How Good Was Ezzard Charles As A Heavyweight

Are they though? I don't see many people claiming Jones was always terrible because he lost in 2008, or 2015 or whenever else. Nobody really cares about B-Hop losing to Taylor and definitely not to Smith or Kovalev; and I can't recall a single person disparaging Manny Pacquiao for losing to Ugas. If anything, I'd argue that age is one of the only passes modern fighters get for losing.

Well, what do you want them to do Dubble? If you can't see the fights, why focus on a loss in an over the weight fight to Mike Kaplan when you can instead focus on a win over Eddie Booker or Holman Williams? Context should be applied properly to both, and the idea you treat results from today and yesterday as the same is frankly ridiculous.

When a fighter today gets 3 months to prepare, dozens of rounds of footage to survey, and can train basically anywhere in the world with access to any facilities, healthcare or trainers they require; then losing in that scenario is far more egregious. However, the opponent also has these advantages which makes the wins more impressive. None of this is the case for the vast majority of fighters prior to the 70s, and that's not even including the benefits which PEDs give. So why even bother trying to make things equal between fighters in different eras? It makes no sense to do so imo.

I actually agree, if we had more footage - or any - of a lot of fighters from the past, public opinion of them would go down in some cases and in every single case, we'd have a much better understanding of them. Greb would look terrible, id bet money on it; seeing Armstrong got stopped would absolutely lower his reputation and if we had all of Benny Leonard's career, we'd have guys who think he's archaic and guys who think he's masterful. And guys who think both. However, this argument absolutely falls apart for Charles, specifically. We have next to zero film of Charles at his peak, and the vast majority of film we do have is him against bigger fighters, while he himself is slower and as you get later in his career, far past his best.

Those later losses are absolutely not as relevant as any wins. Why on Earth would you believe that? Charles' loss to Freeman - which you have singled out - is about as relevant to Jones' losses to Lebedev or Enzo; or B-Hop's losses to Smith Jr. or Kovalev.

Well, at 31 years old Charles lost to one person, who happened to be a top heavyweight; who had beaten a third of the fighters ranked that year. He lost to him in a fight which had 7 rounds scored even and was an unpopular verdict, against a guy who Charles absolutely schooled twice. At 32, he lost to a top 10 LHW of all time in a fight he should've won; and the number one contender at HW who was much bigger than him.

So, neither of those really qualify to me as "some pretty clunky guys", they're around the best in the world at a time where so was Charles, and Charles lost. That's just you adding to a point without applying context. And it's clear for anyone with a brain that Charles was done after Marciano. You're also not really painting a picture for yourself here. If Charles was 3-7 in his previous 10, I'd argue that's pretty good evidence that he was absolutely done. Especially when you also consider that he'd have 3 more fights and lose 2 of them.

Usyk losing to Donnie Fleeman at 37 is impossible to imagine, but so is Usyk beating Charlie Burley at 20.

Charles' best wins at heavyweight are not over LHWs though... Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott 2x & Rex Layne 2x. None of these were active light heavyweights. And your point doesn't even make sense; for one, Charles moved from MW, then LHW then to HW himself, and if the equivalent happened like Opetaia moving up to fight Usyk then moved back down, Usyk would absolutely get credit.

 

Charles moved from middleweight to light heavyweight to heavyweight.

We're ranking him as a heavyweight. Ezzard's fights in the 50s matter because most of his heavyweight fights took place in the 50s.

The topic is where does he rank at heavyweight all-time?

Regarding Burley, if Mike Tyson, at 20, beat middleweight Champ Sugar Ray Leonard in 1987 (that matchup was briefly a topic of discussion back then after Leonard beat Lalonde), while it would've made headlines, it wouldn't have meant anything to Tyson's all-time HEAVYWEIGHT standings.

If you replaced Tyson's wins over guys we consider decent, like Tubbs, Thomas, and Tucker ... with wins over light heavyweight greats like Virgil Hill and Marvin Johnson in 87 and 88 ... they'd be bigger all-time names but beating them wouldn't have lifted Tyson's all-time standings AT HEAVYWEIGHT.

Because they were great light heavyweights. Modern heavyweights are supposed to beat great middleweights and light heavyweights.

Great heavyweights beating great light heavys, like I said, lost its luster as far back as Ali and Frazier beating all-time great Bob Foster. Beating Foster doesn't raise their heavyweight standing.

So, Charles beating them, when you're comparing Charles to all heavyweights all time, means next to nothing.

Just like Frazier blitzing Bob Foster meant next to nothing.

It may have at the time Charles did it, because he was a smallish guy back then, too. But for 60 years it hasn't, and there are a lot of heavyweights he's being compared to over the last 60 years.

With Charles, seems like people want to focus on all the lighter weight names he beat, and the fact that he moved up in weight ... which are all positives ... agreed.

But when you turn the subject to the actual TOPIC, and bring up his bad losses at heavyweight, the excuse is ... well, he was better when he was a light heavyweight.

But we're not ranking him there in this thread. We're ranking him at heavyweight.

Looking at his heavyweight fights, there are a lot of bad losses there. Sure, there are reasons for that. But there are reasons for everyone's losses, back then and now. Joe Louis had reasons he lost to Ezzard, too.

There's no harm in showing 37-year-old Ezzard get pasted by some barely 200-pound journeyman heavyweight, when you're comparing him to 37-year-old heavyweights who were still excelling at that age.

Showing everyone's great wins AS WELL AS THEIR BAD LOSSES presents a more well-rounded picture. That's all.

 

The poll is closed but I place Charles in the lower end of the Top 20 and I think the video you showed is no more relevant than Willie Mays’ two dismal end of career years with the Mets are relevant to his status as the greatest position player in baseball history.

I don’t look at every step in a fighter’s career in assessing him historically.

And I’m going to go there, unless it’s a freak situation like Old Foreman or a knuckleball pitcher like Phil Niekro or a freak of nature like Nolan Ryan in baseball, I never have cared for athletes still competing in their dotage even if they’re still competitive and even with today’s changed expectations and training, nutrition and medical improvements that permit it. At some point you need to take your money and go to the house and get out of the way and let some new blood have the spotlight.

Of course the only reason Ezzard was still fighting at 37 and later actually ‘rassled professionally is he blew all his cash, a familiar story then and now for professional athletes.

 

We're ranking him at heavyweight yes, but acting as though his time below heavyweight didn't exist, and more specifically, make him age quicker, is ignorant and ridiculous.

No Dubble, that isn't regarding Burley. I brought up Burley to show how early Charles was among the best of all-time, as a point to show why he was so bad by 37. Either you've failed to realise this, or ignored it. I don't disagree that Leonard vs Tyson (Absolutely LOL of an example, as if Charles at HW had any fight like that ) would do nothing for Tyson, but its irrelevant to the point about Burley.

In fact the entire rant about Tyson beating Leonard, Hill & Pops is just weird. Charles' FIVE best wins at HW to start, are against fighters who were bigger than Charles.

Walcott 1
Walcott 2
Joe Louis
Rex Layne 1
Rex Layne 2

Guys like Maxim and Bivins who did he fight at heavyweight, aren't his best wins at HW or particularly even close.

I'm not getting into Foster beyond this. The reason why wins over him at heavyweight meant nothing, is because he never did anything of note at heavyweight. If Dempsey had won the Tunney rematch, or Holmes, the Spinks, it certainly wouldn't have been nothing. Why? Because they won the heavyweight title. They did stuff at heavyweight. Just like it's not nothing for Marciano to beat Charles and Moore. It's only nothing for Foster, because Foster's record at HW sucks.

It doesn't mean nothing, and even if it does, they're not his best wins anyway. And Charles isn't a modern heavyweight though is he... why are you so fixated on judging fighters from 70 years ago by the standards of today?

His bad losses at heavyweight should be criticised. My point is that you don't seem to know which losses to criticise. His loss in his in his 118th fight, having boxed for over 22 years and probably suffering from ALS with only 3 fights left until retirement is ****ing stupid. And that's not even getting into the simple fact that being 37 in 1955 is absolutely ancient compared to being 37 in the 2020s; or how you throw more and take more punches as you get lighter, which burns you out quicker.

It looks like you're getting it. Learn the reasons, and evaluate how much damage the loss does to the fighter's reputation. Now, if you could just do that about the fight you yourself have singled out, in Freeman.

There isn't any harm, it's just stupid. Comparing ages as if they're the same for everyone is just ignorant and therefore redundant. Jack Dempsey was done at 32. Tunney at 31. Jeffries at 29. Frazier at 32. Baer at 32. Does that mean any fighter who fought past 33 is greater than them all? Does it even mean that they all should be defined by their final year because other heavyweights were better when older? It's pointless and ridiculous.

So do that then Dubble. All you've done when talking about Charles' great wins is say Louis had reasons for losing too; and fixated on his losses while making ludicrous comparisons. It's all well and good to say you show everyone's great wins and bad losses presents a well rounded picture but you don't do it. At least, not here.

 

Lets compare Charles to Lewis/Holmes/Patterson/Walcott/Holyfield/Usyk and Foreman to Charles at the 118 fight mark.

That's right.

 

Maybe we should downgrade Lou Gehrig as a ballplayer because he batted .143 in his abbreviated final year. Sure, it was HIS FAULT that he got sick and couldn't hit or field well anymore. That's what you imply in your argument, that Charles's late 1950s defeats deserve condemnation, and that some weight should be applied to the Fleeman and George Logan losses when we evaluate his career. What a sick joke when the film explicitly shows a battered old fighter who can no longer defend himself.

Lou Gehrig? He was great for 14 years but we mustn't let him off the hook for that 1939 season!

 

Certainly top 30,a very good, but not great heavyweight. imo.

 

Seriously? Now we're bringing in baseball and how people died?

People always want to take this way off track.

We're rating heavyweight boxers.

If Lou Gehrig spent half his career at Double A and Triple A, and the second half in the majors, and he wasn't nearly as good in the majors ... then he wouldn't be rated as highly as a Major League ballplayer. People wouldn't say BUT he was great in the minors, and look how he died, so cut him some slack.

The heavyweight division isn't like any other division.

We're RANKING HEAVYWEIGHT BOXERS ALL TIME.

Emphasis on heavyweight. In fact, sole focus is on heavyweight.

Not at middleweight. Not at light heavyweight. At heavyweight.

And, at heavyweight, Ezzard Charles has roughly 30+ wins and 20+ losses. It's more like Jimmy Young's win-loss record than someone I'd rank at the top of the all-time heavyweight ratings.

It hurts Charles' heavyweight standing that he didn't fight the whole time at heavyweight.

It hurts his heavyweight standing that he wasn't at his best in that division.

It hurts his heavyweight standing that he got bashed around losing to nobodies at the end.

And it hurts his heavyweight legacy that he wasn't that old when he started crashing.

It's a division where old guys have flourished.

When you're comparing him to a whole host of fighters who DID spend their whole careers at heavyweight, who were also excellent at heavyweight, and who DID NOT spend their later years losing to a host of nobodies, who were dominant heavyweights late into their careers, then HE DOESN'T RATE with them.

Because that's who he's being compared with.

That's all.

But we're simply RATING the best heavyweights here.

I don't rate heavyweights based on what they did when they WERE NOT heavyweights or HOW THEY DIED.

I just rate how good they were at heavyweight if the topic is "HOW GOOD WERE THEY ALL-TIME AT HEAVYWEIGHT."

 

Bruh

 

Charles record in bouts contested above 180lbs is 52-20.

He was 26-1, with the sole loss being via SD to Elmer Ray, which he avenged.

Charles won 9 x lineal HW title fights in a row.

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

I agree his is not a top 10 all time HW record, I rank him #16 for what that's worth, but for a while, in the era in which he competed, he was an excellent HW.

When he was way past prime, he was, well, well removed from that excellent best.

 

Dude, why don’t you just come out and say you’re s**tting on Charles just to pump up your idol Wilder, who IMO is barely Top 40 all time, in his dotage?

 

But that's not what the OP asks and has no relevance on the actual question there.

 

WTF? Get out of here with that crap. I've written thousands of words in this thread explaining my position on this, with regard to Charles. I'm not pumping up anyone.

And I have no idea how posting a video of Charles losing and saying his heavyweight record doesn't measure up to the top heavyweights of all-time ... led some of you to somehow see it as me besmirching his death, comparisons to Lou Gehrig or accusations I'm trying to "prop up" any other fighter.

You guys are all over the place.

Ezzard Charles' record AT HEAVYWEIGHT isn't among the best when compared to actual top heavyweights all-time. That's all.

It's not "offensive" to say that. It's not "offensive" to post video of him losing.

He was just a normal human. Not a god who has to be held up as "perfect."

 

Right.

Let's change the discussion to anything but THE TOPIC.

Ezzard Charles' heavyweight record doesn't stack up to the best heavyweights of all time. Even the people pumping him up admit he wasn't his best AT HEAVYWEIGHT, which is why they want to talk about his wins elsewhere.

And if you bring up his losing fights at heavyweight, you are apparently just "S**TTING on him." Or, it's "offensive."

Boy, seeing video of Charles at 37 losing to a guy like Fleeman really "bothered" some folks in this thread.

Like I said, it's easier to ignore losses when you don't have to see them. Don't shoot the messenger. Nearly all of them have them.

 

The ignore list is your friend. I’ve grown weary of this line of babbling.