actualy charles was a heavyweight. Charles turned pro when still in high school. At age 21 Charles stopped boxing when he was called up for the war. before the war he was 169lb -under the LH limit. ezz was 180lb within 20 months of returning to the ring after three years as a GI. for a fighter who boxed for nearly 20 years charles was a within the LH limit for about a year. Charles was beter than Tunney though. I would pick charles.
I know he spent most of his career at heavyweight and won the title their but he did fight some great light heavys when he was at that weight.
the great LH's charles beat also fought at heavyweight. bivins, maxim, moore and harold johnson were also rated as heavyweights and beating rated heavyweights themselves.
No doubt. The light heavyweight division was often seen as a stepping stone to the big money, prestigious heavyweight division.
Would be a great fight, I think Tunney often having his hands low would cost him here. Charles had the better combinations, Tunney was a bit faster on his feet. I think power, skill-level and handspeed is pretty even. Tunney had a bit more ring intelligence I think. Pretty even matched. But I think Tunney´s tendency to have his hands low and Charles´combination punching make the difference. I´d go with Charles.
the last time charles made 160 was 1942, and the first time he tipped the scales at over the light heavyweight limit was five years after that in 1947... the last time he made 175 was in 1948. i think it's strange to say that he was a light heavyweight for only one year. he was at his best at that weight, and spent a while in that division, five or six years.
What a fighter "Snooks" was. Ezzard started out as a big middleweight [160 lbs] ,and was almost unbeatable, losing but one bout to veteran great Ken Overlin in Charles's first 30 bouts. As a lightheavyweight [for awhile ],Ezzard beat Archie Moore,3 times, Bivins, Lloyd Marshall,Joey Maxim, Booker Beckwith, Gus Lesnevich, all light heavyweights.Then he tackled the big boys heavyweights for that's where the money was.A great, great fighter and a great gentleman also. Against Gene Tunney ? A pick-em for me. Tunney had truly everything as a LH. He could box, move, great jab,and punishing puncher with a ring intelligence almost equal to Benny Leonard.Against Harry Greb, in their first bout in 1922 Tunney showed great courage for 15 blood soaked rounds against an unstoppable human windmill. So Tunney/Charles ? Too close to call IMO...
Two superb boxers. I'm not trying to say that Tunney can't fight as opposed to box because he can, but Charles is the more compact fighter. Charles keeps the heat on just enough to eek out a tough decision in a fight that looks very difficult for him to me.
Everything Gene can do Ezz can do better... I think Tunney may have the edge in foot movement though, not sure about that but apart from that i'd still say he's just got more guns in his jacket.
Charles was one up on Tunney in most areas. I think he'd win a close clear win over another great champion.
I think Gene Tunney was better and would win at heavyweight, but at 175 I've only seen his fight with Carpentier - and it's generally acknowledged he wasn't quite the finished article at that weight (although the Carpentier fight he was already known to be less than comfortable with fighting at the sub-175 weight). Charles was possibly peak at 175, but again, I'm not exactly swimming in light-heavyweight footage of Charles either, so I don't hold an opinion on this one.