Is Ezzard Charles a great heavyweight?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Jun 24, 2020.


  1. Cojimar 1946

    Cojimar 1946 Active Member Full Member

    989
    408
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 23, 2014
    Ezzard Charles didn't look at all fat or flabby weighing in the 180s-about what Patterson and Marciano weighed in their primes. He probably had similar muscle mass
     
    70sFan865 and George Crowcroft like this.
  2. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft Bit of a Gobshite Full Member

    15,684
    19,673
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Mar 3, 2019
    Yeah it is cherry picking, actually. There's no context there, making the stat irrelevant. Charles wasn't a natural middleweight, meaning that this comparison is already null and void. Charles went to the military age 23 (whilst weighing around 165) and came back filled out and fully grown. He was a natural light-heavyweight, he just filled out later.

    Patterson never had to do that, hence why he weighed more at age 21. He filled out earlier on in life, hence why he weighed more at age 21. Putting muscle on to move up in weight isn't being 'naturally bigger'.

    That is why your 'point' is wrong. Capeesh?
     
    70sFan865 likes this.
  3. Charlietf

    Charlietf Well-Known Member booted Full Member

    2,414
    1,999
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 25, 2020
    We disagree
     
  4. Ra's Al-Ghul

    Ra's Al-Ghul The one and only! Full Member

    12,102
    1,083
    Sportsbook:
    1,293
    Oct 17, 2014
    It is: En oel tag.

    I knew it since I was 9 or 10 years old (when I visited the south, Smorland).

    I could have spoken one in Scotish too, when I was there in 1995.


    By the way I speak few sentences Klingonian.;)
     
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    64,726
    5,387
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    I think he's unquestionably greater than Patterson, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Corbett, Spinks and Tunney

    I don't think there's any LHW sized HW who can compete with what he achieved in the division.
     
    Bokaj and George Crowcroft like this.
  6. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Ii6 Full Member

    3,383
    3,341
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 30, 2019
    How many HWs have a single win ove prime "great" HW?
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  7. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Ii6 Full Member

    3,383
    3,341
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 30, 2019
    Fitzsimmons is close to me, but other are clearly below his level.
     
    The Senator and lufcrazy like this.
  8. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Ii6 Full Member

    3,383
    3,341
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 30, 2019
    Liston was probably better h2h but in terms of resume, Charles is definitely on his level.
     
  9. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft Bit of a Gobshite Full Member

    15,684
    19,673
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Mar 3, 2019
    Few. Liston, Tyson, Holmes, Louis, Dempsey, Wladimir ect; all don't. All don't. On the flip side, Rahman does, so is he a great HW?
     
  10. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,044
    4,196
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2017
    Rahman is the greatest
     
  11. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,044
    693
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    My man I often agree with you. But you are incorrect here.

    Patterson did bulk up to HW. He did not have a very big bone structure, & Charles & he fought at ~ the same top weights.
    Look at their resumes, # of defenses...Charles seems better.

    I usually think you have it right that all other things being equal, bigger does tend to = better.
    But you are splitting hairs to qualify or disqualify guys from consideration based on "natural" size.
    Holyfield fit fine at CW when it was only up to 190 lbs.-though taller than the above men.
    Only great efforts in weighlifting *and* steroids gave him that Adonis upper body. On fairly undersized legs.
    And steroid users often have the disproportionate traps & adjacent areas, which can account for his out of proportion 19" neck at a quite low body fat %...

    Look if a guy does very well at HW, especially as a champion, unless you specify you are ranking head to head, then even if the division's weight moved up, they are by definition great.
    I agree Charles would never rank so high when directly fighting guys of all size throughout history.
    But he has enough success at HW that he should rank no lower than the teens in the historic standings.
     
  12. Charlietf

    Charlietf Well-Known Member booted Full Member

    2,414
    1,999
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 25, 2020
    I never said that patterson was a natural +200pounder, i said that he was a natural 180s and Charles a natural 175 guy, Charles was a natural lhw and Patterson a small cruiser. Not a big difference of size between them and of course the size is not the motive because i pick Patterson to beat Charles.
     
  13. cuchulain

    cuchulain Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    26,870
    1,572
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 6, 2007
    Clearly, you have forgotten the "floored" thread ! :biggrin:
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  14. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,044
    693
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    I did not indicate you said Charles was naturally over 200-at his heaviest prime weights he was not much over 190.
    You indicated larger differences previously, & what was said above is true-at their heaviest, & wit Charles looking lean, there was less than 5 lbs. difference between them.
    Patterson vs. Charles would be quite a fight!
    I am unsure who I would favor.
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    64,726
    5,387
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    That was a once in a generation occurrence haha
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement