How Good Was Ezzard Charles As A Heavyweight

Dubblechin, by this time Charles wasn't even Charles anymore. The great Ezzard Charles -- and he was great -- had already passed away. That's his ghost in the ring with Donnie Fleeman. Watching footage of his late-career beatings are among the sadder things I've seen.

 

You mention Usyk. You don't mention that Usyk has had far fewer fights and that he has access to a laboratory fountain of youth that didn't exist
in Charles's time. Juice extends athletes' careers.

 

Charles was shot to bits by then.

 

As boring as watching grass grow. Charles is hard to rate because when he was in his prime, he didn't stay at the weight he should have. Then the Baroudi fight happened and that screwed him all up and he went up to heavyweight.

 

Clearly.

However, watching footage of modern fighters who are past their prime getting bashed around is sad, too.

Yet, those losses are routinely brought up and held against modern fighters because we either watched them live or can easily see them.

When people bring up past greats, it's always a laundry list of their best fights, most of which no one has even seen.

If all is fair for modern fighters, then it's fair for the old-timers.

Seeing them look bad in the ring presents a better, well-rounded picture of them. They were men, just like today's fighters are.

Those later losses of Charles are just as relevant as any wins, just like later losses of modern fighters are used to bash and push down those guys.

For one of the "ten best heavyweights ever," Charles was losing to some pretty clunky guys when he was 31, 32, 34 ... it didn't just start when he was 37. Like I said, he was just 37, and was only 3-7 over his last ten fights, by the time he lost to Fleeman.

Nobody says a guy is "old" today when he's 31, 32, 34. If that's who Ezzard is being compared with, all heavyweights, including the modern ones, you have to use the same criteria for everyone.

If Usyk lost to a guy like Donnie Fleeman two years ago, nobody would be talking about him remotely now. AT ALL. And Usyk's had close to 400 fights (amateur, WSB, and pro).

Truth is, a modern heavyweight wouldn't get a whole ton of credit if his best wins were over guys who were then still active light heavyweights (which most of Charles' best wins were).

Hell, Ali and Frazier got next to zero credit for beating Bob Foster, who was one of the best ever at 175 and was the reigning light heavy champ when they both fought him and destroyed him.

And modern guys wouldn't get a pass for losing fights he should've won when he was 31 or 32 or even 34. You lose once, even against a top guy, and they throw you in the bin.

If we're going to hold later losses against fighters, then hold later losses against previous generations, too.

 

I can’t speak to how good he was as a musician, but he was recognized for having some ability in his time.

From references I can find, he played at the famous Birdland Club in NYC that launched the likes of Charlie Parker and Harry Belafonte. That’s basically Ground Zero for jazz in the period when it became very popular, so he had to be pretty decent to get invited to grace that stage.

Here’s Ezz himself briefly discussing his musicianship:

This content is protected

 

I think you are being unfair with the comparison of older athletes today to older athletes in Ezzard’s day. Athletes back then in all sports, not just boxing, were pretty much done by their mid-30s. You didn’t have the consciousness of good nutrition and taking care of your body, etc., or the training and medical methods that have allowed today’s athletes to have extended careers at high levels.

 

This is great. Thanks.

 

Agreed, and that's without mentioning that typically fighters today have a lot fewer fights, and therefore a lot less wear and tear, at the same age their counterparts from Charles era did, which unsurprisingly contributes to them staying prime, or closer to prime, at more advanced ages.

 

Good lord is there anything Mr Charles can't do?

 

Top 30 based on historic importance and achievement against his own era.

Any head to head consideration might keep him out of the top 100.

 

Sadly, the Fleeman loss wasn't Charles's last. He had several more after that, including a KO loss to George Logan. That was during the era in which Rod Serling wrote "Requiem for a Heavyweight" for television. I wonder if Charles was on his mind when he wrote it.

 

Well, if you watched the video he wasn’t able to master the flute or saxophone, haha.

 

But he played them, i can't play neither!

 

Definitely have to give him that.

Rare is the person who can master two difficult disciplines — Ezz mastered boxing and if he didn’t completely master music, he at least showed he had the chops to do well enough to play with the best.

Considering it was an avocation with him, one has to wonder if he might not have become a jazz artist of some note if he had taken to music early and devoted his life to it as he did boxing.

True renaissance man.