How Good Was Ezzard Charles As A Heavyweight

He full well knows this, he's just trying to lessen the blow on his hero Wilder. That's why he's fixating on age. He's always hammered the old guys for losses when they were shot, holding it against them with impunity. Now Wilder's getting hammered he's shuckin' and jivin' all over the place trying to compensate and cope.

 

We're discussing how good Ezzard Charles was all-time at heavyweight.
The TOPIC compares older athletes with athletes today.
That's what ALL-Time means.

Ezzard's bouts in the 1950s are just as important as his fights in the 1940s, particularly in this thread since he fought most of the heavyweights on his resume in the 50s.

And he lost to plenty of bad ones. Ezzard Charles weighed 182 pounds against Fleeman and Charles was 37 years old.

Do you think a 37-year-old Lennox Lewis would lose to Fleeman?
How about a 37-year old Wlad Klitschko?
Vitali Klitschko?
Larry Holmes?
George Foreman?
Hell, do you even think a 37-year-old Floyd Patterson would lose to Fleeman?

When Floyd was 37, he beat Oscar Bonavena

These are some of the names we're comparing him to, after all.

Charles was really light compared to most heavyweights over the last 60 years and he lost to a lot of guys in his 30s that the best heavyweights ever wouldn't have lost to (and didn't lose to).

If we're comparing heavyweights across the board all-time... Charles isn't close to the top.

His reputation primarily comes from beating light heavyweights. And by the 1970s, as Ali and Frazier found out, beating light heavyweights, no matter how good they were, wasn't something you were praised for.

 

Combined, George Foreman had more than 100 amateur and pro fights ... not to mention countless exhibitions where guys teed off on him that don't show up on his record.

And, when talking about George all-time, I routinely see some people here bashing Foreman for losing to Shannon Briggs when George was about to turn 49.

And it's not like George got knocked around by Briggs like Ezzard did at the end his career. Most thought Foreman won.

If we're comparing the two all-time at heavyweight, if some are going to watch George lose to Briggs and judge him on that, we can certainly watch a 10-years younger Charles lose and get humiliated by journeymen like Freeman and judge him.

It happened, after all. It's part of his career. And Ezzard wasn't 48 when it happened.

Again, I think a lot of older fighters are held in higher regard because we tend to only see them at their best. And if you show a bad outing, like against Freeman, some think it's unfair. But it just shows they were only human, too.

 

I'm unsure what relevance this point has to my post.

My position is that fighters today remain prime and close to prime at more advanced ages today than they did in Charles's era and before, for the reasons that @PRW94 and I have cited.

Are you disagreeing with the contention that fighters typically remain prime and close to prime at more advanced ages today? Or do agree that they do, but for different reasons to those cited by @PRW94 and I?

For the record, considering Foreman's performance against Briggs has a negative impact on his all time ranking, is ridiculous.

 

Oh I see … for the record I have no use for Wilder and think prime Charles was solar systems ahead of him historically.

 

Furys reputation is largely based on the Wilder trilogy though. If Wilder is overrated Furys legacy takes a massive hit along with the notion he was better than contemporaries like Kabayel, Parker, Wardley etc

 

I agree about Foreman and Briggs.

But showing how fighters look at all stages of their careers when rating them is also important to see how well they held up.

People today just aren't used to seeing Charles look like that.

But that's how bad Charles looked in his mid to late 30s.

Some people rate boxers higher if they continue to fight well later.

Being the oldest man to win the heavyweight title certainly impacted Foreman's career, for the better.

The wheels started coming off for Charles when he was a fairly young man still. He had just turned 30 a week or so earlier when he was knocked cold by a 37-year-old Walcott.

Then he followed that up with a loss to Rex Layne.

What 30-year-old top 10 heavyweight all-time loses to Rex Layne?

Does Lennox Lewis? Larry Holmes? Muhammad Ali?

C'mon .

 

Most posters, me included, don't factor in losses when a fighter is shot or well past prime, when assessing a fighter's historical standing.

That said, we do factor in, and give credit for, incredible longevity of prime (e.g. Moore and Hopkins) and to a degree post prime achievements (e.g. Foreman beating Moorer).

When is reasonable to be considered past prime, is based on a variety of factors, typically including, but not necessarily limited to, number of fights, extent of tough fights and age, rather than being solely based on age. Again, fighters in the modern era typically remain prime and close to prime at advanced ages relative to their counterpart from distant eras, due to the multitude of reasons cited within this thread.

Finally, predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights, plays no part in my assessment criteria when ranking fighters from an historical perspective. I purely focus on what fighters actually achieved during the era in which they competed in.

 

Right. I do, too.

If guys start strong, finish strong, and are consistent all the way through, I tend to rate them higher than fighters with big peaks and big valleys.

Given the responses to posters across the board, however, I don't agree that "most" cut flighters slack when they suffer losses past their primes.

I think they do in Classic when talking about fighters from the 1950s and earlier.

But even Classic posters routinely bash modern fighters for later losses because they can watch them in real time. They can't see a lot of the later losses of old timers they hold in higher esteem.

Out of sight, out of mind, after all.

When I saw Charles get knocked out by Donnie Fleeman the first time, it took me by surprise how bad he looked. And he was coming off another loss to another nobody, as well.

I just don't think some would cling to the old-timers like they do if they actually saw the good AND the VERY bad, like they do with boxers in real time.

I will never forget the arguments on message boards when Roy Jones beat John Ruiz. One respected writer felt Jones may have surpassed Sugar Ray Robinson as the greatest fighter ever. But a lot of losses by Jones later, and nobody does now. Those losses are hard to ignore when you see so many.

But nearly all those old guys had a lot of losses at the end of their careers, too. It's often impossible to see them, though.

So they get a pass, even if it's subconsciously.

It's easier to ignore fights you never saw ... than it is to ignore the images in your head of bad performances you actually watched.

Anyway, when ranking fighters at heavyweight, there probably isn't a division where so much has changed. So you have to look at the good performances and the bad, and the circumstances surrounding them, with all of them. Nobody should get a pass when it comes to bad performances.

 

I agree with you to an extent, though I think what you're describing is probably as much, if not more, due to recency bias than whether a fighter's decline was witnessed live by the person assessing the fighters all time standing. That recency bias works both ways. E.g. every time a fighter wins a big fight, there are multiple threads on here matching them against ATGs the next day.

I watched RJJ's prime and decline live. I still think he's a p4p and LHW ATG.

I don't tend to rank fighters historically until a few years after they retire, it allows time for the dust to settle, avoids recency bias and allows what remians of the careers of their key opponents to unfold.

 

Honestly, Dubblechin, I'm offended by your post about Charles vs Fleeman. To me it's very callous the way you write about a valiant champion whose declining health has rendered him unable to fight anymore. He should have been protected by state boxing commissions instead of being permitted to fight. What you're seeing in the film is the cumulative effects of a long and distinguished career capped by two brutal losses to Marciano. This isn't merely a "shot" fighter, It's one who will soon end up a cripple in a wheelchair. It's downright uncharitable to downgrade a great career because of a contest fought in that pitiable condition.

 

one of my favorite fighters but he was barely a hw in that era. today he is a mw for his whole career.

 

Then you're trying too hard to be offended.

I posted a losing fight by a 37-year-old heavyweight in the midst of a 3-7 run over 10 fights, and the topic of the thread is where he should ranked all-time at heavyweight.

Charles fought on for another year after that.

Floyd Patterson was 37 years old when he beat Oscar Bonavena.

Jersey Joe Walcott was 37 when he knocked out Charles to win the heavyweight title.

Evander Holyfield was 37 when he drew with Lennox Lewis in a heavyweight unification.

Lennox Lewis was 37 years old when he tore Vitali Klitschko's face apart and stopped him.

Oleksandr Usyk was 37 years old when he unified the heavyweight title against Tyson Fury.

Larry Holmes was 37 years old when he got knocked out by Mike Tyson and 42 years old when he beat Ray Mercer.

George Foreman was 45 years old when he knocked out Michael Moorer to win the heavyweight title.

That's what the 182-pound Charles looked like at 37 against a 200-pound journeyman.

We're comparing where Charles rates all time at heavyweight next to guys like those mentioned above.

It's relative to the topic.

Just like Mike Tyson winning the title at 20 is relative. Just like most of Usyk's career coming against cruiserweights is relative, and most of Charles' big wins coming against even smaller light heavys is relative.

 

Probably right. Many middles today weigh 180 pounds when the bell actually rings.

 

Mentioning Tyson, I'm curious, where do you rank him all time? He's my #10 primarily based on his 38-0 run, including quality of opposition beaten, up to facing Douglas.

I hold the Douglas win against him, because whilst I don't think he was the same fighter as a couple years earlier, I think that was due to a lack of discipline rather than any combination of age, injuries and wear & tear.

Tyson was 38, a veteran of 54 fights and utterly shot physically and mentally, when he lost to Williams and Douglas. Those losses don't factor in to how I assess his all time standing at all. To suggest otherwise seems absurd to me.

Yet, if I understand you correctly, your contention is that Charles loss to Fleeman, aged 37 in his 118th fight, should be considered when assessing his all time ranking. If so, I'm curious if you apply this consistently. If you do, your all time rankings must bear little resemblance to most. E.g. Henry Armstrong was 29 when he lost to 18-4-3 Reuben Shank. This doesn't diminish his all time standing in my view, after the crazy schedule he kept, he bore little resemblance to his peak version, by this point.