Roy Jones Jr vs Ezzard Charles

Why don't you rate him high AT LHW?

 

Charles was indeed one helluva puncher at 175.

 

Ezzard charles was not a huge puncher at 175. Again.. He could bang but Huge punchers were bob foster,archie moore,michael moorer ,sam langford( around 1911 he fought at 175). One thing is for sure.. Charles did not hit as hard as these guys so stop debating only by hobby

 

Do some serious research on Ezzard Charles.

 

Jesus what a repetitive parrot..
Just tell me... Did charles hit as hard as foster,moore,moorer,langford? At 175? No ****ing way, he is a under these guys in hitting power department

 

52 kos in 95 wins.... A lot of decision wins and still these puppets are debating it

 

So much ignorance and lack of the most basic of knowledge and comprehension.

Plenty of decision wins came his way when just 19-20 and still very much developing both in body and ability. Two decision wins over a fully fledged Burley and one over Teddy Yarosz and Ken Overlin in his first 26 fights. Back to back decision wins over Maxim. A couple of 3 round fights just after this.

Look at the guys he was fighting then. Moore x 3, Smith, Bivens, Marshall etc etc etc. TOP notch competition. Then have a look at how many fights he had weighing under 175 against guys substantially heavier.

Look at the time he spent fighting as a heavyweight then, a natural light heavyweight.

The guy was matched tough and fought a who's who of the times. Many decisions were picked up as a heavyweight and fighting way after his prime as a heavy.

His ko of Moore is one of the great ko's in history.

The fact that you have to run back to his ko percentage makes it obvious you have little to no idea about Charles.

Put Bob Foster against the likes of Maxim x multiple, Bivins x multiple, Smith, Moore x 3 etc etc and see how he goes. Charles has multitudes of light heavyweight opponents above the level that Bob ever matched. How many heavyweights did Bob stop? What about Charles?

As i said, do some research and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

ko percentage is just something thats been manipulated recently by a now statistic hungry computer savvy top trump obsessed crowd of new fans.... where guys fight bums till they are in their thirties in order to rack up a high but meaningless ko %. Thats why you get so many now, compared to yesteryear...its just a byproduct of today, not a reflection on history.

facing bums till you are 30 is essentially ridiculous and would have been career ending back then, thats why they didnt do it.

 

Bingo.

But just think about what time will do----in 25 years, younger fans will be pointing out the merits of a guy like Shannon Briggs due to a ton of early ko's. Or Valuev. Numbers are the best thing about them.

But what is not taken into consideration is the recent form of their opponents. Or what other opponents were available at the time to fight instead.

So things will turn into someone claiming a 220 lb short guy like Mike Tyson has zero chance against a big guy like Valuev who was never off his feet. Or a guy like the former cruiser Holyfield would get starched in 1 round just as a ton of other guys did when they fought Shannon Briggs.

But using statistics is just the laziest way of comparing fighters anyway. And like the old saying, figures don't lie but liars do figure.

 

Jesus what a bunch of excuses. Laughable,totally laughable . but at the end of the day you don't have the balls to say opently that you think that charles did hit how hard as bob foster. You are stubborn and boring

 

Charles by decision. He is the better fighter

 

I just laughed out loud when I read Holyfield getting starched by Briggs in 1 round. That's very far fetched.

 

Hmmm...... I never thought of that. I suppose that Charles is underrated as a puncher. He was KO'ing some top men. He may get underrated because many of those fights weren't filmed. It's one thing to see them and another to read about them.

 

At 175 Roy by UD. Avoids Charles biggest punches and slaps his way to victory.