Ezzard Charles was as good as Ray Robinson

Anyone agree? For me, he's the light heavyweight version, the differences being (pound-for-pound):

- Robinson slightly quicker
- Slightly more agile
- Tiny bit better at punching

- Charles being stronger
- A bit smarter
- Better infighter

You could argue Robinson had a better chin, and he probably did, but there's not as much in it as there first seems. I mean, Charles' durability was far more tested than Robinson's.

There's not much in it on the punching side of things either. Robinson was the better puncher, but then Charles also scored some spectacular knockouts on both light heavyweight and heavyweights.

But then Charles was definitely the stronger and smarter infighter by a clear margin.

 

Same.

But then Charles beat Charley Burley, and this was before his career-altering spell in the army. Charles was always a smart fighter, but had yet to aquire the muscle and grit that would help him avenge those losses to Bivins and Marshall.

Charles took the first Burley fight on short notice. Burley fought recklessly, trying to make quick work of Charles, but he couldn't, and was thoroughly outboxed and outfought. Burley took a more cautious approach in the rematch and was again trounced convincingly.

Then there's Archie Moore of course, who once said something to the effect of; "I kept changing my style for every bout we fought, but I still couldn't get past him [Charles]."

Jersey Joe Walcott twice - that's like Ray Robinson twice outsmarting Joey Giardello. Joey Maxim five times, Jimmy Bivins four times... These were all very smart and seasoned professionals of the elite level. An aging Charles also arguably beat Harold Johnson. Parallel? Robinson, having slowed down a bit, running it close with a prime Tiger Flowers.

(For the record, I think Johnson won, but still - Charles was well on the way down).

Robinson just didn't face as many top flight stylists.

 

Robinson's a bit more explosive, but then Charles had a stronger base and better infighting. A bit more ugly as a fighter maybe... Although if you watch the very scarce prime footage of Charles you'll see he's a bit more exciting there.

We ain't got the best footage, or only small amounts, of both at their peak, so some of it we just have to go by on records and accounts.

 

Don't take me for an idiot mate.

 

I don't think there's much of a gap. Robinson is more aesthetically pleasing, but then so was Marvin Hagler over Carlos Monzon.

 

Without doubt. Charles has quality over quantity, although Robinson beat his fair share of genuine greats, and Charles was less consistent.

But Charles is one of those fighters who you can argue his prime to have came in a very specific time period. '46 was where he came out of the army and was a much different fighter - stronger, sturdier, nastier. He swept the light heavyweight division clean and beat the best heavyweights of the late '40s.