He was respected but considered kind of ho-hum and reigning over a weak division. In truth he could be boring and the division was in kind of a transitionary phase. His career prior to being a champion is what makes his rep imo.
He was considered an average heavyweight champ bit of a stop gap and a safety first boring fighter.I never saw and references to him being an ATG p4p until I came here. I think he was, but having quite a few 1950'sRing mags you would never know it by reading them! Louis in his autobiography called him a good fighter,but one he would have stopped in about 7 rds in his prime.
Charles is one of those whose historical position has improved immensely with hindsight and rightfully so.
I have him at no. 9 on my all-time top 10, one place above Archie Moore and the fourth best fighter of the 1940s, behind Robinson, Pep and Louis but I have Moore at no. 1 at Light Heavy. It’s Charles’s success at heavyweight v Moore’s inability to win the heavyweight title that edges him ahead. I think the first time I saw recognition of Charles as an all-time great was the early 90s when The Ring started ranking him no. 1 at light heavy. Before that, I think he was best remembered for his relatively uninspiring heavyweight title reign. The last 25 years have been much kinder to him than the previous 50.
I get the impression that he was thought of very much like Holy field was ,especially pre Tyson. A blown up light heavyweight following in the foot step's of a long time reigning champ ,in holy s case Holmes. Look at the crap EH got early on after he won the belt from Buster ,probably the same as Charles beating Walcott. Today Holyfield has a lot More respect, as he should ,same goes for Ezzard .
I can't think of another boxer, whose legacy has benefitted as much from these internet forums as Charles. Right up to the 80s, I don't recall seeing him in any all-time Top-10 discussions. Today that's almost a given - with many having him in the Top-5!
I think its partly 2 things: 1. I think most “experts” in this era werent nearly as informed as theyre given credit for. 2. He was certainly regarded as a contender and a threat but he was also considered boring and uninspiring. Back then, far more than today, that was gonna close doors on you.
I totally agree. You look at his results post military (they were good before too but more spotty e.g. Bivins and Marshall pre vs post)) when he matured and it's INSANE. One disputed SD loss to Elmer Ray with a 20 odd pound weight disadvantage in 7 odd years and 40+ fights including 3 x wins over Moore, the heavyweight title and 2 x wins over Walcott, a win over the comeback Louis and then all the names below Heavyweight etc etc etc. He may have been operating at a level as good as has there has ever been P4P when at 175 pounds.
