“I sat with ezz several times....after the radio conversations ( i never called them interviews) and it was almost impossible to get him to talk about himself. he would talk about jazz....he played the bass, but also the cello, which he didn't like to mention because "a lot of people would think that was kind of sissy". most of our boxing talk was about what was going on at the time. right up to the clay/liston fight he kept changing his mind...."first i think one will win...then i think the other." which made him give clay more of a chance than most people at the time. he thought eddie machen was going to go further than he did. as for the fights you mention...the only thing he ever said about marciano was that he was not the hardest hitter he faced, but was by far the strongest. he said joe louis' jab was still a ramrod when they fought. he laughed and said being hit by bob satterfield was "like being hit by a car."
Yes, Suz, I agree, Those WWII fight results have to be taken with a grain of salt! Often, they were taken with an overnight or a day or two shore leave. No time to get in fighting shape at all. Certainly, no sparring prep. Other times, the fighter might arrange a fight when he had a two-week leave. That was still not enough time to get in fighting shape against an opponent who was not a soldier or sailor.
All time, I have Ezzard #1 @ LHW, #16 @ HW & #5 p4p. The cumulative rankings of 24 of our fellow posters have him #1 @ LHW, #19 at HW & #5 p4p: This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected He had a pretty good career
A decision was made in modern times that Charles, even though he was a heavyweight champion, should chiefly rank as the ATG light heavyweight. Which is okay, but Perhaps he’s better than that. Isn’t he the LHW contender who won the HW title during a period where the best LHW contenders were expected to face HW contenders all the time? Charles was an exclusive lightheavyweight for an incredibly short period. If we are talking above 170 pounds and below 180 pounds Charles only had something like 12 fights from 122 where he and his opponent were both within this bracket. Aside from his middleweight days, the first three years before he went into the army, Charles fought heavyweights every active year for the remainder of his career. -1946-1959. Heavyweights and light heavyweight’s were constantly tangled with one another for much of that century. At elite level, a top LHW was considered good enough to mix with HW contenders. There were barely exclusive LHW fighters at top level it’s like the division still hadn’t got the right traction. even the Lightheavyweights he beat were over the limit. Bivins was above the light heavyweight limit for all but one of his 5 fights with Charles.
There's this bloke called Archie Moore x 3, and Lloyd Marshall, and Billy Smith....and......and P.S. Light Heavyweight included 160-170 as well.
When I completed the research and analysis to support my top 20 ranking at each of the original 8 x weight divisions, I applied the following criteria to determine which weight division fights should be classified as having being contested at: Any fight can only contribute to a fighters ranking in 1 x weight division. No fight counts twice. Each fight must be attributed to 1 x single weight division. The heavier man determines the weight division the fight is being contested at. i.e. a fight between boxers weighing 175lbs and 160lbs respectively is being contested at LHW, so it contributes to both fighters ranking at LHW, and LHW alone World title fights contribute towards fighters ranking in the weight division of that title, regardless of what the fighters weighed I made an allowance for slightly over the weight non-title matches. e.g. a non-title fight between 2 x MWs both weighing 161lbs, seems more sensibly attributed to MW than to LHW. In pre-SMW era non-title fights, I considered fights contested above 164lbs and below 180lbs as being contested at LHW I'm not claiming the above criteria is definitive, just that it's what made most sense to me & what I applied. Applying the above criteria, Charles went 27-2-1 in fights contested at LHW. His 2 x losses were pre-peak, aged 21, to Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall. He avenged both in fights contested at LHW. Additionally to Charles win over Bivins at LHW, he beat a >180lbs Bivins twice more whilst Charles himself was under 175lbs, but these contribute to his ranking at HW, not LHW, by my criteria. He avenged his defeat to Marshall twice at LHW. In addition to avenging his defeats to Bivins and Marshall (x 2) in fights contested at LHW, he also beat Moore x 3, Oakland Billy Smith x 2, Teddy Yarosz and Anton Christoforidis. That's a LHW resume resplendent with quality aside from Archie Moore, but it's his 3 x wins over Moore that secure Charles as the GOAT at LHW, imo. Most people consider Moore to be a top 2 LHW all time. Yes, he wasn't LHW champion yet, but he was aged 32, 33 & 34 respectively for these fights, having contested 96, 103 & 109 fights. I don't consider him as being green. Charles won 1 fight by KO and 1 of the others by 10-0 on the card of one judge and 9-1 on the cards of the other two judges. Imagine if Joe Louis and Ali had exactly the same records, but by some miracle of time travel, also fought each other, and Louis dominated the series 3-0, including a KO and a shut out/near shut out. That would conclusively settle the debate for the GOAT at HW for the vast majority. At HW I can see Ali or Louis as GOAT. At MW Greb or Monzon. At BW Jofre, Olivares or Ortiz. At Fly Wilde or Canto. Only SRR at WW, is more clearly the GOAT, than Charles at LHW for me. Ordering my 2-6 at LHW was tough, there isn't any permutation that I'd firmly disagree with. Charles @ #1 was damn clear to me, though.
Not sure if mentioned already but even though he lost giving Marciano life and death in their first fight should be testament to Charles greatness. Also if the second Marciano fight was held these days there is no way Rocky would have been allowed to continue with that cut and Ezzard would have been the first to regain the crown!
Hi Buddy. Once again, a precise and concise breakdown of a fighters' career, in this case Charles, others have been equally compact and enlightening, puzzles me somewhat when a poster or posters contest the veracity of a great fighters standing, clearly most on the site know there boxing, sure we have our own favs and boxers that we all pretty much agree are very good, and or great, so I cannot grasp what's in the thinking of people who degree certain fighters, for me Charles is a ATG no matter what division, no matter what he weighed, no matter what his opponents weighed, it's all surplus to needs, we shouldn't need reminding but, the 2 wins over Burley while barely out of his teens alone should be a indicator, then 3 out of 3 against Moore, the wins over Bivins, Marshall, Satterfield, etc, this is not the first time a truly great fighter has had his credentials doubted on here, none of us know it all, we are all fallible, we make mistakes, sometimes our heart rules our head, we have all been guilty at various times, but to question the standing of Charles is beyond me, I don't understand, I never will. Stay safe Greg.
Ahh no..Like 20 of his 28 or so losses came way after he was past his prime and you know athletes are like milk, if you dont drink it before its due date, it will taste stale and nasty as heck.