How Good Was Ezzard Charles As A Heavyweight

Bye.

 

If your ranking criteria is based on how fighters did in their own era, record in lineal world title fights and record against top 10 ranked contenders, all in their prime years, Wilder isn't barely top 40 all time at HW

He simply isn't top 40.

Based on this criteria, he is eons behind Charles, purely based on fights contested at HW.

Let alone the incalculable difference p4p based on fights contested in all divisions, where Charles is a consensus top 5 all time and Wilder wouldn't sniff a well researched top 300.

 

I was being generous. And I checked out the posting history of the person I put on ignore. He’s probably got a photo of Wilder, who isn’t worthy to pick up Charles’ soiled jock straps, on his ceiling.

 

Back to the topic of the thread, and based on the voting, Top 20 leads the way, closely followed by Top 25 and Top 15.

As someone who ranks Charles #16 all time at HW, based solely on fights contested at HW, that seems about right.

Not bad for a guy who did enough at LHW to be generally considered the GOAT in that division.

 

Prime Charles was a force …

I did some research on why he had to keep fighting when he was so over the hill. Apparently no one ripped him off, he had a good management team who left him with a good bank account (they covered his expenses throughout his heyday) and, unlike a lot of his peers, square with the IRS. The problem is that even though he was a bright, intelligent man, he insisted on handling his finances himself and was very bad at it. He continued trying to live like he was world champion and had a couple of business ventures to go bad, and before he knew it he’d blown it all. And going back into the ring was the easiest and quickest way for him to put food on the table.

 

I never brought him up. When did I mention him at all? I rate him as one of the best punchers ever. There's a huge difference. I don't have Shavers among the top all-time best heavyweights ever either. But he hit hard, too.

I mentioned Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Lewis, Wlad Klitshko, Vitali Klitschko, Mike Tyson, Joe Louis, Floyd Patterson, and on and on in this thread.

Guys who are pissed I posted Ezzard Charles losing to a journeyman ... just decided to create a straw man argument ... and are now trying to argue with me about it.

It's what people do - create a false narrative - when they can't argue with facts.

I'm not propping up or defending or trying to promote any all time heavyweight in this thread. You don't have to read between the lines. I wrote what I meant.

I AM SIMPLY SAYING EZZARD CHARLES doesn't rank among the top heavyweights all-time for me for the endless reasons I've already mentioned.

30+ wins and 20+ losses doesn't cut it. Losing to all those journeymen doesn't cut it.

That's all. Christ.

 

This site has 51,000 members.

Nine people ranked him in the top 20 all-time at heavyweight in the poll above.

Seven didn't.

It is what it is.

 

And I just looked up your posting history, and in just the last handful of pages, you said:

Floyd Patterson beats Ezzard Charles
Floyd Patterson knocks out Sugar Ray Robinson
Floyd Patterson knocks out Jersey Joe Walcott
Floyd Patterson beats Rocky Marciano and hands him his first loss
Floyd Patterson beats Cleveland Williams
Floyd Patterson beats a comebacking Joe Louis
Floyd Patterson KOs Billy Conn
Floyd Patterson stops Tommy Farr
Floyd Patterson is the most underrated fighter on the board
Floyd Patterson is the fighter who gets too much criticism

And I didn't spend post after post in this thread accusing you of trying to pump up Ezzard Charles to lift Floyd Patterson higher.

Do you have a poster of Floyd Patterson on your ceiling?

Seriously, what a complete jerk you are.

 

It's got every relevance when posters are disingenuously jockeying for position.

 

So, you're the one who started this nonsense.

Figures.

You always start with the made up Wilder garbage and then try to get other posters to pile on.

Go back to every thread that gets derailed on this board by some Wilder garbage, and there's a "JohnThomas post" to start the nonsense.

 

Charles makes it into my top 15, sometimes just touching the top ten. For such a short reign as champion he managed to pack some decent quality in it. 8 title defenses with wins over a past it but still capable Louis, and 2 wins over Walcott and guys like Maxim and Lesnevich. Combine that with some pre and post title wins over guys like Elmer Ray, Bivins, Layne and Satterfield, and I think he has a pretty decent heavyweight resume. Comparing his to that of guys like Liston and Tyson, I don't think there's much between them.

 

Right. But Maxim and Lesnevich were light heavyweights. Most all-time great heavyweights get no credit for beating light heavyweights, even if they were great. And Maxim and Lesnevich aren't exactly the pinnacle of the all-time 175-pound ratings.

And, during that time, Charles also lost to Rex Layne, lost to Jersey Joe Walcott twice (including once by KO), lost to Elmer Ray, lost to light heavyweight Harold Johnson, lost to Nino Valdes, lost to Marciano twice, lost to Johnny Holman, lost to Tommy Jackson twice, lost to Toxie Hall, lost by KO to Young Jack Johnson, lost by KO to Donnie Fleaman, lost to Wayne Bethea, lost to Pat McMurty, lost to Harry Mathews (also a light heavyweight), lost to Rick Richardson, lost to Alfredo Zuany, lost by KO to George Logan, and lost to Alvin Green.

All those losses came in his late 20s and 30s.

What top heavyweights all-time lose to all those guys? Does Foreman? Does Vitali? Does Ali? Does Wlad? Does Frazier?

Charles lost A LOT.

I posted a video of one KO loss to Fleeman and was "accused of everything under the sun."

Should we post his KO loss to Young Jack Johnson?

To George Logan?

It doesn't get prettier.

When compared to heavyweights at the top all-time, I just don't see Charles fitting in there at all.

 

Excuse me? I didn't say you brought up Wilder. My comments on Wilder weren't quoting your post. They were in response to another poster who did reference Wilder.

Now you've quoted me on Wilder, though, it's interesting you say you don't have him among the best all time HWs and compare him to Shavers (a fair comparison, imo), as you have told me in the past you consider Wilder an ATG.

I've already corrected you once on Charles record at HW. He went 52-20 in bouts contested at above 180lbs. He began 26-1, his sole loss by SD to Elmer Ray was avenged, including 9 x lineal HW title wins, which stack up reasonably well historically, with a multitude of wins over top 10 ranked HWs. Again, as the votes on this and other threads attest to, it's not a top 10 all time HW record, but a top 20 all time HW record. It is what it is.

The crux of the difference between your view and everyone else's, is the significance of Charles going 26-19 at HW at the end of his career, whilst initially past prime, and then eventually whilst shot. You're fixating on it, whilst to others it's irrelevant. If Marciano continued fighting whilst shot and ended his career 26-19, I wouldn't rate him any differently. Such a run wouldn't alter the significance of his prime 49-0 run. Tyson's loss to McBride has no impact on how I rate him historically. Same with Jefferies to Johnson, Holmes to McCall, Foreman to Morrison amd Charles to Fleeman.

Bit of friendly advice, try not to get so wound up by the discussion, it can't be good for you.

 

A balanced combination of 24 of those members ranked him #19 all time at HW (and incidentally #1 at LHW and #5 p4p) here - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-35-all-time-reveal-boxing-survey-series.653021/

Again, that seems a fair assessment to me, even though I have him slightly higher at HW