How good a Heavyweight was Ezzard Charles?

When did he fight at lhw after 1948?

 

Holy lost to cruiserweight sized Moorer but beat bigger modern heavyweight Bowe? Go figure

 

Good post.

 

Number one light heavy of all time but a really small heavy, probably only a modern super middle.
He was a real banger at 160-178 with a wicked left hook.
Considering his detractors question his chin against the big men why could marciano drop him in their first fight.
Rocky was bouncing punches of Charles head but he wouldn't go.
I don't have Charles in the top 10 but I think he'd beat Dempsey all day and all night..
At 178 he'd beat any fighter there's ever been

 

You're quit right about that. It is quite easy to tell that he was still a light heavyweight though by his weight. He was fighting a hair above the light heavyweight limit at times against 210lb men and winning! After the Sam Baroudi fight, Charles decided to go up to Heavyweight for good. His best work was at light heavyweight.

 

Holyfield had near-fatal heart problems during that fight. And Moorer was 6'2/214 with a 78-inch reach--not cruiserweight-sized at all. In fact, for context many would have considered him a big heavy if he stepped off a time machine into Charles' era. Moorer was a small heavy in his era but larger than almost everyone Charles stepped into the ring with.

 

BTW, I should have said "light heavyweight sized," considering how tiny Harold Johnson was.

 

While this may be true, our perception of his head to head abilities against men from other eras shouldn't weigh into what he accomplished from a legacy standpoint. As for those losses, I want you to look at it this way... As I already mentioned, from 1944 to 1951, Charles lost only once while being on a 42 fight run which was a robbery to a top contender that he beat in the rematch anyway.. That's a "prime" period of about 7 years and 42 fights many of which consisted of top contenders and hall of fame men.. How many primes last that long? How many of them consist of that good of a winning streak or that many top opponents? How many heavyweights have claim to nine heavyweight title fight wins? How many heavyweights have fought in 121 pro bouts? You have to remember that part of the reason he had 25 defeats was because he started off very young with limited amateur experience and was thrown to the wolves.. He was past his prime by the 1950's and hung around a lot longer than he should have. and lastly he took on the best of the best for the better part of a decade while having an insanely busy schedule. You have to be careful when rating a fighter by the losses he has... Ezzard Charles may not be a solid lock for the heavyweight top 10 all time.. But there is an argument which might squeeze him in there.. And a very strong one which might make him the GOAT p4p.

 

The more I keep looking at Ezzard Charles's record the more impressed I am with him. Coming into this I had the premonition that he was a weaker fighter from a weak era. That's quite the contrary. I'm starting to rank Charles higher than Marciano, if Charles was in his prime against Marciano I'm almost positive he would have decisioned him.

Charles was top ranked Middleweight before he went into the Army and after the war fought at Light Heavyweight where he dominated any and all then moved up to Heavyweight after killing Sam Baroudi which permanently scared him. He was fighting Heavyweights with 30+ lb disadvantage! I can't think of any fighters who did that!

Top 10 ATG heavyweight and top 10 ATG fighter!

 

Pretty much agree. Not sure if I'm sold on him "destroying" Marciano. But then again if he gave him nearly all he could handle in 1954 then it stands to reason that he probably does a bit better five to six years earlier.

 

Ezzard maybe is on the same page a Floyd mayweather's defense atg.

 

From 1948- midway 1951, you could argue Charles was the best heavyweight around. This is was a time when Louis was washed up and Rocky Marciano on the rise, but not quite there yet.

There is no doubt Charles had excellent skills, speed and guts.

I have him just outside my top 20. If he was more durable or hit harder, or bigger, he'd rate higher.

 

Head to Head? Not real high anymore.

In his era? Well, compared to the best Heavyweights who came before him and even those who followed him over the next 10 years or so... very high!

Look at it like this:

HW Champs-

Sullivan 1882
Corbett 1892
Fitzsimmons 1897
Jeffries 1899, retired 1904
Hart 1905
Burns 1906
Johnson 1908
Willard 1915
Dempsey 1919
Tunney 1926, retired 1928
Schmeling 1930
Sharkey 1932
Carnera 1933
Baer 1934
Braddock 1935
Louis 1937, retired 1949
CHARLES 1949
Walcott 1951
Marciano 1952, retired 1956
Patterson 1956
Johansson 1959
Patterson 1960-1962

Charles could have hung with any of these guys and I think he would have beat most of them, prime vs. prime.

Charles was the only HW Champ who went undefeated as an amateur (42-0).

He has more wins than any other HW Champ (96).

He should have been the 1st 2x HW Champ (4th fight vs. Walcott).

Prior to losing the HW title to Walcott he went 9-0 (5) in HW World Title fights. He beat Hall of Famers and top fighters including Marty Simmons, Yeddy Yarosz, Anton Christoforidis, Charley Burley, Jose Basora, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Joey Maxim, Jersey Joe Walcott, Gus Lesnevich, Joe Louis, Rex Layne, and Bob Satterfield among others.

 

Moorer was solid at 200 Lbs during his LHW WBO Champ reign. I have an old magazine with a pic of Moorer with Mike Tyson back in those days and Moorer looks pretty big. Moorer had a 20" neck and 17" biceps before his move to HW. CW limit was 190 back then... so yes, Moorer was a natural HW... a small HW in his era, but a HW none the less.