Marciano's Body Frame could easily be Tua and Tyson

Charles is an odd one. He was viewed as an awful champion in his own era. People despaired off him. Probably this has as much to do with following Louis as anything.

By the seventies he was far more respected. He made either a Wold Boxing reader's poll or staff poll, i forget, in the mid-seventies as the #10 all time great heavy and the same spot on a late 70s Sport's Illustrated one that was definitely readers.

Before that, nothing, Loubet, Rose, Fleischer, he appears on none of their lists.

He's an example of a fighter who has become more respected the further from his reign we have travelled. I don't think he belongs in any top ten, but I do definitely think that he was considerably better than his peers gave him credit for.

I think Frazier would batter him, bigger, faster punches probably, harder hitting, more durable, style advantage etc., I don't think it would be any more competitive than the Ellis fights but that's less interesting than expanding the above theme.

He also failed to make the Rose/Fletcher lists but they were both written before the FOTC, I think. Frazier appears, as you would imagine, on many more lists than Charles but his performance is surprisingly patchy. I don't think you could quite label him a "borderline top ten" guy based upon these results but it's not kicking the arse out of it. #6, I think, is his best performance which is also (off the top of my head) where I have him. I just had a quick skite online and I did find him on a top ten list, by Esnewsreporting. Assuming you want to let that one in, #4 is his best performance.

If i was averaging them out I'd say that Frazier probably lands at 7/8 and Charles lands at N/A.

 

No, it can mean more than that. It does to me for example.

 

Well first of because that's unhelful and second of all because that's not "my opinion." When Max Kellerman, or whoever says "this is boxing at the highest level" you might think "no it's not" but you don't think "not it's not, where's Muhammad Ali?"

Regardless, it was Choklab who split fighters into levels. His opinion is that old Charles and Walcott represent boxing at the highest level, mine is that there is a level above that; if yours is (legitimately) that the highest level is represented only by a single fighter I guess that's no less legitimate but it certainly is the least helpful.

Then you are in agreement with choklab and disagree with me.

 

Yes, and Charles had tough fights with Nino Valdes (loss), Harold Johnson (loss), Rex Layne (loss), Elmar Ray (loss) and Joe Maxim. Whether you chose to pursue an analysis of physical attributes, "tough fights" fought, losses or styles, Frazier should be favoured.

As has been pointed out by chocklab, Jantior, myself and now you, it is impossible to know he would win with certainty. But he would certainly be favoured.

He was a "top level" heavyweight. He was one of the greatest fighters ever to lace them up at weights below.

Here's a question for you. Do you think Charles proved himself at a "higher level" at light-heavyweight than he did at heavyweight?

 

I would say that Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali probably enjoy a place on the plinth while Wladimir Klitschko probably doens't. I would say they are all three ATG heavies, which is also how I would describe Joe Frazier. I would not describe Walcott as such.

So, no, not quite right.

The simplest way to think about it is, is Walcott on the same level as Muhammad Ali as a heavyweight? And the answer should be "no." This should lead you to the conclusion that there is a level above the likes of Walcott and it would be then for you yourself to decide who it is that populates it. If the answer for you is "nobody" then you would true in your belief that there is only one fighter who represents HW boxing at the highest level. You would then (if you cared enough) have to decide if there was another level between Walcott and Ali.

 

In many ways they are one in the same. My position, you will be unsurprised to learn, is that he proved himself to a far greater extent at light-heavyweight. If this is true (and i'm taking your "maybe" as a "yes" btw) how can it be that he represents a scalp of the same level at both LHW and HW? These things either mean something or they don't, either matter or they don't. Beating a great fighter does put you on a higher level in normal boxing parlance. It elevates fighters previously though of in one way to being though of in another way; it promotes a change in the perception of the fighter by most observers. This is because it is the most difficult thing to do.

Charles showed his absolute superiority to Moore at LHW in a way that he did not approach doing against a great fighter at HW. Therefore, to me, he proved more at LHW than HW.

And if, for some reason, you don't like this particular example, pick one of a dozen others. We all know that beating someone like Arguello means more at one weight than it does at another because for no other reason than he achieved a higher level at one weight than another; it doesn't mean he wasn't special at weight 2, but we know that he was more special at weight 1.

I don't think you can be at "the highest level" and meaningfully distanced from your prime. Calzaghe beat a special fighter when he beat Hopkins but there are better fighters than that which Hopkins was, although you would still identify him as being at the highest level. Your point of view does not allow for the truly exceptional distinct from the good/great whatever word you want to provide.

Beating a prime Muhammad Ali is a more special achievement than beating a past-prime Charles. We all know this. What I'm talking to you about is just a method of communicating this.

 

That's reasonable because level inevitably lets you down. For example, Lebedev was ranked #1 at cruiserweight by both TBRB and Ring going into Saturday's fight. Lebedev was on a "different level" because he proved himself #1 by beating ranked opposition. Gassiev did not. But come fight night, this didn't matter.

However, history is different. Here, level will never let you down because the parameters are fixed. As I said to you in a point above which you didn't address (or haven't yet - i'm aware we're posting across two chains), Ali proved himself on a different level to Walcott. That is fixed. Now, it is valid to say "but Walcott could have beaten Ali" which presumably also suggests that he might do better against the field than Ali, and it can't be definitively proven that this is not the case. But it also doesn't matter. Where levels and greatness are absolutely identical is that they address what a fighter actually did than what they might have done.

When I say there is a level of opposition above Walcott, I mean just that. There are fighters that are harder to beat than Walcott: Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes etc.

I believe i've covered this above, but to address the point directly, losing a fight doesn't alter either the "level" of the victor or the loser completely. Tyson can remain at the highest level as a heavyweight having lost to Douglas just as Midget Wolgast can remain at the highest level at fly despite losing to Willie Davies. Boxing is not done in a laboratory. Douglas lost to Savarase, Holyfield, Tucker, Ferguson and White. Davies lost to Black Bill, Schwarz, McCoy and (helpfully, i'll admit) Wolgast.

Here's a question - do you think Buster Douglas is harder to beat than Mike Tyson?

Here's another - do you think the Ezzard Charles Marciano beat is harder to defeat than the Joe Louis that beat Max Shcmeling?

Then chose someone who did lose in their prime but is ATG, the argument and the conclusions don't change. Olivares, for example. Olivares was beaten in his prime and the men that beat him were facing the highest possible level of competition when they beat him. That, to me, is indelibly different and more impressive than those that beat Lupe Pintor, who I would place at the level below him.

We, all of us, instinctively know what this means. I know you are not a huge fan of Tyson but surely you would concede that there is a reason that his loss to Douglas is one of the most talked about fights in boxing history? Similar things are true of Frazier's defeat of Ali, Ali's defeat of Foreman, and others - there is no incredulous endless analysis of Marciano's defeat of Charles. That is because everyone recognises that the wins i've listed were achieved against a higher level opponent. They are among the greatest of wins in the division's history. Marciano's defeat of Charles is not.

 

"Good grieff" or depending.

It's times like this I get the joke. It's times like this I think you're the best troll that has ever graced this forum, because either on purpose or by accident you've posted the perfect trolling response.

Assuming you are serious:

choklab, "the Joe Louis that beat Max Shcmeling". That BEAT Max Schmeling. In other words, the second fight. And you've managed to waste my time and yours by posting a paragraph about the first fight. Once again your inability to understand the very simple things that i've written results in two meaningless posts on this forum.

Assuming you are trolling:

Bravo, sir.