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

Eye test but I guess that's something you struggle with isn't it?

 

Seriously, how are you not getting this. At no point have I said beating smaller opponents is harder than bigger ones - even in Vitali's case where the bigger fighters he fought were absolutely ****. What I am saying, is why are you applying the standards of a fighter from the 90s onwards to a fighter from the 50s? 220lbs is just a number you've pulled straight out of your arse for some reason - and the reason is pretty damn obvious - so you can just write off all of Charles wins. Let me tell you something. Walcott with his 16 losses is a better fighter than anyone Vitali beat. So is an old, taxed Louis and so is Rex Layne.

There's no physics that'll make Valuev a better win than Usyk. Just like there's no physics that make Mathis a better win than Frazier or Barkley a better win than Leonard. You're having a size queen wank fest and it's really, really weird.

The point is, that Vitali's opponents suck. Not "good fighters" not great fighters, not even slightly below average. They outright suck. 44 of his 47 opponents aren't even the man of their own house. I bet their mum doesn't even ask them to do the Christmas tree. The fact their average size is 30lbs bigger than Charles' is absolutely irrelevant. Especially given that Vitali is ****ing 70lbs bigger than Charles.

I'm saying that Charles' record is more impressive than Vitali's. Whether it was done by a top 5 P4Per or the lesser brother of a robotic heavyweight doesn't matter to me at all. Sure, it'd be less impressive because Vitali is twice Charles' size but the record would be the same. Heavyweight is open weight, if you're lucky enough to be bigger than everyone then well done, I hope fighters like that have great careers.

Bro, you're losing your mind over this war thing. Boxing lost nothing due to ww2 and it's obvious. Every division bar heavyweight in the early to mid 40s was on fire. You have a who's who of the greatest fighters of all time, almost every division was at its peak. There is literally zero evidence for boxing being worse off. You've yet to answer why the effects of the war would happen specifically in the following decade, and specifically at heavyweight - other than some weird excuse about size, which makes no sense because you've already spent ages saying how small 50s HWs were and that extremes would be affected more, but that didn't happen at fly, bantam or featherweight. If anything, the amount of hardened immigrants to the US probably helped boxing - not harm it. This is absolutely the case in regards to the Philippines.

Furthermore, why didn't the Vietnam war ruin the 60s and 70s HW division? Did Vitali's era suck because of the Afghan war? Because of the Chechen Wars? Are you worried about all your favourite Ukrainian heavyweights disappearing in 2032?

Plus, if you use your brain, you'll realise that very, very few US soldiers would've lost 5 years of their athletic prime due to the war for multiple reasons.

 

Surely you’re not suggesting that it would be akin to a LW fighting a LHW though?

 

MaccaveliMacc, I'm very impressed with your work, doing it properly is a big job. Charles record I knew but putting the ratings on it gives great context.

 

Insane, isn’t it?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

You're not comparing like-for-like. If you are not familiar with the historical context of Johnson's day, or you genuinely cannot distinguish between the quality of Wlad/Pov and Ali/Frazier II, then the attempt at comparison isn't really adding as much weight to your argument as you think it is.

Likewise, the same applies in relation to ratings. A ranking tells you where a fighter stood relative to the division at that moment. It does not tell you how good he was in absolute historical terms.

Moreover, Bivins had a spot just behind the top guys, Louis, Ray, and Walcott, when Charles faced him. Ray was rated #2 (behind Charles at that point) when Charles faced him. Walcott had been ranked behind Louis until the latter's retirement, when he and Charles fought for the title. Maxim held a #3 spot. Layne was rated #4 in your own listing, so I am not seeing a particularly strong argument from you here, either way.

Out of interest, where do you think Byrd, Chagaev, Povetkin, Haye, and Ibragimov reside in the all-time heavyweight ratings compared to Bivins, Ray, Walcott, Maxim, and Layne?

 

No it isn't. It's the actual average weight of Vitali's opponents. I gave you specific data for every one of Charles's "career heavyweights" You responded with "who gives a ****." That's not a rebuttal that's just you having no answer besides pretending weight doesn't actually matter.

"Walcott with his 16 losses is a better fighter than anyone Vitali beat." Based on what? Your say so? You keep asserting things without evidence and expecting me to accept them. Walcott was ranked #1 despite losing twice to a past his best Louis and having 3 close fights to Ray and Maxim after losing the initial fights to them. Not exactly an impressive run before getting the title shot for the third time. Sanders knocked out Wlad, the #1 ranked heavyweight, in 2 rounds a feat Walcott could never replicate. Peter was the #2 ranked heavyweight and had only lost to Wlad. But somehow Walcott with his losses and close fights is better? I don't see it. Put Sanders or Peter in there they would absolutely wreck Maxim and Ray wouldn't need a close decision. But we can keep pretending beating them in close fights makes Walcott a better fighter.

"There's no physics that'll make Valuev a better win than Usyk." I never said size alone determines quality. I said it's ONE factor. You keep arguing against a position I've never held because it's easier than addressing what I actually said. Size matters. It's not the only thing that matters. But it's not zero. You've spent this entire debate trying to make it zero because its the only way to make your framework work.

Now the war since it seems I have to educate you a bit since actual history doesn't seem to be one of your strengths. WW2 involved 16 million Americans serving, Vietnam involved 2.7 million. I don't think I need to explain why those two aren't comparable, the scale is completely different. And soldiers who were 18-22 in 1941 were 23-27 in 1945 that IS prime athletic years plus the post-war adjustment period not to mention 420,000 dead and 670,000 wounded but somehow that's irrelevant? Remind me about Ali's exile again and how that affected him. But please explain to me why the 40 and 50s division were so thin if it wasn't because of the war. You said "if you use your brain" I did you clearly haven't because the actual history and numbers don't support anything you've said.

"Why didn't it affect other divisions?" Because other divisions had much larger talent pools. Flyweight, bantamweight, featherweight drew from a global pool of smaller men who vastly outnumbered natural heavyweights. The heavyweight division has always had the smallest talent pool because naturally large men are an outlier. Losing even a small percentage of an already tiny pool has a huge effect. You admitted the HW division was the weakest of the original 8 because of the small talent pool. Now explain why a massive war that took 16 million Americans out of civilian life, including 420,000 who died and 670,000 who were wounded, wouldn't further deplete that already tiny pool. You accept the first cause. You refuse the second. Both follow the same logic yet all you're doing is selectively applying your own reasoning.

"Vitali's opponents suck." So men who were ranked #2, #3, and #5 in the world sucked? Sanders who knocked out Wlad in 2 rounds sucked? Peter the #2 ranked heavyweight and a champion with only one loss to Wlad sucked? Adamek a former cruiserweight champion who was undefeated at heavyweight and ranked #2 sucked? These are your words. And you say I'm the one with the crazy take? I don't see how you can say Charles opponents are good but Vitali's suck when H2H the latter would almost certainly beat the former and honestly even Charles would have difficulty with big hard punching HWs, especially someone like Sanders who could almost certainly blitz him.

 

“I bet their mum doesn't even ask them to do the Christmas tree”

That killed me.

I’m on holiday. And I just laughed out loud in a restaurant.

Ha!

 

I also like that in a 75 fight career spanning nearly 30 years till 52 only Mike Tyson had a easy time with Holmes.

That's something else that wins me over as well.

 

But at the same time he was never as dominant as Lewis or Wlad considering he had several close fights during his reign.

 

You have to take every factor into account.

Holmes should always rank ahead of Wlad though.

 

Yep not as dominant as Wlad who barely lost rounds for a decade. Comparable to Lewis I would say.

The difference is I weigh losses heavier than you do and the main difference for me is Wlad's losses.

 

That's fair I think any order of Wlad, Lewis and Holmes is fine tbh.