How good a Heavyweight was Ezzard Charles?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by ribtickler68, Mar 26, 2016.



  1. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,008
    18,111
    Jan 3, 2007
    Yeah only if you ignore that whole part about him beating ranked contenders before winning the title - something spinks never did.
     
  2. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,008
    18,111
    Jan 3, 2007
    They were all ranked when he beat them though. And a few were even hall of fame bound.

    Absolutely.

    Depends on who you ask.





    And as long as we're talking about the prime version of C00ney then I might favor him against most or all of those guys as well.. But not the semi-retired version who was answering the front door in his bathrobe to accept a paycheck just for making the occasional ring appearance.

    Agreed.. Tucker's record was padded and shouldn't have been #1. But you can't punish Charles for being active, staying busy and retaining his title while sweeping Spink's being stripped under the carpet.

    Well that was in 1985.. Not 1987 when Tucker's challenge became a real issue.. In the three years in between winning the title from Holmes and losing to Tyson, Spinks fought 3 times barely winning his rematch against a 36 year old Holmes which most felt he lost.. Then facing two other guys who weren't title contenders.... If you want to say that Charles' title opposition was cr@p then fine.. But at least he was active. Fighting the light heavyweight champion of the world and a past prime Joe Louis was head over heels better than fighting Stephan Tangstad.
     
  3. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014
    You're right about Tangstad. But it wasn't better than beating Larry Holmes twice and Gerry C00ney.

    Charles won a vacant title in 1949. He defended it in 1950 against the returning champion. And Charles got knocked out in 1951 by the guy he defeated for the vacant title.

    Aside from the fact that Charles defended against a bunch of also rans and light heavys in between there, I don't think that makes him better than Spinks.

    Spinks actually won the title from the champ (not a vacant belt). Charles didn't. Spinks gave a rematch to the last great champ. Charles never gave Louis a rematch after beating him (even though Joe was the best challenger he faced). Spinks made a couple defenses for millions against guys who were as good or better than Charles' challengers. And Spinks defended against the #1 contender and next great champion. He has nothing to be ashamed of.

    Like I said earlier, Spinks could've pumped up his defense record fighting three or four light heavys like Charles did, but he didn't have to.

    Charles was making like $50,000 defending his title against awful challengers like Pat Valentino. Spinks was making millions defending his. It wasn't necessary.
     
  4. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,008
    18,111
    Jan 3, 2007
    Recording 8 title defenses in two years is better than only recording two of them within roughly the same time frame. C00ney was shot and had only seen one round of boxing in 3 years.. He showed up for that fight not even looking like he had trained.. The Holmes rematch was a robbery and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually saw that fight to say that it wasn't.

    And Spinks was gifted in his first title defense against the guy he had taken it from.

    Some of those guys were winning fights at heavyweight and some weren't the bums you're making them out to be. And like I said at least he was active. The only fighter who was head over heels better who Spinks defended against was Holmes and again that was one of the most disputed decisions in heavyweight title history.

    He LOST in 91 seconds to the only worthy challenger he had faced in years.. was GIFTED against the last "worthy" challenger he had faced prior to that. in the two year interim he had fought only twice, beating two guys who had no business challenging for the crown and even got stripped of his belt along the way.. Michael Spink's winning the heavyweight title was impressive.. But outside the first Holmes victory the rest of that run was about padding his bank account and did little for his legacy.

    He could have but he didn't.. He basically beat the same quality of comp only far less, so he loses points for inactivity.

    Agreed.. But when you have a situation where two champions are defending against comparable opposition you have to give the more active one the nod.. Especially when the other guy even got stripped of a crown and benefitted from a robbery decision. Frankly I think this should be painfully obvious.. Furthermore, you seem to be dead set on limiting this comparison to their TITLE runs as heavyweights and not their CAREERS as heavyweights.. Charles beat quality contenders at heavyweight outside of his reign. Spinks didn't..
     
  5. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014

    Eight title defenses would be a big deal if SIX OF THEM didn't include guys like Gus Lesnevich, Nick Barone, Pat Valentino, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore and Joey Maxim.

    I just don't think defending the world heavyweight title against Gus Lesnevich, for example, who had lost the light heavyweight title a year earlier and was at the very end of his career ... should be viewed as a GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT.

    I mean hell, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad lost a vacant title fight to Slobadon Kacar after Spinks left the division.

    If, a year after Eddie lost to Kacar, Spinks had decided to defend the heavyweight title against Eddie in 1987 ... would you guys be praising him for that?

    No. But that's what Charles did. So why the hell should I praise Charles for fights like that?

    And don't start that cr@p about C00ney.

    Gerry C00ney's only loss in his 28-1 career had been a world title fight to Larry Holmes. Eddie Gregg was rated by the IBF after beating Tex Cobb and he was ranked #16 by RING before C00ney obliterated him. (By comparison, Frank Bruno was #15.)

    And C00ney had fought more actual fights in the previous three years before Spinks (two fights in 1984, none in 1985, one in 1986) than Joe Louis had (one in 1947, one in 1948, none in 1949) before facing Charles.

    C00ney didn't fight one round in three years. And C00ney wasn't shot. Spinks just beat him. It was an excellent fight, actually.

    Finally, tell me, what was so great about Pat Valentino, Nick Barone, Freddie Beshore, Lee Oma and Gus Lesnevich (at heavyweight) that feel you can dump on a 6'7", 28-1 Gerry C00ney?

    Who the f*ck out of that mismash of challengers Ezzard Charles defended against was "prime?"

    You keep touting all of Charles' defenses. Five of the eight defenses were among the worst heavyweight challengers of all time.

    Who out of that group (Valentino, Barone, Beshore, Oma, Lesnevich when Charles fought him) beats ANY REIGNING HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP in history? They were awful challengers. I don't care where RING rated them. In 1948, RING rated Rusty Payne the number-three heavyweight in the world behind Walcott and Charles. Payne sucked. So did all those FIVE guys Charles successfully defended against.
     
  6. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,008
    18,111
    Jan 3, 2007
    Since you're obviously getting frustrated I'll simplify my points and from there we can agree to disagree

    - Charles was never stripped of a title at any point during his reign

    - Charles never benefited from a gift decision during his reign

    - Charles was considerably more active during his reign

    - Charles' legacy at HW doesn't rest solely on the shoulders of his reign.

    - Charles opposition was not necessarily better nor worse than Spinks', but the tie breaker in their ratings at heavyweight should be based on the previous criteria above.

    Just food for thought as well.. Here are the Ring Magazine's top 20 heavyweights all time from 1998, which of course has changed since then but I doubt Spinks as gone up much.. About the only thing that should have changed is Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko ascending into them.

    1.Muhammad Ali
    2.Joe Louis
    3.Evander Holyfield
    4.George Foreman
    5.Larry Holmes
    6.Rocky Marciano
    7.Sonny Liston
    8.Joe Frazier
    9.Jack Johnson
    10.Jack Dempsey
    This content is protected

    12.Jim Jeffries
    13.Jersey Joe Walcott
    14.Mike Tyson
    15.Gene Tunney
    16.Harry Wills
    17.Sam Langford
    18.John L. Sullivan
    19.Max Schmeling
    20.Max Baer
     
  7. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,487
    Jan 30, 2014
    Other than Tyson, I don't have a problem with Charles being ranked above any of the earlier fighters below him on the list.
     
  8. gregluland

    gregluland Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,317
    30
    Apr 20, 2011
    It seems very important to you that Spinks gets rated above Charles but he cannot be, I often see many lists with Charles as a top 10 p4p'er (even though I think thats going too far, I can't see how he is rated that high but facts are every second list these days has Ezzard in these lists)
     
  9. gregluland

    gregluland Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,317
    30
    Apr 20, 2011

    Rusty Payne was an AWESOME FIGHTING MACHINE. How could anyone beat him.





    well, that was just fun.... never heard of him I must admit, the fact you know of him must mean you love this era.
     
  10. gregluland

    gregluland Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,317
    30
    Apr 20, 2011
    Sorry DUBBLECHIN I just get really bored sometimes
     
  11. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014
    Charles was never stripped? :roll::patsch That's because Don King wasn't around to pay Bob Lee to strip Ezzard Charles like he was in 1987 when Spinks and C00ney agreed to fight.

    And whether you were stripped or not or whether you had a controversial decision or not is now a criteria for rating fighters? On what planet?

    Better tell the people who rated Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Louis, ... and who plan to rate Wlad Klitschko and Lennox Lewis, then. Because they were all either stripped or were given gift decisions or both.

    Anyway, here's mine:

    * All of Michael Spinks' heavyweight fights were for the recognized WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP. He never fought in a heavyweight fight where the world title wasn't on the line.

    * Charles won a vacant heavyweight title in 1949 (recognized only in the U.S.) against a guy who had already lost two previous title challenges.

    * Michael Spinks won the World heavyweight title in his first heavyweight fight against the reigning and UNDEFEATED World champion. After beating Larry Holmes convincingly in their first fight, Michael Spinks gave Holmes an immediate rematch and won a controversial decision.

    * In 1950, Charles suffered a bad beating while decisioning Joe Louis for universal recognition. But he never offered Louis a rematch.

    * Michael Spinks lost his world heavyweight title by knockout to undefeated phenom Mike Tyson - the fighter of the decade and the youngest boxer to ever win the world title.

    * Ezzard Charles lost his world title by knockout (just a year after earning recognition against Louis) to the man he won the vacant title from .... the oldest man to win the title to that point ... a guy who had lost FOUR previous title challenges.

    * Spinks retired after losing the only fight of his pro career to Tyson.

    * Charles lost another 19 TIMES after getting stopped by Walcott ... including losses to Walcott, Layne, Valdes, Johnson, Marciano, Holman, Jackson, Toxie Hall, Young Jack Johnson, Bethea, McMurtry, Harry Matthews, **** Richardson, Donnie Fleeman, George Logan and Alvin Green.

    * Michael Spinks' lone loss of his career to Tyson is blown out of proportion.

    * Charles' 21 heavyweight losses (to both good and awful fighters) seem to be be completely ignored.

    * If Michael Spinks had chosen to defend his World heavyweight title against an assortment of light heavys and or light heavys he'd previously beaten - like Marvin Johnson, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Dwight Qawi or someone bad like JB Williamson -- all hell would've broken loose.

    * Ezzard Charles defended against three light heavyweights - Maxim, Lesnevich and a guy who wasn't even a good light heavy in Nick Barone - and he's praised for making so many defenses.

    I only rate Charles and Spinks near each other because Spinks fought so few heavyweight fights.

    As far as their reigns go, Spinks beat the better fighter to win the title. Spinks beat the better heavyweight opponents overall (C00ney alone beats basically everyone Charles defended against. Holmes certainly does.) And Spinks lost his title to a better fighter in Tyson, rather than the oldest champ in history and a four-time title challenge loser.
     
  12. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,487
    Jan 30, 2014
    Great post. :thumbsup
     
  13. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,008
    18,111
    Jan 3, 2007
    And he was rightfully stripped. He hadn't defended against a viable opponent in over a year.

    No.. But its definitely a good tie breaker when you have two guys who's opposition is comparably matched. Especially when the one who was stripped and gifted decisions was far less active. Or should we just ignore it?

    Not really, because their legacies don't rest on the shoulders of just a couple fights at heavyweight the way that Spinks' does, and even then it would still depend on who they were being compared to.



    So what? Does that mean that all the other contenders that Charles beat at heavyweight mean fvckall just because no title was on the line? This isn't just about their title reigns. Its about their career at heavyweight overall. For some reason you keep sweeping this under the carpet.

    Charles beat a man who many thought beat Joe Louis and had been beating ranked contenders for years.. Spinks beat a man who admitedly was a better fighter historically but was 36 years old at the time and who many felt had lost his last bout to a 16 fight novice.. Then Spinks was gifted in the rematch.. Start a thread on Holmes vs Spinks II and attach a poll to it. See how many people give that fight to Spinks.

    Where did you hear this? Louis never got a rematch because he lost that fight about 12 rounds to 3. And I've never heard anything about Charles taking a beating in that fight.

    He lost in 91 seconds to a man who practically everyone else was taking rounds at the time including a 38 year old Holmes who had been retired for two years.

    Fair enough.

    If Michael spinks had hung around until the age of 38 ( rather than 31 ) fighting six times a year and accumulating 121 fights, then something tells me he would have had a few more losses too. ;)



    No.. Just looked at with common sense by those who have it.. Again he fought to a much later age, took any fight he could get even on short notice and had accumulated more mileage than most heavyweights in history. Like you said.. He needed the money.

    The difference between those guys and some of the ones Charles fought is that Qawi, Willimson Mustafa et all hadn't done anything at heavyweight. That and there were better guys at heavy for him to face which he didn't do anyway.

    You keep limiting Maxim to being a light heavyweight and I've tried to save you from looking ignorant by explaining this over and over again.. He fought about 75% of his career above 180 lbs, fought in more heavyweight bouts than Evander Holyfield or Michael Moorer, was stopped only once in 116 bouts and is a recognized hall of famer. I'll take that challenger over Stephen Tangstad or the woeful version of Gerry C00ney who Spinks fought.

    Honestly dude if you get past the boxrec statistics which don't tell the whole story you'd have Charles ranked considerably higher.

    I'll give you that his FIRST win over Holmes was probably the only thing he did that was better than anything Charles ever accomplished at heavyweight. But from there charles kills him on depth.. If you want to start talking about Spinks' opponents beating Charles head to head, then I'd wager that Elmer Ray would have hammered that 1987 version of Gerry C00ney ( and I'm a C00ney fan. ) Did you see that fight ? Gerry looked terrible. He was a career high 240 lbs which he didn't carry well.. He was off for 13 months, only fought once in 30 months and only 3 times in 5 years against mostly weak opposition.. You tried to build up Eddie Gregg as being a a significant win and I agree it was a nice performance.. But losing to James Broad then barely decisioning a declined Tex Cobb should never have gotten a man anywhere near a world rating.
     
    HyperWizard likes this.
  14. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member Full Member

    47,913
    34,364
    Apr 27, 2005
    You've certainly still got it Goo. Good reading.