Is it a valid viewpoint to have Ezzard Charles as the GOAT?

I think it seems reasonble. I like the fact that he took on EVERYONE. He was one of select few who had beat 40+ ranked contenders as well.

His best victories outstrips SRR:s by some distance I would say.

 

You could make an arguement I guess...He certainly is in the top tier of p4p greats and depending on your preference you could have just about any order of those fighters.

 

i have only saw one of his fighs against a washed up joe louis and i wasnt that impressed in him but his record sounds good

 

That was not Ezzard's prime either nor his best weight to be fair.

 

For number 1 he doesn't even enter my serious calculations. Top 10 is a different matter.

 

yeh i knew he was a light heavy looking at his record i have saw clips of ezzard at light heavy but not a full fight and he looked good

 

This content is protected

 

He has a good argument to be 1. Boxing was at its pinnacle in the 40s and 50s when he fought, performed at a higher level with better opponents than Greb and Langford. He's fought far better opposition than Robinson, Pepp and Armstrong. Like other greats he went through multiple divisions, from MW to HW, fighting the best WWs, MWs, LHWs and HWs of all time. He also has 1 of the best runs in history

A very good case

 

I really don't think that we can proclaim Ezzard Charles as the #1 greatest of all time, but we can certainly make a case for him a p4p top 10 candidate.

 

Ezzard Charles is a remembered/forgotten great in my opinion, remembered cos he won the HW title, fought Louis, Walcott and Marciano, yet forgotten in spite of some of the legends he beat.

I think he is the most undervalued and underrated HW there is

 

No. It is not a valid viewpoint. Ezzard is no longer one of the most underrated boxers on this site, he gets his just due more often than not. Let's not start overrating him now.

 

i love ezzard charles one of my favs of all time, he is one of the greatest ever but you forget to mention that he also has quite a few loses and some of those loses were not when he was past his best

 

He's up there, but I don't think I could put him over Langford or Greb.

 

I don't think so.

Compare him to someone like Robinson, who has a resume practically just as good or close to it, a better run in his prime, longevity over Charles, and doesn't have the bad losses on his record like Charles does to Bivins and Marshall (even if he wasn't prime for them).

I'd also put Langford and Greb over him, I think they've got him beat on his strongest point (resume).

I do believe that he could be argued over Armstrong.