The only fighter more overrated than Ezzard Charles…

Holmes is a great fighter, great skills etc; but the “Holmes is so underrated” claims are a little tiresome. As are the claims he was “robbed” in the first Spinks fight. I’m convinced people who say that either haven’t seen the fight or are confusing it with the rematch or are just incredibly biased or all of the above.

 

He was under appreciated when he was fighting, and it didn't help that he came after the most charasmatic Heavyweight of all time, and then shortly after Holmes's reign the most destructive Heavyweight of all time came after him. So he was for quite a long time stuck in the middle of a bit of forgotten era. But I feel like in more recent times, Holmes has definitely got his due and is no longer underrated.

I also agree that Holmes deserved to lose the 1st Michael Spinks fight, but I felt like he was hard done by in their 2nd fight. But then again Holmes also benefitted from a close one vs Williams aswell.

 

I rate Holmes highly ... not so much on who he beat as much as watching his entire reign live, waiting for him to lose for close to a decade, and seeing him knock off one contender after another. I always seemed to root against him, and he always seemed to dominate. At some point, you throw in the towel and go he's way better than I thought.

Holmes earned my respect. I can also see how people who didn't watch him live can kind of watch his fights and go "Eh, I think he'd lose to so-and-so."

But the truth is Holmes was never an easy out ... not even at age 50+.

That said, I never got this argument about Charles being "the best" light heavyweight and then listing a bunch of fights, practically all of which didn't take place at light heavyweight.

Charles didn't beat any light heavyweights in title fights. And there have been more than 10 light heavyweight champions in the last 100 years, but Charles never won it.

Shouldn't winning and defending a light heavyweight title count as much as winning non-title fights against light heavyweight champs at higher weights? I think so.

Lots of champs lose non-title fights and actually win fights against the same opponent when a title is on the line.

IMO, winning a light heavyweight title and defending that title should actually weigh a little heavier than NOT winning one at all.

Also, Harold Johnson beat beat Archie Moore, Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Machen, Nino Valdes, Marty Marshall, Doug Jones, Arturo Godoy ... and Johnson was a light heavyweight champion for years ... and Harold BEAT Ezzard Charles ... but I never hear anyone saying Harold was better than Charles ... even though they actually fought and HAROLD WON.

Harold Johnson could be better than Charles and Charles could be better than Moore and Moore could be better than Harold. That's how boxing works sometimes.

Michael Spinks, Harold Johnson, Artur Beterbiev, Michael Moorer, Roy Jones, Andre Ward, Dwight Qawi ... I can think of a lot of guys who would give Ezzard Charles a lot of problems at light heavyweight.

Michael Spinks beat Marvin Johnson, Eddie Gregory, Dwight Qawi, was the light heavyweight champ for years, and he also moved up and knocked off longtime champ Larry Holmes and knocked out Gerry Cooney. I'd rate Michael Spinks over Charles at light heavyweight in a hearbeat because he was actually a dominant light heavyweight champion.

Michael Moorer was a light heavyweight champion and knocked out everyone he fought at the weight before he moved up and won the World Heavyweight Title from Holyfield. I don't see Ezzard Charles walking right through Moorer at either weight, particularly light heavyweight. If Lloyd Marshall could stop Charles, Moorer certainly could at 175.

It's not like Ezzard was unbeatable. He lost 25 times.

I don't know. I think most people tend to TOTALLY overlook Charles, or they overrate him WAY WAY too much. There should be a happy middle ground somewhere.

(That was a pretty rambling post.)

 

Archie Moore was LHW champion for c.10 years and is usually ranked 1 or 2 at the weight all time. Charles went 3-0 against him at 175lbs. Including by KO and 1 decision win where the 3 judges found 2 rounds out of 30 for Moore between them.

Harold Johnson won an SD against a past prime Charles in a fight contested at Heavyweight

 

That's a well thought out post I'm not saying I agree with all of it but you made some good points, my issue with this thread though. Is that the OP has created a few of these threads, without ever stating why he thinks Charles is overrated.

I mean we all have different opinions, if the OP stated a good case on why he thinks Holmes or Charles is overrated. I might disagree with it but aslong as he makes good points, and backs up his claims with actual statistics and facts about their careers. We could have a good discussion and agree to disagree.

But keep making these threads without any context, and just keep making baseless opinions. It comes across as a bait post to me.

 

Ezzard Charles is easily one of the top 5 greatest fighters who ever lived. Arguments can even be made for him being top 3 or even #1 ( though I won’t make any convictions about it. )

Yes there are fans who over rate Larry Holmes but there are probably just as many who underrate him as well. Larry was and still is mightily criticized for the quality of his opposition, failure to unify the crown, ducking worthy contenders, flat performances and his less than likable personality. I myself feel that his initial 48-0 record and wins over some fairly respectable up and coming contenders is worth of a top 10 spot and depending on your criteria even top 5.

 

Who lost 25 times.

An example of a guy being WAY WAY WAY Overrated by some (you).

 

This opinion might change quicker than you think.

 

And who from 1944-1951 went 41-1 and his only defeat during that time was a robbery which he avenged.
And defeated probably more hall of fame claimants than almost anyone in the sports History.
And is commonly ranked as the greatest light heavyweight of all time.

you have to know something about the sport

 

Harold Johnson beat Ezzard Charles two months after Ezzard's 32nd birthday and that doesn't count?

Ezzard Charles beat Joe Louis when Louis was 36. Charles beat Walcott when Jersey Joe was 35 and 37 years old.

Charles beat Moore when Archie was a 33, 34 and 35-year-old contender who hadn't won anything yet and Moore wasn't considered the greatest anything at the time. There were no titles on the line. Neither had won one yet.

But Harold Johnson beating Ezzard Charles just after he turned 32 doesn't count?

Another reason why I can't take this stuff seriously.

Harold Johnson could be better than Charles and not as good as Archie Moore. Charles can be better than Archie Moore and not as good as Harold Johnson.

We see it in boxing all the time.

Moore beat Valdes twice. Valdes beat Charles. Charles beat Moore.

Charles vs. Moore in 1953 for the light heavyweight title. Show me that fight with the title on the line. Something tells me old Archie wins that one.

 

?

 

You forgot the part about Ali being a neurodegenerative charity case who shouldn't have been allowed to fight. Holmes would have a leg to stand on if he'd earned lineage by unifying, which he avoided.

This is simple. Holmes' reign was a lot like Wlad's, but Wlad unified. Holmes ranks a spot below Wlad.

 

The top fighters of all time argument has changed tremendously over the years. We may see another great boxer's stock shoot up like Ezzard. Just an interesting observation I've noticed.

 

That's nice. But he didn't fight at light heavyweight after February 1948.

So, from his first fight in December 1944 (after his knockout loss to Marshall) to his last light heavyweight fight in February 1948 - a little over three years -- he fought no current or former light heavyweight champions and he tallied an overall record of 25-1, but nine of those were heavyweight fights. So 17-0 at light heavyweight from 1944 onward.

17-0. Not 44-1.

 

You kinda do.