How good a Heavyweight was Ezzard Charles?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...P.M0d27dae23fefed745697791bcb7b2358o0&PC=APPL

 

Ezzard Charles fought two heavyweights before 1947.

His record against actual heavyweights - guys who weighed more than 175 pounds -- prior to getting knocked out by Walcott is actually more like 25-1. He'd fight a heavyweight in the mid 1940s. Then he'd fight a half-dozen light heavyweights. And after he lost to Walcott by knockout ... he lost about as often as he won against heavyweights.

Even when Charles was heavyweight champion, many of his defenses came against light heavyweights - Nick Barone, Joey Maxim, Gus Lesnevich ...

That would be like if Michael Spinks had defeated Holmes, then fought Marvin Johnson, Slobodan Kacar and Dennis Andries in defense of his heavyweight title ... in addition to Holmes and C00ney and Tangstad.

Sure, that would've padded the number of defenses Spinks made ... but beating light heavys wouldn't have been looked upon as a big achievement.

And Charles didn't really give Marciano too hard of a time. Marciano won their first meeting by a clear decision. In the rematch, Charles won one round before Marciano knocked him out. The freak nose injury Marciano suffered in the rematch is the only reason why people think Charles gave him a hard time. And as soon as Marciano suffered that injury, he went out and stopped him.

Of the 23 rounds they actually fought ... Charles officially lost 16 of them and was stopped in the rematch.

Charles was a guy who was clearly better than most of the light heavyweight champs when he was a light heavyweight .... and he was a just one of the crowd in the heavyweight division by 1951.

He made the move up to heavyweight at the right time. But his time at the top was fleeting because he wasn't much better than everyone else at the bigger division.

Wherever Spinks rates at heavyweight ... Charles should probably be around there somewhere.

 

And more than half of those 96 wins weren't in the heavyweight division.

And that 9-0 record in heavyweight title fights came against three light heavyweights, two fights with Walcott (who was 0 for 4 in title fights to that point), and three truly bad heavyweights - in Lee Oma, Pat Valentino and Freddie Beshore.

His title defense against Joe Louis was his major accomplishment and he deserves all the credit for it. Just like Spinks deserves credit for beating Holmes.

Like Spinks, Charles was an excellent light heavyweight. One of the best ever. But at heavyweight, Charles was just one of the guys in an era when there weren't many excellent heavyweights at all. Even among that lot, Charles wasn't a standout.

He didn't come close to 96 wins at heavyweight.

 

Nicely put!

 

If we look at the first Marciano fight the scorecards said 6-8. If Charles was in or a lot closer to his prime he would have won that decision without a doubt. If we look at his record as if he retired at the end of the period where he was great (which is 1951) then his record stands as 74-6-1. I say the period which he is great because his prime ended in the very late 40s. Overall, the man was a great fighter regardless of his heavyweight performance. 2 years after turning pro he was ranked top middleweight. For most of his losses there is a reasonable explanation. His first loss was at only his 18th fight against a veteran who was 122-19!

 

Which is precisely why in an earlier post I said that he wasn't a solid lock for top 10 at heavy. But he definitely has a better case than Michael Spinks who had all but FIVE fights in the division. And while you make a fair point about him having a good number of light heavy bouts during his magnificent run, it should be pointed out that many of these light heavys were either champions, ATG's, elite contenders and a lot of whom were competing at heavy as well. Charles wins over Walcott, Louis, Ray, Layne, Brion, Satterfield, were solid victories over quality heavys. Archie Moore, Joey Maxim, and Jimmy Bivens were light heavys who also had a fair amount of success at heavyweight and these men lost to Charles multiple times. Contrary to what you said about the first Marciano fight with Charles, Ezzard was given huge props for this performance.

 

Looking at his record it looks clear that the two fights against Marciano basically finished him and he lost 13 of his last 23 fights, that's a total disaster.

Before Rocky he had wins over Rex Layne (2) (but also a loss against him), Jimmy Bivins, Jersey Joe Walcott (2-2), Joey Maxim (2), Joe Louis and Gus lesnevitch. On the whole I would say if he had'nt actually won the title I would say he wasn't very successful at open weight he had other wins over Bivins but not sure when he became too heavy for the light heavyweight division. It seems the extra weight slowed him down somewhat and his power didn't carry over to heavyweight but still if he quit after Marciano fights he would have looked better now and the fact that he didn't added 13 losses to his name. This was a great fighter overall but he also had 12 other losses but again mostly from heavyweight, just 5 losses before he fought Walcott.

I cannot see a case for him in at least Top 15 but he is a fighter I always admired.

 

considering all those fights as a heavyweight and wins over Joe Louis and Walcott alone makes him a lot higher at heavyweight than Spinks who really didn't fight much at HW

 

He split four fights with Walcott - and was koed by Walcott once. Considering Charles was basically a 500 fighter at heavyweight, I don't think so.

 

Whose to say? Another judge had him winning five of the 15 rounds. And Charles only won one round in the rematch and was knocked out.

After 23 total rounds, he officially won at the most seven rounds (he only won six total rounds if you count the scorecard that had him winning five rounds in the first fight).

Losing 16 of 23 rounds and getting knocked out isn't impressive. Winning 16 of 23 rounds and knocking the other guy out is impressive.

 

Look who really knows, head to head may be that Spinks even wins, I can't say that's not a possibility but Spinks just had a few fights at heavyweight so not enough to make a comparison

 

If we count Spinks second fight with Holmes as a loss ( as most indeed agree it was a robbery ) then Michael's record at heavy was 3-2. And mind you two of those three wins came against unranked Tangstad and Gerry C00ney who had fought once in something like three years.

 

He also didn't fight any light heavyweights after the Marciano fight.

That's the thing. Charles never really tore through the heavyweight division.

Charles won a vacant title (from a guy who most didn't feel deserved his first shot at Louis and who was stopped in his rematch with Louis). He defended against a lot of light heavys and poor heavyweights. And he had one good fight with Joe Louis. Granted, Louis wasn't the same fighter he was 14 or 15 YEARS earlier ... but Louis still hadn't been beaten in more than a decade. So it was a major accomplishment.

But that Louis win was a one-off.

When people list all Charles' major wins, nearly all were against light heavyweights. Against the heavyweights of that time, he lost to nearly as many as he beat.

 

I don't count Spinks' second fight with Holmes as a loss because it wasn't a loss. And his first fight with Holmes was a clear win. Also, Joe Louis was undefeated in rematches throughout his career, and Charles didn't give Louis a rematch even though Joe was the best challenger Charles fought in his entire reign.

And if you think Steffan Tangstad is bad ... look at Tangstad's fights other than against Michael Spinks. Tangstad wasn't any worse than Pat Valentino, Freddie Beshore or Lee Oma. He was probably better than they were.

Michael Spinks could've padded his record as a heavyweight champion. He could've gone the Ezzard Charles route and defended his heavyweight title in a rematch with Qawi (who he beat to unify the light heavy title). He could've fought a rematch with Marvin Johnson (who grabbed a vacant light heavyweight belt). He could've defended against Slobodan Kacar (who was a gold medalist and won a vacant title after Spinks left). Spinks could've defended his heavyweight title against Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, his old rival who had trouble with 175 as it was. The IBF was new. They may have gone along with it for a while.

And Spinks' record at heavyweight would've been 6-2. 7-2. 10-2. But if he's beating a bunch of light heavyweights, so what?

That's what Charles did when he moved up. Most of his big wins at heavyweight (other than Louis) came against light heavyweights. Against heavys, he wasn't dominant. He split four fights with Walcott. He'd beat Rex Layne and then lose to Rex Layne. He'd lose to Nino Valdes and then knock out light heavy Bob Satterfield.

Charles didn't clean out anything any more than Michael Spinks did. Charles just picked his spots and stuck around too long (because he needed the money), while Spinks probably left sooner than he needed to (because he didn't need the money).

If we're rating them as HEAVYWEIGHTS and where they stand among all the other HEAVYWEIGHTS who lived ... they sort of are in their own category by each other.

 

He kinda did.. Below are ring ratings for the years that charles was either at the top of the division or lingering around it. Many of the " light heavyweights" or " poor heavys" you listed and who he beat at some point, either in that year or sometime around there were ranked at heavyweight. I highlighted his victims in red.

1948

This content is protected

This content is protected

Ezzard Charles
Lee Savold
Johnny Flynn

This content is protected

This content is protected

Joe Kahut
Rusty Payne

This content is protected

1949
Ezzard Charles

This content is protected

Turkey Thompson

This content is protected

Bruce Wood****
Lee Savold

This content is protected

Omelio Agramonte
Roland LaStarza

1950
Ezzard Charles, Champion

This content is protected

Lee Savold

This content is protected

Clarence Henry
Bob Baker

This content is protected

This content is protected

Jack Gardner

This content is protected

Rocky Marciano

1951

This content is protected

Ezzard Charles
Rocky Marciano
Clarence Henry
Roland LaStarza
Karel Sys
Joe Louis

This content is protected

Bob Baker
Johnny Williams

You could say this was the result of a weak era but that's subjective. The man was reguarly facing ranked opposition.