How Good Was Ezzard Charles As A Heavyweight

The reason Charles wasn't ranked by the NBA at HW before 1948 despite winning fights contested at HW is simple. It's because he was ranked at LHW and the NBA typically didn't rank the same boxer simultaneously in multiple weight divisions.

In case proof of that is required:

When Archie Moore challenged Marciano he was universally considered the outstanding HW contender, yet he was neither ranked by the NBA as the logical contender to Marciano's title, one of their 2 x outstanding boxers or even one of their 9 x honorable mentions. So, despite Archie having just beaten the NBA's number 1 HW contender, in a fight contested at 209.5lbs, Moore wasn't ranked amongst the NBA's leading 12 x HW contenders. This is because he was LHW champion and the NBA typically only assigned a fighter to a single weight division. The suggestion this precludes them having bouts contested in more than one weight division during the same period is plainly absurd.

 

Not true about the NBA. They ranked fighters in multiple divisions.

(RING MAGAZINE also didn't rate Charles at heavyweight until 1948, which you ignored.)

Specifically regarding "your proof" that Moore wasn't ranked in both divisions before the Marciano fight in 1955, in July 1955 (before their Sept. 1955 fight), Archie Moore was ranked as champion at light heavy while simultaneously ranked as the logical contender at heavyweight. See for yourself.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1955

In fact, Moore was ranked in both divisions (heavyweight and light heavyweight) simultaneously throughout most of 1956, too.

So, your proof just evaporated.

Just follow the links on boxrec under National Boxing Association Quarterly ratings.

The National Boxing Association was the official ratings body at the time.

The National Boxing Association didn't rate Charles at heavyweight until 1948. Neither did Ring Magazine.

 

Well I suppose italics are a step up from CAPs.

Fair play on Moore, that was a bad example. Do you have any examples of a fighter being ranked as a contender by the NBA in more than one weight division?

What weight cut off, or other criteria, do you use in the pre-CW era to assign fights to either HW or LHW, for the purposes of a historical analysis in those weight divisions?

 

Just skimming them (the NFL is on), Ace Hudkins was rated simultaneously as the #1 at middleweight and #3 at light heavyweight in 1929. Billy Petrolle was listed simultaneously as the #1 Lightweight and #1 Junior Welterweight contender in 1932. Henry Armstrong was listed simultaneously as the champ in multiple divisions in 1938 and 1939. Before winning anything, Archie Moore was also listed simultaneously as the Logical Contender at 175 and an Outstanding Contender at heavyweight in 1952.

That's a start. There are too many Ace's and Gus's and Jimmy's and Freddie's and Tony's and Archie's ... they all blur together. I'd rather watch the game. Anyway, thanks for the debate.

 

Thanks.

What weight cut off, or other criteria, do you use in the pre-CW era to assign fights to either HW or LHW for the purposes of historical analysis, please?

 

Hi Buddy.
What a nice and friendly way to cover your discussion/debate with Greg, kudos to you for rising above the sometimes long and drawn out nit picking and insults, lessons for all.
stay safe Dubblechin, chat soon buddy.
Mike.

 

A better question is "How bad was his heavyweight era?"

 

You know, I have talked my share of trash about Ezzard Charles on this forum over the years, and a lot of it-maybe most of it-was because I kept mixing him up with Ezra Pound. And that's on me. I accept that. Charles was a great fighter. Also, some of the trash I talked was because I mixed him up with Eddie Izzard. And frankly, that was probably even worse my fault. But I did credit him as being smart and funny. So, let's be fair to me, in that it wasn't all negative.

 

Going back and re-reading Dubblechin's posts about the career of Ezzard Charles, I'm not so offended anymore. He says that when we evaluate Ezzard's accomplishments as a heavyweight we should consider his pitiful late-career losses to journeymen like George Logsn and Donnie Fleeman. Well, it may be cruel to do so, but when you remove sympathy from the equation, Dubble makes a solid point and his reasoning, while cold, stands up well to analysis.

 

Someone besides Charles seems to be punchy. Let's put him in the ring with Izzy Klein.