How Good Was Ezzard Charles As A Heavyweight

A bit of advice, just counting every Charles fight where one fellow weighed more than 180 pounds as a heavyweight fight IS NOT accurate IN THE LEAST because light heavyweights would often enter bouts over 175, and the fights were still billed at the time as light heavyweight fights and treated as such.

I was referring to actual billed heavyweight fights. There aren't 70+ of them. Look at the fight posters.

And since we're making comparisons with Charles and heavyweights all-time ... no fight below 190 pounds in the last 45 years (since the advent of cruiserweight) was considered a heavyweight fight.

So, trying to add another 20 plus wins in his column because one guy weighed more than 180 pounds in a non-title fight is stretching things, particularly when the fights themselves WERE NOT even billed as heavyweight fights at the time.

Also, if we're comparing apples to apples, one could argue even listing any bout Charles competed in that involved two boxers below 190 as a heavyweight bout is a bit of a stretch ... since the argument against Usyk being rated highly at heavyweight all-time is he didn't have all his fights at heavyweight ... and he never had a single pro fight below 190 pounds.

Again, that's why heavyweight is unlike any other division.

But, if it was billed as a heavyweight fight back then, so be it.

However, just grabbing any Charles fight where you can find someone weighed 180 and adding it in, when it was EVEN BILLED as a LIGHT heavyweight fight at the time, is not only disengenous, it's NOT true.

If you've got to take billed light heavyweight fights and try to make them heavyweight fights to boost Charles' record at heavyweight ... you're just proving my point.

I don't have to take George Foreman's record and try to prove they were all heavyweight fights. I don't have to take Lennox Lewis' record and prove they were all heavyweight fights.

They all were. You don't have to make up anything to bolster the records for actual top heavyweights all-time.

I'm not taking any of Ezzard's wins away that were below 190 and saying they weren't heavyweight fights, because they were billed as such then.

But don't add fights that WERE EVEN BILLED THEN AS light heavyweight fights ... and TRY TO PASS THEM OFF as heavyweight fights to falsely add more heavyweight wins to Ezzard's record.

We all know what a modern heavyweight fight looks like.

And it's not a 165-pound guy fighting someone weighing 181 in a fight billed at light heavyweight.

 

Technically any fight in Charles era contested above 175lbs was a HW fight. When I compiled data to support my all time rankings I had to draw the line somewhere, and I settled on up to 180lbs in pre-CW era non title fights as being slightly over the weight LHW fights. If you draw that line higher, fine, for you some of Ezzard's wins would enhance his LHW, rather than HW, record.

Using the division the fight was advertised as being contested at before the weigh in, rather than the fighters actual recorded weights, is absurd to me. Why anyone would deny themselves the benefit of hindsight is beyond me. E.g. assigning a non title fight contested at 186lbs to LHW, and another non title bout contested at 181lbs to HW, because of how they were promoted before the weigh in, is clearly senseless.

Yet again, I disregard predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights when assessing my all time rankings. During Usyk's era, fights between 180-200lbs were contested at CW, contribute towards a fighter's CW record, a division where Uysk is widely considered one of the greatest 2 of all time.

If you want to rank Dempsey, Marciano and the like at CW, a division not created until decades after their deaths, because they weighed within todays CW limit, fine, thats your prerogative. If, however, you rank them at HW, then you're all over the place, because in that case, what relevance does Usyk's fights at CW not counting towards his HW record have? Marciano's best wins are over fighters weighing in the 180's, yet he's a consensus top 10 all time HW, even though boxers weighing 180's wouldn't even compete at CW today, let alone at HW. You seem to struggling with some fundamental principles on which most posters base ATG rankings. It appears as if you're conflating ATG rankings with some kind of cross era H2H ranking and I fear that in doing so you are tying yourself in mental knots.

I have very clearly defined crtieria to support my all time ranking, criteria I have applied consistently. I rank fighters based on what they achieved in the weight divisions they competed in, at the time they competed in them. E.g. I rank George Dixon #5 all time at FW. The FW weight limit wasn't 126lbs at that time. It matters not to me that his opponents wouldn't have competed at FW in Salvador Sanchez's era. Or that Sanchez's opponents wouldn't compete at FW today. My list isn't a cross era H2H FW list. It's a list based on what fighters achieved in the FW division during the era in which they competed. I hope that helps clarify some matters for you.

If you can clearly define your all time ranking criteria and post your all time lists, I'd read with interest. If not, I suggest you should go through that process before ridiculing the rankings of others.

Your challenges are so riddled with inconsistencies, I confidently predict you don't have a clear, measurable, quantifiable, criteria to support your all time rankings, that you can share, together with your rankings so they stand up to scrutiny that you've applied that criteria consistently. There's an invitation to prove me wrong....

 

Not only this, but fights above the LHW limit - whether billed as 175 or not - could often be used to control the rankings. Fighter A's win over Fighter B could be discounted as a heavyweight win if somebody didn't want Fighter A to get a title shot or didn't want Fighter B to lose a title shot. In fact, Charles moved up from 160 to 175 to begin with, partly because while he could comfortably fight at about 166, he wasn't getting closer to a title shot at MW by doing that.

Trusting marketing and advertising in boxing - and in general - is definitely not a great idea.

 

Yeah, call me crazy, but I assign fights to weight divisions based on, well, based on the weight of the contestants.

 

LMFAO. Who could have predicted a thread about EZZARD CHARLES would have been so controversial and contentious?

 

Top 20 is a fair assessment of Charles at heavyweight. He had a solid, fairly dominant run up until the first loss to Walcott. After that he was still formidable but beatable. The competition of the post war era was sub par to other eras in my opinion, which holds him back a little and yes he hung around for far too long and really fell off a cliff post the Marciano wars.

 

Again, we all know what a modern heavyweight fight looks like.

And it's not a 165-pound guy fighting someone weighing 181 in a fight billed at light heavyweight.

 

He was a great heavyweight. Better than these boxers today. Just look at the record. Even after he lost the title, he went on an insane schedule against some of the best contenders around, winning the vast majority, until those two fights Marciano took away most of what was left of him.

 

Challenge accepted.

Again, we all know what a modern heavyweight fight looks like. And it's not a 165-pound guy fighting someone weighing 181 in a fight billed at light heavyweight.

That was the case during Ezzard's time, as well.

All those fights you're trying to add to Ezzard's total ONLY IMPACTED HIS LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT STANDING.

As proof, Ezzard wasn't even ranked in the official National Boxing Association heavyweight top 10 ratings until January 1948. Even later in the RING ratings.

If all those fights YOU DECIDED were heavyweight wins 70 or 80 years later were actually considered heavyweight wins back then, why did he only rise in the light heavyweight ratings?

The ANSWER IS because they weren't considered heavyweight WINS then, either.

All those fights billed as light heavyweight bouts ONLY lifted him in the light heavyweight ratings.

Hell, you peeled so many light heavyweight fights off his record trying to boost his heavyweight standing, he barely has any light heavy or middleweight wins left.

You're OVERREACHING to try to boost his standing at heavyweight.

If the fights weren't billed as heavyweight fights, if they didn't improve his standing at heavyweight OR EVEN MERIT HIM A HEAVYWEIGHT RATING THEN, then quit trying to make up rules to give him more heavyweight wins.

You're literally taking a guy who was one of the best at 175, and taking away light heavy wins to improve his standing at heavyweight just to win an argument.

Ezzard Charles was a great fighter. But, at heavyweight, he doesn't measure up to the all-time greats. He's got roughly 30+ wins, 20+ losses as a heavyweight, and a lot of bad performances when he was still relatively young for the heavyweights we're comparing him to.

That's the case with a lot of fighters who move up divisions. They may have a lot of great performances overall, but not a ton in one weight class.

Creating your own critieria to give him more wins at heavyweight just shows the heavyweight wins aren't there. They weren't there when he was active and didn't get rated at heavyweight for them, and they aren't there now.

 

I can't think of any top heavyweight who I'd rate at the top of an all-time heavyweight list who would've 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.

I don't see any all time great heavy in his 20s and 30s - Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Wlad, Vitali, Foreman, Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, and on and on and on ... losing to all those guys, like Charles did when he was that age.

 

What utter nonsense.

5-years ago when I collated data to support my all time rankings in the original 8 x weight divisions, I decided a slightly above weight cut off for each weight division in non title fights. Are you claiming I choose 180lbs as the LHW/HW cut off in the pre-CW era because I knew we'd be having this "debate" 5-years later?

Assigning non title fights to weight divisions based on anything other than the weight the fight was contested at doesn't pass the laughter test.

 

Here are the official National Boxing Association ratings for every quarter during that time.
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association

Ezzard Charles was never ranked at heavyweight until January 1948. Even later in the year by Ring.

The wins you're telling us were heavyweight wins NEVER MERITED HIM A HEAVYWEIGHT RANKING. He only moved up in the light heavyweight ratings.

That's what ACTUALLY occurred. Are those facts "PROOF" enough that at the time they weren't considered heavyweight wins?

If they weren't considered heavyweight wins then, didn't even merit him a rating at heavyweight then, and they wouldn't even be heavyweight wins now, I don't know what to tell you. Other than I'm right.

School's out for the day. Everyone have a nice weekend.

 

Firstly, as I have told you before, consistently typing in CAPS and bolding text is (or at least should be) a little embarrassing for a man of your age. It betrays how triggered you are. Calm down, this is an internet forum to discuss boxing, it's not worth you regularly getting so worked up. Perhaps your viewpoint wouldn't be so unpopular in this thread/forum if you didn't SHOUT so much and paid more attention to the content of the posts of others.

Secondly, 5-years ago I collated data to support my all time rankings in each of the 8 x original weight divisions. In each division, I created a cut-off for slightly over the weight non-title contests. In the pre-SMW era, the MW/LHW cut off I used was 164lbs. In the pre-CW era, the LHW/HW cut off was 180lbs. By these measures, Charles record at LHW was exactly 27-2-1 and I rank him #1 all time. At HW it was 52-20. I spent thousands of hours collating and analysing the data of hundreds of fighters, applying this consistent criteria for assigning every fight to one weight division or another. Your claim I did all that for the sole purpose of inflating Charles's record at HW, because I had the foresight to predict we'd have this "debate" (and my word I use that term lightly) about his record in that division 5-years later, is not quite the most laughably ridiculous claim you've made in this thread.

No, the most laughably ridiculous claim you've made in this thread, is that non title fights should be assigned to weight divisions, for the purposes of historical analysis, based on anything other than the weight the fight was contested at. It quite literally does not pass the laughter test.

 

Looking at those rating, there are boxers there who were rated as heavyweights that Ezzard Charles beat, during or very near that period. While they were weighing heavy. So take it up with the National Boxing Association as to why they didn't put him in their ratings sooner at heavyweight.

An INS news agency post-fight report from 1942:

Pittsburgh, Oct. 28 (I.N.S) - Ezzard Charles, classy Cincinatti middleweight, held a unanimous decision today over Joey Maxim, young Clevaland heavyweight, earned last night in a 10-round bout at Pittsburgh. Charles came in at 165 1/2 to Maxim's 181 1/2.

A pre-fight article by Bill McElwain in The Pitsburgh Press claimed Charles, "will be fed a heavyweight, one Joey Maxim"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...UNQUEAHS-CM0IQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Just over a month later (Dec. 1 1942) Charles beat Maxim again, this time weighing half a pound more at 166, and Maxim weighing two-and-half pounds more at 184.