Ezzard Charles and the perfection of the résumé.

But this is completely ignoring the fact that A) he beat the champion in a title fight, just at heavyweight and B) said champion refused to defend against him.

 

In absolutes I can meet you - perfect is a strong word and suggests no stones left unturned.

In reality, I shift somewhat and look at résumé and Charles was taking on brilliant fighters at a time in his career where today's fighter is still stat padding against club level fighters. It doesn't detract from his greatness.

I'm a big Charles fan on résumé but can see what you're saying and don't disagree.

I cannot drop Langford from my tier 1, nor can I drastically drop Burley. When you've proven yourself as an elite Black fighter at a time when the colour line was a real thing and a ugly to look good against fighter isn't the draw of a meet you in the middle of war fighter is, it's easy to be avoided.

Being crowned the best man is historically important but I do feel there is grey territory when objective perspective says you're the man or at least a top 3 contender and you don't get the title shot whilst shots are given to fighters that you could beat or already have beat.

If the champ won't meet your challenge but you destroy/embarrass enough contenders to where it's either politics or cowardice or a bit of both, why should we score them down? Surely, the champion should take the lion share of critique. I mean, Clubber Lang had to ask Adrienne if she wanted to try a real man to get his shot.

Charles' record as in wins and losses may not be perfect but his résumé is top draw and winning the lineal HW title from the division's greatest champ is pretty much perfect.