Is Ezzard Charles a top ten Heavyweight?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by GPater11093, Feb 17, 2010.


  1. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    55
    Dec 5, 2006
    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.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,235
    Sep 15, 2009
    Two guys at 176 is not a hw fight.
     
  3. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    55
    Dec 5, 2006
    Thanwithout a cruiserweight division what makes a heavyweight fight?
    180? 190? 200?
    There has to be a cutoff.
     
  4. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,270
    Sep 5, 2011
    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.
     
  5. red cobra

    red cobra Loyal Member Full Member

    38,042
    7,583
    Jul 28, 2004
    I definitely think he was..maybe at the lower end of the top ten, but he's in there for sure.
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,235
    Sep 15, 2009
    I say anything above 180. Below that is just a fight above the lhw limit.
     
  7. the cobra

    the cobra Awesomeizationism! Full Member

    12,028
    119
    Jun 30, 2008
  8. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,432
    33
    Dec 18, 2011
    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?
     
  9. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    55
    Dec 5, 2006
    He still has a pretty good resume as a heavyweight.
     
  10. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,676
    7,669
    Dec 31, 2009

    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.
     
  11. Asterion

    Asterion Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,459
    20
    Feb 5, 2005
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,235
    Sep 15, 2009
    :lol: when you say a type of heavyweight, do you mean a light heavyweight :lol:
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,676
    7,669
    Dec 31, 2009
    haha. no.:good
     
  14. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    55
    Dec 5, 2006
    This might be the one time lufcrazy and I agree on something.
    Please explaine your poistion that 169 + = heavyweight at the time.
     
  15. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    38,676
    13,468
    Jan 6, 2007
    Now Luf, you're a math teacher.

    Rigour and all that.

    You know that before cruiser days, anything >175 was a HW bout.:yep