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

Greater than either Norton and Vitali that's for sure

 

Not really it was a pretty weak era and almost all of his wins were over LHWs moving up rather then true HWs. I can see him in the top 20 or so but any higher would be a disservice imo.

 

A worthy accomplishment but one achieved in an appallingly weak era.

Ezz wouldn't have cracked the Top 20 in the 1990's.

 

Norton maybe (though not by your patented top three criteria). But Vitali fought actual heavyweights his entire career. Almost all of Charles's HW wins were over natural LHWs moving up. They were ranked at HW because the era was honestly dog**** and probably the thinnest it has ever been because of the war. It's the same argument you made about Vitali's opponents. You can't scrutinize the quality behind Vitali's ranked wins and then take Charles's ranked wins at face value.

 

Even Louis fought more natural HWs and actual SHWs as well. It was just a really thin era because of the war hence why he usually isn't ranked highly despite having an impressive looking resume.

 

Makes one wonder if he could beat Benavidez

 

If Charles had been born in 1961 or 1971 instead of 1921 and fought in the 1990s, with weight lifting and "nutrition", he likely would have been the size of Holyfield. Assuming his skill stayed the same, he definitely succeeds at heavyweight. At least does as good as Moorer. Even taking Charles as he was, he beats guys like Axel Schultz, Botha, 45 year old George Foreman (as long as he stays on the move) and Vaughn Bean.

 

Yeah, I think he's a bit slept on, His losses also started come first when he had passed 30. Yet I've never heard him in the conversation for top 10.

 

He is Holyfield without the steroids. Extremely underrated around here. Had he been on steroids and weighed 205 people would be praising him.

 

Charles fought actual heavyweights, and they were better than the ones Vitali beat. An arbitrary limit set decades after Charles died is absolutely irrelevant. They both fought heavyweights and Charles beat more of them, and better ones.

Weird, I seem to remember Vitali losing to a natural LHW moving up.

Charles' time at heavyweight was after ww2, and America was among the least affected countries from the earlier. How did the war make the era weak? Also, Vitali was around in an era that had John Ruiz and Monte Barrett in the top 5. He was still around in an era that had former light heavyweight Tomasz Adamek in the top 5 too. They were both in weak eras, only Charles beat better fighters.

Vitali never beat a #1 contender, was never lineal champion and only beat 7 ranked fighters. Charles beat 2 fighters who were number one - both of which are better fighters than anyone's Vitali beat.

They're not remotely the same. Charles is a lock for a top 20 and closer to 10 than 20; Vitali is a footnote who wouldn't be remembered if he had a slightly different name.

 

I assume that those were their top 10 rankings when Ezzard fought them. I would say that he is underrated as an all-time great heavyweight, but not in a head-to-head sense. In fact, Charles’ string of championship wins is often overlooked much like those of Joe Frazier before the Fight of the Century