Ezzard Charles and the perfection of the résumé.

I guess I to this day have no idea what people mean by resume. Range of skill and adapting under pressure are apart of resume?

 

Not winning the light heavyweight title is a gaping hole in his resume

 

Does perfection involve getting knocked down 12 times in 2 fights?

 

This is somewhat disingenuous.

Charles beat top LHWs of the era but the politics of the day and rematches between title challengers meant that it was more lucrative for Charles to not wait around forever, knowing that he was avoided for the title shot.

He moved up to HW and became the unified HW champion. Holding victories over Joe Louis and Archie Moore, the other contender for greatest LHW, not winning the belt but demonstrating repeated excellence versus the best fighters of your day doesn't detract from his greatness IMO.

If it does, then we probably need to bump Langford down a few notches and Charley Burley drops a few tiers potentially.

 

Not really.

It would have been nice.

But he holds 3 wins over Archie.

 

Against who?

 

Who a fighter beat

 

A resume is normally who they fought.

Resume and wins are usually separate things.

Floyd Mayweather has a better group of wins than Oscar De La Hoya.

But Oscar has a better resume.

He fought a better group of fighters.

Maybe it’s different in different parts of the world.

But where I’m from, they’re separate things.

 

Charles was in the duration title tournament and lost to Bivins in the semi finals. Then he lost to Marshall. If he'd beat Marshall he'd have been Bivins successor when he went to HW. He didn't.

Ezzard Charles didn't wait around "forever" his comeback run at LHW was 2 years flat before he left for HW. Fox got the shots at Lesnevich instead. Fox was undefeated with a 100% KO rate. Its easy to look back seeing how things turned out and say Charles was ducked but he really wasn't.

Charles didn't fight the best Moore or Louis. Archie Moore was recovering from a surgery to have his ulcers removed. Louis lost his power after the Mauriello fight. Charles might have beaten Moore regardless he just wouldn't have scored a shutout. There is no way he'd survive Louis.

Langford actually won the LHW lineal title off Jack O Brien in 1911 a title he never defended as he never returned to LHW. The IBU crowned him in May 1913.

 

Bivins and Lloyd Marshall.

14 times total includng rematches Charles won.

 

They were great fighters.

Duran is often described as being the perfect fighter.

He could box.

He could fight.

He’s a legend.

Yet he was knocked out by Hearns.

Things like that happen if you consistently fight the best.

I don’t understand your sarcastic question.

Charles was great.

 

Surely, he wasn't at his very best when facing Bivins and Marshall - his improvement after is without question. Anytime between '43 - '45, have would've/should've ordinarily got a shot, war permitting.

By '45, he's avenged losses and demonstrated a significant improvement in capability. He was viewed as a risky contender due to early losses and promoters steered him towards HW. He beat Joe Louis and of course it wasn't the same version but other than Frazier and Ali, Ali versus Foreman and Bowe with Holyfield, how common is it for two great fighters at HW to meet each other at the height of their powers or in top, top condition? It's typically always young lion beats old lion, especially when the old lion has been dominant for multiple years.

Beating Moore, yes, it wasn't the very best Moore, likewise, Bivins and Marshall didn't beat the very best Charles, but it was significant and doing it 3 times is conclusive. Moore pretty much continued improving/producing remarkable results over the best part of a decade - by the time he fights Ezz, Moore is a very capable fighter.

Good point on Langford - I predominantly refer to the lack of title shot at HW despite being an exceptional contender and the Hollywood of a rematch with Johnson.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-incredible-resume-of-ezzard-charles.723378/

Louis
WalcottX2
BivinsX2
BurleyX2
MarshallX2
MaximX5
MooreX3
Yarosz
Chrsitoforidis
Lesnevich
RayX2
LayneX2
Satterfield
Baksi
Barone
Oma
Brion
Wallace
Norkus
Valentino
Beshore

 

It ain’t disingenuous at all. This entire thread is about how Charles has a totally pertfect resume but the fact that despite being the best light heavyweight in the world he never fought or won the title is a gap in his resume. I know everyone here loves charles an won’t have a word spoken against him but when you say perfection that means it cannot be improved or enhanced but officially winning the title is definitely an enhancement. Ain’t no 2 ways about it.

an yeah, Langford an Burley are dropped a few notches because they never won world titles. They may have been great fighters but it ain’t like today where you get shots at 4 title belts. Winning the title in their day definitely improves their prestige, standing in the game an their legacy in the sport