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

Agree with the first part of the sentence, the second is preposterous.

 

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.

 

Well, you don't have to give any passes. a) he was stopped pre-prime which is not uncommon even at HW [Lewis was one shotted pre prime by McCall who was essentially a journeyman then and one shotted again in his prime] b) you can only fight who's out there [non-marquee names of his era were actually better fighters than marquee names in other weak eras] c) Povetkin fight was preposterous, but you fight how the ref lets you and Sasha's team picked the ref.

 

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.

 

That's true, but while Sanders and Brewster weren't rated, they were borderline and Brewster beat some ranked opponents of his own.

He beat every top contender of the era who was willing to face him. That's all you can expect from the champion. Especially since he was doing it for 9 years. And the era wasn't worse than Louis' and Holmes', not to mention other weak eras in the beginning of 1900's.

Mentioned above.

Yeah, he has a shot Joe Louis in there and Jersey Joe with 16 losses, to whom he lost to twice as well.

Yup. Ali initiated similar amount of clinches in his Frazier rematch. Cause the ref let him to. And Wlad, when not clinching, was lighting Pov up too.

 

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 never had Charles higher than Wlad in the all time HW ranking. I do have him in my Top 15 tho.

 

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.

 

As an OP I compared a quantity of wins against Top 10 rated competition with Wlad and Lewis, as they are right behind Ali, Louis and Holmes in that manner (and Charles of course). Nobody else comes close. Well, Ali and Louis are beyond a reach of anyone to be honest. Their records are too good to be true.