Should Ezzard Charles be regarded as one of the greatest punchers?

Everyone keeps mentioning power, but I don't believe that's as big a factor in 'great punching' as placement. I wouldn't describe Ray Robinson as a heavy hitter either, just one who knew where his targets were and timed it well.

Just so people know where I stand; I think Walcott definitely hit harder than Charles and was trickier with a single shot; however, Charles hit with a good amount of power at heavyweight and was even stronger at 175lbs. In contrast to Walcott, who was a mover, a trickster and a Eubank-esque 'wait for it' kind of single shot surprise attacker, Charles was a more flowing, consistent combination puncher, and at the lighter weight class, was more dangerous.

Whether Charles was the best puncher at light heavyweight, I don't know. There are a lot of good ones to choose from; Moore (who'd be my #5 or 6 all-time hitter), Foster, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Spinks, Jones, Moorer - all bangers.

Definitely up there though, and anyone who strongly disagrees must also disagree with Robinson's consensus placement, because there are a lot of parallels between them. You could argue that Robinson stopped a few more durable opponents, but that Charles got to a few slicker ones.