had very different, very staunch ideas on the lineal title back then.

 

It’s not a period I’ve studied much, as my research has been focused on earlier decades. What I do know is that any claim for Louis being the champion a year after losing to Charles would have been seen as ridiculous by most observers.

 

I knew it was due to British protest & claims, and respectfully they did have a right to such considerations.

afterall it is supposed to be the WORLD Champion.

It is only fair that their man gets Beat Out of Contention or said Title, rather than just automatic American showdowns among their own. No, there is No Shame in getting Beat & Knocked Out of such hopes rather than just being by-passed outright.

plus, Woodcock had a better chance against Charles, stature and style wise than he did Baksi, also it has to be said, it was a head clash, that turned the fight in Mauriello's favour from what I've read and come to understand.

Still, I believe Charles and the U.S Bigmen would have won the day out!

Oh, and of course the MONEY Men Backers & Owners call the Shots!

 

I got Woodcock beating the 1967 version of Muhammad Ali via 13th round TKO