Ezzard Charles HW Resume - wins against The Ring's Top 10

You're way off base here. Weight classes don't matter? Charles also lost to many more than Vitali did.

That's not telling the whole story. Stop cherrypicking.

How does Jersey Joe Walcott get 8 title shots? He was coming off losses on a couple of them

 

Sometimes I think it’s best to compare top HWs five best wins. Charles holds up to many when you do that instead of relying on one good win as a gauge.
Joe Louis
Walcott
Elmer Ray
Bivins
Maxim
Runner ups
Baksi
Rex Layne
Satterfield
Moore ( not at HW but we all know his credentials there). This list can hold up to most HWs you can name

 

Those are solid names, but don't forget the losses. I can understand if you are going to have a lot of fights then you are probably going to pick up some losses, but at a certain point it becomes a drag on the resume.

 

What actual HWs? Joey Maxim a career LHW who weighed 184? Gus Lesnevich another career LHW who weighed 182? All of Charles's wins at HW were against men who wouldn't even be cruiserweights today with the exception of Joe Louis, his only win against a genuine HW. Vitali fought men who were 220 and up. That is what an actual heavyweight is. It's the HW division for a reason. Byrd at 210 would have been the second heaviest opponent Charles ever fought. That tells you everything about the difference in era and size.

Byrd moved up and proved himself against actual HWs before fighting Vitali. Something Charles's opponents never had to do because there were barely any actual heavyweights around. Byrd was 210 for the Vitali fight. In Charles's era that would make him one of the biggest men in the division. That's how different the eras were.

You understand what the draft is right? A lot of men who would have been fighters went off to war, many dying or losing their potential. That's why Charles's and later Marciano's eras were considered thin. The war depleted the talent pool significantly.

And who were those #1 contenders? Jersey Joe who had just lost twice to a past it Joe Louis, once by knock out, and Joe Louis himself who had retired for two years and only came back because of the IRS. Kinda proves how weak the division is that those two were considered the # 1 contenders.

You're right they're not the same. One proved himself as a dominant HW champion against good but not great fighters. The other is a great P4P fighter whose HW resume is built mostly on beating natural LHWs in a division that had no actual heavyweights to offer, that's the difference between the two. You're conflating P4P greatness with HW greatness but they are not the same thing.

 

In a H2H sense, taking Charles as he actually was, I can see him beating some of the bigger men like say Renaldo Snipes and Frans Botha. Taking a hypothetical Charles born in 1971 instead of 1921 and he gets modern training, a 205-215 pound Charles fighting in the 1990s does really well. In fact, I pick a prime 1950 Charles over much of Moorers opposition

 

He wasn’t really losing in prime. His losses mostly came after he was done and some in the beginning. Most of which he avenged.

 

Definitely not. He was going toe-to-toe with Pat Valentino for 7 rounds who is 5'11 and a half and 188 pounds. He eventually ended the fight with a right hand, but he couldn't handle someone that much bigger than him.

 

I always believe the greats of one era would generally beat the non-greats of another era. I know heavyweight is a little different because of the size increase but as the big men have gotten bigger they, generally have become less skilled. Obviously, there have been exceptions but I believe the "Cincinnati Cobra" (as Rummy is fond of saying) would do quite well in most eras.

All of this being said, with the way they do things today related to rehydration and day-before weight ins, I can see Charles fighting at super middleweight and dominating for a long time.

 

When Ray died, he donated his body to Los Institutos Internacionales de Ciencias del Pegamento, in Madrid. I think that pretty much sums everything up.

 

Let's say this forum existed in 1966. Ezzard Charles was in the relatively recent past. He had been retired for 7 years by then. No one would argue Charles or his opponents weren't "real heavyweights". No one would think a 185-195 pounder wasn't a "real heavyweight". It would be hard to imagine a time when a man that size wasn't a heavyweight. In fact, a new top heavyweight named Jerry Quarry was emerging and he was 195 pounds.

In the 90s, the 2090s, who knows....the average sized heavyweight might be 6'9 270, the size of Tyson Fury. And very skilled. People in 2090 may laugh at Tyson Fury the way you laugh at Jess Willard, as an unskilled oaf. People might look at Lennox Lewis as "not a real heavyweight" who never beat any real heavyweights (since by then an average size heavyweight is 6'9 and a lean 270).

My point is, you can only judge fighters by their era. H2H is different, but based on accomplishments, Charles was an accomplished HEAVYWEIGHT

I've heard they are talking about a bridgerweight division now of men 200-225 or 230 pounds. If that happened, how many "not real heavyweights" would be on the roster of Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Larry Holmes?

 

You do know a decision win is an option?

 

Like I said, he was going toe-to-toe with him. I didn't score the rounds, but it was certainly close. I do give it up to Charles since he had just fought 2 months earlier so maybe that explains why he was struggling with him. But comparing him to the contenders that Wlad and Lennox fought is just wrong. Even a prime Botha (Moorer fight) would beat him.

 

If Charles could beat a 1950 Louis, he could handle Botha, even if via Decision

 

It's great to see someone doing their research and formulating their opinion via facts and study. Unfortunately the same old "brigade" who somehow don't know what a "resume" is despite having it explained to them multiple times (in a way that an average 13yo would follow) are infesting what would otherwise be a great discussion......again.

Charles defended the world title, the lineal title, 8 times (in a row). Even in an average era that is solid work. One wonders how many Heavyweights have exceeded that.

 

Fair point but I'm not saying Charles wasn't great he clearly was. But when you're directly comparing his HW resume to Vitali's the size difference is relevant. Vitali was fighting men 220 and up. Charles was fighting men 175-190. That's a different physical challenge regardless of what era you're in. I'm not judging Charles by modern standards. I'm saying when you compare two fighters across eras at the same division the actual size of the opposition they faced matters. Charles's opponents were heavyweights for their time. Vitali's opponents were heavyweights by any standard. That's a real difference when the question is who had the better HW resume.