Is it a valid viewpoint to have Ezzard Charles as the GOAT?

I think he's around the halfway mark of a top 10 list. He does have a superb resume, and multipule wins over some top names makes his case stronger. Thats impressive that he beat elite opponents more than once.

 

Robinson didn't face Burley, the most dangerous opponent out there, and that diminishes his record in my eyes. Charles, on the other hand, did beat the very best opposition in Burley, Moore and Louis. That's the very best from 160 upwards.

 

I don't think it's a valid or even remotely acceptable viewpoint to have anyone other than Henry Armstrong as number 1, however, Ezzard Charles is a definite top 5 of all time. Last time I did a list I had him at number 3; number 3 out of millions is pretty good.

 

On paper at least the case is strong.

 

In actuality though, Robinson's resume is even deeper than Charles's, though in terms of quality they're about even. While Robinson missed out on Burley, Charles never beat Harold Johnson, losing the decision in their only bout.

 

But wouldn't you agree that he beat the best there was to beat, which can't be said of Robinson since he didn't face Burley? And doing it in three weight classes ain't bad.

Of course, Robinson's record oustrips Charles's in other aspects, such as that he had his amazing winning streak and never lost in his best weight class.

 

The point is that their resumes are of equal value. You can take whatever you want away from Robinson for not fighting Burley, although most fighters had at least one opponent they should have fought, not just Robinson, and Burley was one of the most avoided in history.

More or less equal resumes, longevity for Robinson, more impressive streak in his prime than Charles, etc.

Robinson should be above Charles. Not by leaps and bounds, but I think he certainly should be.

 

The things is, to be ranked nr. 1 p4p of all time it seems to me that you should have a documented dominance over all your contemproraries in and around your prime. Holman Williams and the Cocoa Kid are others that we never got to see Robinson against.

Fair enough. That was more or less the argument I was making.

Why? If you think their resumes were more or less equal? Is it because you think he looks better on film?

 

What else is there for criteria other than resume? The quality of their resumes are equal. Robinson has Charles beat in longevity which means better success well past his best, Robinson has a more impressive streak in his prime, Robinson doesn't have such damaging losses as Charles' losses to Bivins and Marshall, both by all accounts being one-sided (though to his credit he avenged them both on more than one occassion).

Fair enough if you feel Charles could be placed at #1, I personally don't for reasons stated above. Robinson had a more impressive career IMO, again, not by any large margin, but it's clear at least to me.

I also feel Langford and Greb should be higher. Arguing Charles over Armstrong is perfectly reasonable though IMO.

 

This all seems reasonable to me. But if someone was to have Charles at nr. 1 I could see why. Would really like see some more film of the man though.

 

I don't think it's a ludicrous idea to place him at #1 at all. I just think Robinson has him beat in enough areas to be put higher. Really the only thing Charles has on Robinson is that he fought just about everyone available. Admirable stuff for sure, but not enough for me to give him the nod considering the other edges Robinson holds.

In the near future I should be getting film of his 2nd fight with Marshall from Sweetfights.com

Really looking forward to it, I've become a big fan of his (as shown by the avatar).

 

I've always thought Charles had a serious claim to being the best of all time as well. Archie Moore and Charley Burley are considered two of the best of all time as well, and Charles had a total of five decisive wins against both of them, plus a host of wins against other great fighters like Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins.

Personally, I have Robinson rated as the GOAT, but I believe Charles has as good a claim as Robby or anyone else.

 

I don't know about that. Like you said, Robinson had more wins over a longer stretch of time, but I'd rate...

Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall
etc.

...ahead of...

Gavilan
LaMotta
Fullmer
Basilio
etc.

It seems to me, on the whole, Charles' opponents had better resumes than Robinson's opponents.

 

Charles opponents at the top level were generally better than Robinson's, but as Sweet Pea said, Robinson's resume is deeper.

He has a larger quantity of good wins, making their resumes roughly equal IMO all things considered.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected