Charles came back instantly. Marshall was an excellent fighter in an extremely strong era. It's well known that Charles came into his own from 46 on, bigger stronger and properly developed so using Marshall's earlier defeat of him can safely be discarded unless agenda driven. Charles was never beaten at 175 from 46 onward despite facing all and sundrey in a sickeningly strong 175 pound era. Going into the Marshall fight he'd fought 7 times in 5 months including Archie Moore just 2 months earlier. He fought every couple of months after this Marshall fight including Moore again and Bivens twice. You are never going to be spot on every fight taking on the top guys often and fighting every couple of months. The schedule was insane. You;ve picked not one but 3 light heavyweights (Saad, Braxton and Spinks) from one moment in time all to beat Charles. Biased to the era much? I probably am as it's my era and i love it but picking all three over Charles is insane. Hearns is my favorite fighter but picking him as well, come on atsch Saad was a face first brawler who usually had to take mountains of punishment to have his way. He had good power and limitless heart but would be out of his depth in there with Charles irregardless of cherry picked flash KD's.
I would give Spinks a chance for sure, he's one of the great light heavyweights ever and has the power to trouble anyone. I wouldn't make him fave but you could match him with anyone ever anf feel he has a chance. Having said that you can also cherry pick some of his bouts and note that he could be listless and uninspired. Eddie Davis for instance. Of course an unbiased observer would realise it's just a one off and he was probably not overly up for it. This makes Charles beating all and sundrey fighting every other month (for years) even more impressive. Braxton, i reckon he could give anyone at 175 ever a tough fight. Fave no but def a tough fight. Saad and Hearns noway. Charles was taking the shots of big hitting full blown light heavyweights and never getting stopped post 1946. He also took plenty of heavy shots at heavyweight and was the first and only one ever to go 15 with Marciano. His own power would have been approaching that of Spinks.
Matthew Saad Muhammad was better than Lloyd Marshall, who was a face-first brawler who took a lot of punishment because he led with his face and kept his hands at his sides. And Marshall floored Charles NINE TIMES AND STOPPED HIM. You're living in a fantasy world with Charles. And that knockdown I posted wasn't a "flash knockdown." Charles wobbled first and went down. And he barely beat the count. Follow the referee's arm. He finishes the nine count and is coming down for the ten count when Charles rises. Charles was nearly starched in 55 seconds in a rematch against a guy who had dropped him eight times and stopped him the last time they fought. Who gives a cr@p if Charles went 15 with Marciano. He didn't beat him. And he got knocked out against Marciano, too. Charles got dropped a lot. His knockdown I posted footage of isn't even included on boxrec. If Lloyd Marshall could batter and drop and stop Charles at light heavy, so could the light heavyweight champion Saad Muhammad. And so could Kovalev. And so could Spinks. And Qawi. And Jones. And the Hearns who dropped Andries a half-dozen times and beat him wouldn't be out of his element, either. And I give Saad and Hearns the lesser chance of the guys I named. But I'd still take them.
It's just hard to envision anybody to really pick over him besides Jones really. Jones was such an enigma here that he could imo beat anybody at this weight on his best night and their best night. He would be the only one I would place money on. I would give Spinks the next best odds.
Marshall beat HoF Charley Burley, Freddie Mills, Ken Overlin Johnny Romero, Nate Bolden, Anton Christoforidis, Joey Maxim, Holman Williams, Jake LaMotta, Lou Brouillard, and Teddy Yarosz. He beat 9 world champions. When he peaked the titles were frozen during the war. His weakness was actually more so his chin than anything. He was also hurt by mob ties at times. He may have also been hampered by mob ties, and certainly by racism of the era. He's far better than the mug you make him out to be. Is he better than Saad? Would have been a good poll 8-10 years ago in here. For the second or third time - Charles came into his own post army, in 46 for reasons well known to anyone that's cared to learn a bit about him. Anyone pushing anything hard prior to this is either agenda driven or not in the know. Me and pretty much every noted boxing expert in history. You know better tho. Charles got up and got the job done. He was back firing quite quickly. Plenty of heart and recuperative powers obviously. Charles was at his best was 46 thru to heavyweight. He never lost let alone got stopped despite fighting a virtual who's who of 175 pound history, often multiple times. During this time Charles was indeed one of the great fighting machines as any proper boxing historian will tell you. Basing your opinions on this pre prime 21 or 22yo version of Charles is certainly not doing you any favours. He was a kid compared to what he became. It's actually incredible what he achieved as a kid once one digs a bit deeper.
Why, because your opinion differs? I'm happy to stand behind anything i post. Charles absolutely hammered better fighters than Saad. He beat Moore x 3 (just for starters) who is a far greater fighter than Saad. Gut his era of wins fairly and you will certainly find others. He also certainly beat fighters over 175 when he himself was under. Do yourself a favor and dig deep into Charles and his era. It's rather impressive. I'll grant it exaggerated to say he beat most by wearing them down but very early on he eschewed his boxing skills in favor of brawling. He became known as "Miracle Matthew" for his ability to take loads of punishment before coming roaring back. He was a warrior in the true sense of the word and involved in many out and out wars. These of course caught up with him and he declined pretty much overnight. He was a very fine fighter and probably the most exciting in boxing for a while due to his give and take style. Anyone rating him a "favorite" to defeat peak Charles however needs to have a good hard look at boxing history. I'm definitely not the type to blindly pick the old time fighters either
Jones would be some sort of chance against anyone from 160-175 wouldn't he. It's really hard to judge how he would go against pinnacle opposition such as Charles, Hagler, Monzon etc but it's impossible to write him off too. Do they possess the sheer ability and pressure to catch him often enough and stop him? Do the have the canniness to catch him with the big shot when others couldn't? His speed and elusiveness make it hard to say, and he could bang too. A very good fighter like Toney was basically shut out and made to look like a pretty ordinary sparring partner. It would be fascinating to see how the greats would go about trying to get to him. They would probably have to throw caution to the wind at some point and go all out i reckon. Risk vs reward.
No because you're so adamant that certain fighters should never even be mentioned in terms of beating Charles. My opinion differs in that I'm against absolutes when discussing h2h match ups.
I gave my answer at the start if the thread. Jones is my choice. I don't make Saad a favourite over Charles but I don't dismiss his chances neither. A man who brings none stop pressure and game changing power is deserving of a place in any thread imo.
The guy was put forth as favored for goodness sake. You claimed you don't deal in absolutes when discussing H2H matchups, here is your very own comment regarding a Marciano vs Briggs matchup - That's absolute enough for me. You are talking about a division with no upper weight restrictions. Briggs would be 5 1/2" taller and anywhere from 30 to 70 pounds heavier. He has a huge KO percentage over big men to boot. He also holds wins over some decent big boppers and troubled Lewis. Be a very brave man to write him off as strongly as you did.
