I was on another board and came across this comparison. Just wanted to see what the opinions were here.
Charles. Top to bottom resume, does not appear more than anything but a sliver inferior in terms of body of work on film and most of Charles's prime is missing.
Ezzard wins this one out.Arguably the greatest light heavy of all-time, top notch resume.Roberto was great, but actually overachieved.
the more i think about it, despite how i want to rate them, charles. his middle, light heavy, and heavy resume is incredible and despite what duran acheived at lightweight and his sporatic success above, he just can't compare with charles. ezzard was consistently brilliant, against better competition. he dominated in the greatest era of 175 ever, beat an all time great at middle in burley and has a plethora of all time greats on his resume including moore, bivins, burley, louis and walcott. duran's lightweight reign was fantastic but he was beat too often by fighters that often were not in his league. his inconsistency, both in training and performance counts against him and unfortunately he only has one real ATG on his resume.
I'd say Duran has the edge here. More dominant at his peak weight,and for a longer period. Charles was pretty damn good though.
Sure he wasd dominant at his peak weight for longer. Because Charles moved up to dominate heavyweight. Take a sheet of paper and a pen. Write down the names of all the great fighters that Charles has beaten. In another column write down the names of all the great fighters Duran has beaten. Then have another think.
Although I'm pretty well up on Charles' heavyweight resume,I'll have to look at his light heavy one. Thanks for pointing this out mate. I'll be back on this :good
