I don't have him as a top 10 heavyweight, but I think a case can be made for him being one. Looking over his record. He has a very solid heavyweight resume. Since there was no cursierweight division I counted anything where both boxers were 176 or above as a heavyweight fight.
Thanwithout a cruiserweight division what makes a heavyweight fight? 180? 190? 200? There has to be a cutoff.
Just some disagreements 1--top lightheavyweight Lesnevich--Gus had lost to Mills and Maxim. He was no longer a top anything. 2--Past prime--I think Charles was in his prime in 1949.
the question isn't just whether charles is a top 10 but who do you leave out of the top 10 in his stead? imo you have... locks-ali, louis, holmes, marciano, lewis, johnson, frazier, foreman near locks-tyson, holyfield possibles-dempsey who from that list is charles above?
at that time anything over 169lb was a type of heavyweight. with the smaller gloves seasoned fighter of light heavyweight size did very well against slower giants who were always less experienced and less athletic. The 170 punders were easier to match too since they could literally fight anything over 165lb and gained so much extra ring sense than a harder to match 190 pound plus prospect. A 170lb fighter of 50 plus fights would have too much for a 18 fight 190 to 200 pounder and for that era this is how it panned out. Charles was the best of a very busy bunch who could beat anything over 170lb of any size.
This might be the one time lufcrazy and I agree on something. Please explaine your poistion that 169 + = heavyweight at the time.
Now Luf, you're a math teacher. Rigour and all that. You know that before cruiser days, anything >175 was a HW bout.:yep