Is Ezzard Charles a great heavyweight?

I can ignore them.

I hate the notion that if a fighter retires at the right time they have a better legacy.

It's nonsense.

 

It isn't about fault.

It's about judgement. I certainly will not use any past prime losses in my judgement of Charles. But if he's able to turn back the clock and score a meaningful victory, that counts.

It can't be biased because its how I view every boxer therefore its the opposite of bias.

As for the klitchsko brothers Wlad is clearly the greater heavyweight.

 

He was an absolute phenom.

 

He was also down against Peter for the NABF title and in a non title fight against Williamson but you conveniently leave those out I see.

Wladimir has been down a lot of times no matter how spell his name.

But no matter how many times he's been down, which is more than you care to admit, he's accomplished much more as a heavyweight than his big brother ever did.

 

You know this is exactly how I see it as well.

He has a far better resume than Dempsey and Marciano, has more defences than them both.

But for some reason he's dismissed as a LHW rather than a HW.

But as a stand alone HW I think he is an ATG.

 

But he was a HW. He defended the HW title 9 times or something daft.