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

Only to Wlad fans who give him a few passes for a) getting stopped by three unrated opponents in his prime, b) not having a single marquee win on his resume and, c) classing his win over Povetkin as some kind of dominant display (which it was... ...just not a display of boxing).

Charles' heavyweight exploits are more noteworthy.

 

As expected this will become about Wlad vs Charles it was only a matter of when.

 

The concept that you judge a fighter on what he did in his own time can't be this hard to grasp. Some serious trolling must be going on.

 

Lewis wasn't stopped by unrated opponents. It happened to Wlad three times.

It was an exceptionally weak era, during which Wlad fought more than his fare share of unproven challengers.

When you sweepingly state that "

This content is protected

" what other eras are you talking about?

(Despite Wlad's long reign, Charles' has the more storied and historically relevant heavyweight ledger.)


I don't really have a suitable response to your excuses for Wlad/Pov. But... ...Really???

 

Rating comparisons with Lewis and Wlad were introduced in the OP.

 

Ah, that old rhetorical escape hatch – a truism dressed up as the beginning and end of the argument. Is that really the only rule of historically rating boxers, as far as you’re concerned?

Of course, a fighter should be judged in the context of his own time. Nobody would seriously dispute that. But it cuts both ways and applies just as much to what a fighter didn’t do, didn’t prove, and wasn’t required to prove in his own era.

 

So you're making a case against Charles, now?

 

I'm pretty sure you are aligned and boke cannot believe a couple of posters in this thread can't fathom the concept of resume.

 

Ahh - If I have misread the picture, then I apologise to Mr @Bokaj .


(Which is a damned shame, because those there points I made were very, very... ... ... ... ...never mind.)

 

I know I wasn't blaming you. It's just that it was inevitable.