Ezzard Charles has one of the best HW records

Three main reasons.

He fought in the smallest HW era. Certainly the least threatening one. A lot of his LHW resume that he is credited with was actually at HW but people are really trying to export his feats to LHW.

He declined earlier then any other HW champ. Past his best by 30 and done at 35. Marciano isn't rated highly by many H2H and Charles lost twice to him in his early 30s. The presence of Archie Moore getting better with age makes it hard to pull the "he was old" card.

Charles was small, not a big puncher and didn't have a great chin. This combination makes it hard to elevate Charles above other ATG HWs. If you look at all the greats who weren't big punchers at HW big and small but especially the smaller ones they have one common attribute they all were super durable. If Charles chin could be cracked by Bivins, Marshall, Moore and Marciano its hard to pick Charles against big punchers. Its hard to pick Charles over his peers. Joe Louis had lost his power when Charles fought him and I don't think anyone believes Charles or Marciano could have survived early 40s Joe Louis.

Another note.

Walcott and Marciano get more blame for it but Clarence Henry and Bob Baker are significant omissions from Charles resume. As in they were better than anyone who got a HW title shot for 10 years except Archie Moore. Rex Layne didn't get a title shot officially but he still got to fight all the champs. Clarence Henry and Baker were frozen out and neither got to fight Charles, Walcott or Marciano. Before the IBHOF boxing had another HOF the Ring HOF which shut down. Clarence Henry got elected to that HOF without ever fightng for a title. Because Moore beat them and Marciano and Charles beat Moore people let it go but for me its a problem.

 

I love Ezzard but h2h, its hard to see him beating many ATG heavyweights as he wasn't a huge hw puncher. Still the GOAT at 175 lbs.

 

@Greg Price99

Think you would come in handy.

 

Probably because he reigned in a really weak era and he only has like one win over a legitimate HW the rest were LHW coming up to HW. Great fighter overall especially at LHW and P4P but he was never a real HW.

 

I think most people have him top 20.

 

I do not think you are wrong about any point made nor do I think your criticism are unfair in any regard. I'm not responding in this way simply to be contrarian or cause some kind of emotional pseudo-academic debate. I am interested in your personal opinion.


TBH, I understand small era in comparisons. Louis compared to Wlad, Louis is the smaller era. easy. Louis to John L, John L's is the smaller era, easy.

But just open ended like that, just "that era was small" ... um ... compared to what? Now? All of them? I'm not sure what makes Charles time "small" in your own words.

Secondarily, Jack Dempsey fought quite a lot of LHWs. So many LHWs at HW Dempsey apologists like to frame the divisions as ethereal ideas that merely took shape before and after his reign. So if it's about LHWs ability to mix in with top HWs ... um ... Jack Dempsey's entire title run? Even the jamook what beat him was.

I know all that can read like belly aching and grilling but no, that's the wrong tone and if it's reading that way I do apologize for not capturing tone properly. I am just curious and interested.



Early decline is also curious, imo. As in I am just not sure I am inferring what you are implying. By then he had more fights and titles on his resume than most boxers get in a career. His win-loss wasn't bad until after Marciano, but even then, dude had an entire career's worth of fights before he ever faced Rocco. Ez could have retired without even fighting Marciano and he'd def still be talked about as both a LHW and HW. I just don't get it bro.

Likewise on the Marciano h2h ... Why should anyone give any consideration to who is and is not a forum darling here? You can shut this forum down just by speaking critically of ****in Povetkin ... ... ... ... Pov gets called the greatest to never win a title ... ... ... here ... ... by a bunch of clowns who have to be force fed history through their tears because they'd rather cling to British Empire era propaganda than learn anything new. I don't mean to say there are no good posters or good insights here, you yourself are one of the finest posters on any forum I have been on, but, as a knowledgeable poster as you are ... you have to recognize the collective thought process here is absolutely trash. Consensus h2h

40s Joe, just a reminder so you don't have to read your own or scroll "I don't think anyone believes Charles or Marciano could have survived early 40s Joe Louis." here, I do, this was the paragraph that made stop and say nah, let me speak on this. Rocky Marciano is the most disrespected HW of all time. People write fabulous fantasy around the man and contrive stories and scenarios for his losses because the reality is that man accepting anything but a win exists strictly in the world of fantasy. It is not a difficult thing, even with a great champion, to take a contrarian and critical stance toward their career and form real criticism around what they actually did. No fantasy needed. It was not that long ago I did it in an informational way, just informing folks on the criticisms of Lewis. Still got plenty of tears form apologists. These are not similar but the exact same posters who circle jerk scenarios disrespecting the man who did in the name of a man whose criticisms are real. The easiest task in the world for anyone remotely knowledgeable of history is tearing down and criticizing, if Marciano was so easily criticized in earnest no one would need to rely on a consensus fantasy to make a point. Or rather, Marciano is the one, only, sole, champion in all of boxing history whose criticisms rely on consensus truth rather than objective fact.


Did Dempsey draw the color line? It is an objective fact he did, you just need to decide if you care.

Did Wlad become undisputed? Objective fact he did not, do you care?

Everyone else's criticisms they earned. Did Mayweather fight his best opposition at the best time for both or for himself? Okay, do you care though? Get me? If you don't care it's cool but it is not like those who say May should have fought Pac earlier are making **** up.

Those who criticize Lewis for never bagging Bowe are not making **** up. Lewis never did.

If you give Mike Tyson **** for his resume it just means you are not impressed, but, no one makes up who he fought or who was around to be fought. They do for Marciano. We see jamooks claim Marciano ducked Patty! No one makes up the resume or availability or potentials of Mike Tyson's era. Or Ali's. Or Holmes. Anyone else.


What about the other direction ... how many mental gymnastics can I make folks flip just by pointing out colorline doe? Oh, now but now we're willing to recognize an entire system of favoritism and still reserve benefit of doubt for the champions. Bring up globalism and how many posters will go out of their way to voice benefit of doubt for every US champion they admire? Bend over backward to make sure real criticisms do not stick. Call it a racist era where whites benefited and blacks were held back - fine, we all know that - bring the names to it, claim Greb benefited from being white - and see them flip with a fitness because Greb must be defended from the criticism that apply to his entire era.

Just diatribing over here now. The point wasn't to hyper focus on Rock so much as to point out facts by consensus, consensus reality, this is the sort of **** that has fools believe they live in a simulation. Because they do. Where the tin foil comes in is blame. The simulation is something they built not something that happened to them. In this alternative universe of consensus facts Marciano is among the lowest h2h and that is true. The reality is the man who never lost has no blueprint and claiming you know what it takes is disrespectful to the history he left you and those who tried.

**** me bro, I'm sorry ... can't help myself:

NOTICE!

Your final criticism of Charles is deeply rooted in potentials and actions; reality. As you note once informed all there is for any fan to do is choose if they care or not. There's no need to make up or fantasize the criticism because Charles actually did, or rather did not, and had the potential to have done. Nothing to do with any circlejerked to death fantasy consensus. The reality of the situation is so powerful you don't even care if others do not care. Is that not interesting to you? From purely an academic stance if nothing else.





I think y'all should call one another out more for consistency. Bro if Ez is small for an ATG to you, that's cool, I don't actually need reasoning to respect your opinion, but, don't let me catch you talking ups Spinks, Fitzs, Dempsey, Burns, Langford or any other small HW in ATG convos.

Early fall off? Sure, fine, if that is how you see it, but, you'd better call everyone with a full retire-able career who starts picking up losses in a concerning number after having faced the younger, fresher, KO artist of the era "Early" to fall off. Dude could have retired after he beat Louis, JJ rematch, or Maxim and he'd be doing just fine as an ATG.

Get me?

I don't mean this as a warning I'm gonna police ya for consistency or anything, i'll forget in a few. I'm just saying if consistency meant half as much as consensus maybe folks would learn more than how to stay in their bubble.

 

I see a bunch of hasbeens, light heavies and white dopes.

A good run during bad times.

 

Good question. It has a really good look, on paper and, in reality, Charles' championship run was solid. However, this is where the losses come into play.

His SD Loss to Elmer Ray a couple of years earlier is a light hit - it was a controversial decision, most believing Charles took it and, at any rate, Charles returned the favor with a KO Win. It counts, but it barely makes a dent on Charles' heavyweight credentials.

It's when we get to the series between Walcott and Charles that his record takes a notable strike, in my opinion. Having already beaten Jersey Joe twice, he gets emphatically KO'd in their third encounter. Instead of turning that anomaly around, as he perhaps should have, he dropped a decision Loss to Walcott in their fourth encounter. These are significant losses and, if we are looking at his record from the perspective of a potential Top-10 Rating, then relatively speaking, they set him back, in my view.

Walcott was way past prime by then and to all intents and purposes Charles was blazing a trail. Coupled with another loss immediately following Walcott (IV), to Rex Layne (whom, admittedly, he would pay back with interest) there starts to form a little reasoning for Charles not reaching The Ten.

Just a thought or three...

 

I added "certainly the least threatening one" to cover my bases here. The other small eras either were a mix of small guys and giants like the 10s and 30s or the late 00s which had lots of small guys with real HW power.

Charles had a career trajectory like Jimmy Youngs. Slowing down by 30. Done at the elite level by 35. Is what it is.

Louis before the Walcot fight could get 10-8 rounds at will against superheavys. After this he scored a few knockdowns the rest of his career despite his competition shrinking. His power vanished. There is no reason to think Louis couldn't knock out Marciano or Ezzard Charles but especially Marciano.

The criticisms rely on consensus because they are glaring and many people can see them. Marciano retired 49-0 with 11 title defenses if you count the BBBC ones. These were probably the 12 easiest fights someone in his position could have gotten. Louis and Charles were the most favorable situations he could have encountered legends in. When compared to other champions he sticks out like a sore thumb. Its like Wilder. His management snuck him into a club with Louis, Ali, Wlad, Lennox and Holmes. Hes going to be criticized. He could have been Shavers and Bruno and no one would care if he fought Gerald Washington. Hard to think of an example for Marciano but if Marciano was like a better version of Curtis Sheppard no one would care. Hes 49-0 with 43 knockouts and knocked out Joe Louis. He would not be that in any other circumstances. Him being polarizing is the cost of that legacy.

"Early fall off? Sure, fine, if that is how you see it, but, you'd better call everyone with a full retire-able career who starts picking up losses in a concerning number after having faced the younger, fresher, KO artist of the era "Early" to fall off. Dude could have retired after he beat Louis, JJ rematch, or Maxim and he'd be doing just fine as an ATG."

This is true. He could have just called it quit and we'd never see the decline. It is what it is.

I bring up consensus because Gazelle asked "Why in your opinion is Charles consistently left off of top ten rankings in the HW division?" While a lot of what I wrote was my opinion its an explanation for why others wouldn't have Charles in their top 10.

The last bit about Henry and Baker is strictly my personal opinion thats why I wrote "another note" and emphasised that I don't think other people really care. It is also troubling because it is the structure that so many are cheering for in the present day. One "undisputed" belt with the champ having rematches with established names. Top contenders often never getting their shot.

I deleted part of your post in my response to meet the character limit.

 

The forum seems to be struggling as well, so I will be brief:

Fair and thoughtful; I appreciate your time.

 

I said white DOPES not excellent white heavies like Francois Botha.

 

Charles paper record in fights contested above 180lbs is an unimpressive 52-20.

However, he continued with his career long after his prime. At one point his record in 180lbs+ contests was 26-1, his sole loss being an SD to Elmer Ray, which he avenged.

He reigned as HW champion for just over 2-years and went 9-4, initially 9-0, in world title fights.

He beat past prime Joe Louis, Jimmy Bivins x 3, JJW (2-2), Joey Maxim x 5, Rex Layne (2-1), Elmer Ray (1-1), Bob Satterfield, Joe Baksi, Gus Lesnevich and Cesar Brion in fights contested above 180lbs.

I think his HW record is perhaps a little underappreciated, but personally don't see a strong argument for having him top 10 based solely on fights contested at HW. I rank him #16 all time at HW, #1 at LHW and #5 p4p.