Recently I saw a film of a fight Charles - Walcott (that one which Walcott won). It was excellent boxing from both fighters and I really enjoyed to watch it. Charles`tragic was to be the "man after Joe Louis". Similar to Larry Holmes being the"man after Muhammad Ali". In other eras they would have been more popular.
I think that Charles is one of the few men who is a reasonable pick for a top 5 spot all time. I have him at 2 at LHW, and last time I did a p4p list he was 10. I have a feeling he might be higher if I did one now. Also, I think he is unfairly left out of debate's about the greatest resumes of all time. Charles is up there in this regard.
I am not as high on Chalres as others, meaning I don't see him as a top all time 3 light heavy. I see CHalres as a top 4-6 ATG at light heavy. A top 3 all timer should hardly ever lose in his prime or near prime. Think Robinson, Greb, Ali, ect.... There are a few light heavies that I could see beating Charles on any given night. Charels wasn't the among the best punchers, or the fastest, or the the most durable, or the best ring general of the light heavies. He could be out slugged by the best light heay punchers, he could be out speed by the best light heavy boxers, and he could be out sized by some of the very large light heavies. But I do think he's under rated in the heart department, and had some quality offensive pound for pound skills.
:good Charles' record in his prime is impeccable , in that era when they fought so often and in a golden era of 175 pounders . Someone spoke before they did their homework here
What's this supposed to mean??? At light heavyweight while in or near his prime, Charles never lost and went 9-0 against Moore, Bivins and Marshall. He also had an additional three victories over light heavyweight champions Maxim and Lesnevich while weighing in over 175 during his peak run. Even if you included his 1942-43 light heavyweight fights before going into the military, which were not in Charles' prime, he would still have an incredible 11-2 record at light heavyweight against future Hall-of-Famers. You're absolutely straining credibility in claiming Ezzard Charles is not qualified as a top 3 all-time light heavyweight. What does the man have to do for you to give him credit??? Yes, he was among the best punchers, boxers and speedsters among light heavyweights. He was perhaps the most complete fighter ever in the light heavyweight division.
Including fighters that never won the 175 crown ,I think maybe Tunney and Langford could possibly beat him,but his resume is impeccable at LH,studded with quality wins over great fighters,a very good Heavyweight ,but a great Light Heavy,at least top 3.
The Cincinnati Cobra is easily top 10, p4p, all time. Any discussion of his greatness begins with the the Burley fight... which was the first hint that he was something special -remember, he was 19 years old and in his 28th fight. Burley was 25 years old and in about his 56th fight. Burley was also on a 20 some-odd win streak since the loss to Bivins two years earlier. What's more is that Charles was a last minute stand-in for Ken Overlin and outslugged and outboxed Burley throughout the match. Then he did it again in their next meeting. Burley beat Holman Williams in bouts surrounding his fights with Charles. In fact, after Charles beat him in the return, Burley handed Holman his first stoppage and last stoppage until Moore got him. Burley's number was had by two fighters -Bivins and Charles. And Charles wasn't even near prime yet as a lanky middleweight. .... Charles was not invulnerable however... he was dropped 8 times in 8 rounds by the fearsome punching Lloyd Marshall in 1943, although he avenged this twice with KOs of his own if my memory is correct.