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

I'm not saying that. I just wanted to point out the size difference.

 

Wlad’s early losses really hurt his historical ranking.


There were 3 of them.

All to non elite fighters.

All in his 20’s.

Not all of them were avenged.

One was avenged by his brother.


If you take all of the above into account, they are far more damaging than the ones suffered by Lennox and Larry.

 

What are you still not getting? I don't care what Vitali's average opponent weighs because there is no rationale reason to use that number - which isn't even true, I checked - for a heavyweight in an era before steroids where the average weight for a heavyweight was less than 200lbs.

I didn't give a proper rebuttal because at no point have I cared about the weight of either opponent. My point about the weights in this whole thread is that it is ******ed to compare the size of their opponents. Vitali is 60lbs bigger than Charles, fought in an era with a 200lbs weight class below him and in the steroid era. Yes it's harder to beat a heavier opponent. Obviously. At no point have I disputed that. Wanna know what makes it easier to beat a heavier opponent? Being 6'6 250lbs.

Furthermore, forgetting Charles for a minute, would you apply this 220lbs standard to every heavyweight? Is Vitali's win over Peter better than Ali's over Liston? Is Louis' win over Buddy Baer better than his win over Schmeling? Or do you only rate Vitali's opponents because they're from this century and weigh more than 240?

Based on film. Watch some.

Finally, we're getting somewhere. Size not being everything has been my point this whole time.

Also, you didn't say that at any point. You said: "I'm saying beating harder opponents is more impressive than beating "better" opponents. You can justify the latter by rankings all you want but physics doesn't change because of rankings"

Your argument has been: bigger = better.

Please, you just claimed that Americans would lose 5 years of their athletic prime due to the war even when the Americans weren't in the war for 4 years, let alone 5. Let's not pretend you know regular history because you don't even know boxing history. If you actually knew how the US services operated during ww2, you'd know it was much more common to do a term then go back to base, go home, and change location. Other than a tiny force in China, zero Americans spent 5 years in the war and very few American soldiers would've spent the entire 3 and a half years in the war.

Yes, I know how many casualties they're were, I told you two days ago. Your entire argument about why the war effected boxing is based on the idea that people who could've turned pro, didn't. The actual evidence - and it's really not hard to see - shows that boxing was thriving in the 40s. You can accept that or you can't, I don't care.

Charles wasn't a heavyweight from 1941 to 1945, he was a heavyweight from 1949 onwards. Tell me how those men who were 27 when the war ended and lost "5" years of their prime effected his division.

Guess what, fly, bantam and feather are the other end of the extreme. It was a 'world war'... that global pool was a lot more affected than the average American was.

I don't know why the 50s HW division sucked, probably the same reasons the 00s, 20s, 30s, 80s and 2000s sucked. Divisions can be weak - especially at heavyweight.

Ali's exile isn't the whole division: lol: and fyi, you're not great at googling. 2.7 million fought in Vietnam but a further 3+ million were in South East Asia.

When did I admit that it was weakest? Flyweight is clearly the smallest talent pool. I've mentioned it twice now, you've spent the last two days telling me how small and puny the 50s HW division was, now they're so big they're uniquely effected by the war. I'm not gonna ask again coz you're clearly not gonna answer - just like with every question you don't like.

Yeah they sucked. If you truly think the likes of Peter and Sanders are generational talents then crack on mate. I sincerely hope you find better boxing to watch.

Fyi, Peter should've lost to a MW, Adamek wasn't even that good at light heavyweight, let alone 25+ up. And Sanders had the chin of a wet paper bag - he couldn't even beat Rahman.

Vitali Klitschko quitting on his stool against a former super Middleweight bless

 

Sure that's the main difference for me as well or at least the Sanders loss not being avenged in a rematch.

 

The question isn't about who uses clinching though, is it?
It's about the extent to which it is used, how it is used, how much of the action it kills.

For Wlad, clinching was a wholesale strategic imperative; not an interim tactical backstop.

Wlad offered up little-to-no actual boxing as an alternative. The clinch was the dominant mechanism of control, repeatedly stopping Povetkin from fighting at all, and to the extent it was almost executed preemptively.

The fight was a disgrace and should have resulted in a Disqualification.

This cannot be said of Ali/Frazier II or Ali's approach to fights generally. There's no comparison and the fights are available on film for all to observe this patently obvious fact.

I'll try putting it another way... A #1 contender in one era is not necessarily better than a #3 contender in another.

 

When you said "I don't care what they weigh" and "I didn't give a proper rebuttal." Thanks for admitting you have no answer to the most concrete evidence in this debate. Weight is the most objective measurable fact about a fighter. Every trainer, promoter, and sanctioning body in the world considers it. You're the one being irrational by refusing to.

You admitted it's harder to beat a heavier opponent. That's been my point the entire debate. You said Vitali's own size cancels it out. But it doesn't cancel it out, it just changes the nature of the challenge. Vitali fighting 195-pounders at 250 is a different challenge than Charles fighting 220-pounders at 181. Both are physical challenges but they're not the same one. You've been treating them as identical this whole time and now you're admitting they're not.

Obviously Vitali's win isn't better because Liston was one of the most feared and dominant heavyweights in history. I never said size is the only thing that matters, I said it's one factor. You keep pretending I said bigger equals better because that's easier to argue against than what I actually said. Size and quality both matter. I've been saying that this entire debate.

Fair, 5 years was an overstatement. The US was in the war for about 3 years and 9 months but the broader point stands. 16 million Americans served. 420,000 died. 670,000 were wounded. Over 4,000 professional boxers served in the US military during WW2. Ezzard Charles himself enlisted and served from roughly 1942-46. He won the Inter-Allied light heavyweight title in Rome in 1944 while in the Army and didn't even fight in 1945. The man whose era we're debating was directly affected by the war. The men he fought and the ones who weren't there to fight him were from the exact generation that got drafted at 18-22. Those lost years of development plus the casualties created a thinner pool of big athletic heavyweights. Boxing cards kept happening and gates were decent but that doesn't mean the depth at the top of the heavyweight division wasn't hurt. You said "I don't know why the 50s HW division sucked." The war is the documented historical reason. You don't have any alternative besides pretending it didn't happen when it objectively did by any real standard.

I still don't get how Peter, Sanders, and Adamek were bums. Peter was the #2 ranked heavyweight and a champion. Sanders knocked out the #1 ranked heavyweight in 2 rounds. Adamek was a former cruiserweight champion undefeated at heavyweight and ranked #2. You can call them whatever you want but you're the one who needs to explain how men ranked that high are bums. And "Sanders had a chin problem" doesn't erase beating Wlad or how fast and dangerous he was. "Peter should've lost to a MW" You mean Toney? The same "MW" who Peter was the first to decisively beat since Roy Jones and was his only loss at HW till he was way past his best? And somehow that's a detriment?

 

If the main issue with a champions resume is the era itself the number of top 10 opponents is circular. No ones accusing Ezzard of avoiding the best fighters. The mob being in charge of boxing during his reign really absolves him of all guilt for doing the Walcott rematches instead of fighting Henry or Baker. Walcott and Marciano didn't fight Henry or Baker either.

Charles came much closer to cleaning out the division than Marciano. But the division when Charles was champ had way less depth then when Marciano had it. Marcianos division had quite a few big HWs he just didn't fight them, Ezzards division didn't really have them. Ezzards reign was a "transitional" period like the one we're having at at WW and MW today.

 

Peter, Adamek and Sanders weren’t absolute bums.

But they weren’t very good.


They were only ranked so high, due the division being weak.

Those guys wouldn’t have held the same ranking, say in 1991 or 1972.


There’s been plenty of guys who have had high rankings, whilst not being great.

Go and look at the current MW division.


Regarding Toney and Peter, what was impressive about a top ranked HW, having struggled with a fat, 37 year old former MW?

That just shows you how weak the division was at the time.

An old, out of shape Toney, shouldn’t have gotten anywhere near a top 3 HW of the time.


It should also be obvious to you that Peter would never have been a champion in a better/stronger era.

 

These points^ are really the crux of just about any comparison made with the Post-Lewis Klitschko era.

At the same time, I can understand why such ideas are resisted by fans. It can be difficult for some to admit to a lowering of the bar so profound that it reaches the point where mediocrity becomes prize-worthy.

Since boxing is a business, however, this kind of a low ebb can be capitalized on.

For example, what was Toney even doing in the division, let alone being rated for consecutive years?

If people take a look at where Tony was rated from 2003 to 2006 inc., and then look at his actual HW record during that period, the question has to be "...on what basis?"

Can anyone watch Peter vs Maskaev and believe that they're observing world class boxing?


This is where the imagination kicks in to help adjust to the cognitive dissonance being experienced, I guess.

 

Sorry mate, 4 belts does nothing for me and even at top 25 he's nowhere near enough to bring Wlad into a GOAT debate.

 

What makes them not very good?

Maybe they would. If they did would that make them very good?

Or maybe Toney was just that good? He beat Holyfield, Ruiz and had a competitive fight with Rahman that I personally thought he won. Why is Peter’s being the first person to actually beat him bad?

Maybe he would have plenty of weak eras in the HW division a big strong hard punching fighter like Peter would have done fine in. For example can't imagine him doing bad in Charles HW era or in Marcanio's HW era. Maybe you're just too critical ever consider that?

 

That's why I rank Holmes above Wladimir.

I would say overall there's not a whole to choose between in regards to their overall opposition they beat in their title fights.

But the big difference is Holmes never lost in his prime and that for me is a big deciding factor.

Wladimir suffered 3 very bad losses before the age of 30.

But I also hold that against the likes of Lewis aswell. Him getting 1 shotted by two B class Heavyweights in his prime is why I don't rank him above Holmes either.

 

themaster458,

Their overall ability, results/resumes at the weight.

They were no more than good fighters.

If you were knowledgeable of the eras, they wouldn’t have been.

James was good. But he wouldn’t have beaten a prime Evander of the early 90’s.

Rahman and Ruiz were both B level guys.

Ruiz was in the right place at the right time. He also wouldn’t have seen a belt in a stronger era.

Would he even be a belt holder today?

It would have to be the perfect opportunity, from the right opponent.

Peter having beaten him wasn’t bad. It just wasn’t in any way noteworthy.

I didn’t say that he wouldn’t have been dangerous in certain eras.

I said that he’d never have been ranked as a high, or been a champion in a stronger era.

No, I’m not being too critical.

I think that you’re exaggerating the abilities of these fighters, just because Wlad fought them.