Ezzard Charles is Overrated.

Charles looks pretty good on film to me. And his resume speaks for itself. I think he might be underrated

 

I agree with the first part. Also, everyone on every pound-for-pound list is overrated.

Charles was a guy who was incredibly good at light heavyweight but didn't win a title there.

Then Charles won a title at heavyweight but, like others who followed iconic champs, Ezzard wasn't considered a great heavyweight champion at all during his reign by fans then. His reign was described at the time as lackluster. His win over Louis was considered a sign how far Louis had fallen, not how good Charles was.

But Charles earned more respect in his two losses against Marciano than he probably did during his own title reign.

Then, sadly, Charles became a name for prospects and nobodies to knock around and he finished like many have done (and will do) ... he lost a bunch of fights he never should've even competed in.

Even in his obituary in 1975, many years after he'd retired, it was acknowledged Charles had probably been overlooked and was better than people gave him credit for, but even in the 1970s, he didn't get a lot of credit for being "one of the greats."

Then the hipster cycle of the 1980s and 1990s began when Pound-for-Pound started becoming a bigger deal because HBO needed it to market guys like Duran, Leonard, Curry, Whitaker and Chavez.

And while Charles wasn't on a lot of best heavyweight lists ever, people started throwing him on Pound-for-Pound lists. And pound-for-pound lists became a place where people could simply ignore bad losses and just focus on the big wins, and ignore that a guy didn't win a title or over-inflate the collection of titles a guy did win. That's why you'll find Duran, who fought for 30 years but was only great for 10 of the 30, near the top of many of them. Same with Charles. Forgotten are all the awful losses. Just praise for the big wins.

Charles was better than people gave him credit for in his era, but wasn't as great as a lot of people today (who secure blinders tightly and refuse to even look at bad losses) insist he was.

If you can be overrated and underrated, that's Ezzard Charles. Not as bad as some have said (particularly during his career), and certainly not as great as those who weren't around when he was fighting insist he was, either. All of which is par for the course when it comes to pound-for-pound lists.

 

Now that's more like it!

Charles' legacy has benefited more during the internet age than probably any other classical fighter. The Murderer's Row and some other contenders like Jimmy Bivins have also benefited exponentially, and by virtue of his record against some of them you can begin to see how his resume may have gone from underrated to overrated these days.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate but, as I said earlier, the argument could at least be made. The thread starter put in no effort.

 

Mayweather Jr record looks great!!!!
If one doesn't know how he stacked the cards for most of his major victories.
Mayweather Jr wouldn't be close to 50-0 if he fought in other era's. Especially Charles....

 

When did 23 become "almost double" of 16?

Also that is an unfair example because there were 68 possible titles in Mayweather's era. If there was 68 possible titles in Charles's era I'm sure he would've beaten more.

 

When a guy has beaten five ATG fighters, he is not overrated.

Just stop.

 

Satterfield and Layne aren't HOF caliber fighters. I mean, I have Charles in the top 10 all time, easy...But no need to inflate his resume by overrating run of the mill contenders.

 

He would of had a ridiculous title collection

 

No he’s at least top 10 ATG and IMO he’s a lock top 5.

 

I didn’t state they were HOF fighters but they were damn good contenders worthy of mention. As was Elmer Ray. Both Satterfield and Layne have wins over champions and number one contenders. They’re both not being over rated nor are they “run of the mill”.

 

Might be the way it's formatted that made me think you were calling these guys HOF. Even still, I would hesitate to refer to either guy as a truly elite contender, even though they both have good wins on their respective resume. Good wins on Ezzard's record, but there are better.

 

How else would one categorize a decent contender then registering whom that contender beat?
Satterfield has wins over
Harold Johnson
Nino Valdez
Bob Baker
Cleveland Williams
Lee Oma
Sure he’s got a lot of Ls but I suggest you look at most heavyweight champions wins and MOST don’t stack up.
Layne beat
Walcott
Charles
Satterfield
Brion
Turkey Thompson
Beat two HOF champs and several decent contenders. Most contenders don’t have many solid wins on their resume. To have more then two solid wins puts you in good company. There are posts with the listed hood wins of every contender worth mentioning and you can see most just aren’t stacked. Just my opinion.

 

Compared to who?

 

I mean, Dillan Whyte has good wins, and I wouldn't call him anything more than a solid but ultimately unspectacular contender. Like, I wouldn't put him ahead of say, Miguel Cotto in terms of historical relevance. In Charles's case, I'd be more inclined to list wins against Teddy Yarosz and Gus Lesnevich and consider them "wins over HOF worthy opposition" than Layne and Satterfield. But, that's just me.