The only fighter more overrated than Ezzard Charles…

Wlad was like 29 and Williamson was 36 lol
Wlad had the physical advantage and was on the bigger side of heavyweight. Charles started his career middleweight
Wlad fought nowhere near as many wars by the time he fought Williamson as Charles did when he fought Toxie hall.
You do realize that Harold Johnson was an ATG and rated by ring as one of the best technical boxers of all time right ? Also won some big fights at heavyweight.

yeah we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree

 

Context matters. The Moore fights were all before Moore was considered anything more than an older contender. Joe Louis wasn't the champ anymore.

Marshall, Bivins, Ray, Layne, Satterfield and Smith never won squat. Burley was a middleweight who never won anything.

Trevor Berbick beat:
* Muhammad Ali
* John Tate
* Pinklon Thomas
* Greg Page
* Iran Barkley

And they were all heavyweight champions or, in Barkley's case, a middleweight, super middleweight and light heavyweight champion.

But Context matters, doesn't it? Nobody considers Berbick's wins all that special REALLY AT ALL.

With Charles, people just toss out names and it's like everyone was prime and everyone was a champ and he beat them all at their best.

And blinders are firmly put in place when losses to guys like Toxie Hall, Nino Valdes, Harold Johnson, Young Jack Johnson, Johnny Holman, Wayne Bethea, Dick Richardson, Harry "Kid" Matthews, Pat McMurtry, Donnie Fleeman, Alfredy Zuany, Al Green, George Logan are mentioned.

Michael Spinks lost to Mike Tyson. That's it.

Michael Moorer lost to Holyfield in their rematch, Foreman and Tua. Not some Toxie Hall or Young Jack Johnson types.

The Charles stuff gets ridiculous. He was a great fighter.

The best ever at light heavyweight? No. The best ever all-time? Get the **** out of here. Honestly.

 

I was responding to a poster who denigrated Widler's reign and elevated Holmes' reign due to lineage. Holmes had the most worthless lineage in existence. He got it off Ali.

Everything else that you're writing has absolutely nothing to do with my post. But stop lying. Weaver wasn't a big deal until after the Holmes fight. Shavers never was a "best heavyweight." Coetzee and Dokes were obv more relevant than him in 79 (Coetzee only) and 80 (both). Guess what? Holmes fought neither of them so you left them off. They were also leagues ahead of a geriatric Ali and Leon Spinks, who you found time to write about. That is called agenda pushing.

BTW Wlad did have to wait around for a long time in order to unify, but he got it done.

 

Cody Koch would be a hall of famer were he around in 17BC or whenever Charles did his fighting.

 

I do realize that about Harold Johnson. Do you know Harold Johnson, in addition to being an all-time great light heavyweight champion, also beat Ezzard Charles?

I do, That's why I rate Harold Johnson higher all-time at light heavyweight than I do Ezzard Charles, who never won squat at light heavyweight and was only rated there for about two years.

For the life of me, I don't know how anyone could claim Ezzard Charles, who never won anything in the division and was only rated for a couple years as a contender, the best light heavyweight EVER.

It's laughable. Seriously.

 

Williamson turned pro late and 36 was basically his peak. Not that the fight with Wlad has anything to do with Wlad's standing.

 

Shavers was the #1 contender in 1979. Weaver was a big deal in March 1980 until December 1982. There were only two champions. Weaver was one of them.

But Holmes had already stopped Weaver in a title fight like nine months before Weaver beat Tate.

Coetzee wasn't more relevant than Weaver. Weaver knocked him out. And Tate beat Coetzee, too. Coetzee didn't win a title until FIVE YEARS into Holmes' reign.

Dokes didn't defeat Weaver until December 1982 ... four years into Holmes' reign, and it was such a controversial stoppage Dokes was ordered to fight him again and they drew.

Ali was the lineal champ when Holmes fought him.

Leon Spinks was the #1 WBC contender, having stopped the previous #1 contender Bernardo Mercado on the Ali-Holmes undercard.

Again, I ask, who was Holmes supposed to unify with to start his "lineage?"

Because all the "unifications" people ***** about that didn't happen were fighters who won belts a half a decade into Holmes' reign.

Was Larry supposed to wait FIVE YEARS to "start his lineage" with a unification?

 

Lmao no. Ur fat fighter argument doesn’t hold water here as he fought at lower weights as well. Most of the HOF are of the LHW persuasion or did their damage there. So how many hall of fame fighters did Wlad beat? One? Povetkin should make the hall. Idk if he will. Just saying that means something.

 

Because if you always fight losers you’re less likely to take Ls. That’s why very few heavies will make the Hall in the future. Or at least they shouldn’t.
Moore was not an old contender when Charles beat him. He was yet to go on the best streak of his career. As far as Marshall, Bivins, Layne and Satterfield go they ALL have better wins than anyone Wlad ever beat and that’s the bottom of Charles resume.

 

Looks, Giraffe Brunch, Wlad beat guys who could stand the grind of a IBF schedule, not some mobbed up dagos slurping pasta and fascist vino until the moment they entered the ring. Do yourself a favor and delete your post.

 

Ur insane. You’re saying Louis, Walcott,Moore, Bivins, Maxim, Marshall, etc are mobbed up phonies? ur at ur mind and no far less about the sport than I imagined.

 

Now Bob Sattefield and Rex Layne are better than Wlad?


All this Charles "love" at light heavy seems to be based primarily on him beating Archie Moore before Archie Moore won anything. It's all taken out of context.

They were good wins. But not as good as they'd have been if Charles had beaten Moore when Archie was the dominant light heavyweight champion.

Who wins a light heavyweight title fight betwee Moore and Charles in 1953, the year Moore started defending his title and Charles was losing to guys like Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes (guys Moore would beat nearly a half-dozen times) ?

Think Archie does better or worse? Does Ezzard finally become light heavyweight champion or is Archie better and Ezzard not as good?

When Moore won the title, he wasn't giving it up easy.

Jermain Taylor beat Bernard Hopkins twice for the middleweight title. But Hopkins became much more lauded when he got older and moved up to light heavyweight and went on a run there beating better fighters than he did at middleweight.

Who rates Taylor higher than Hopkins all-time at middleweight? And their fights were actually for the title. Moore and Charles' fights weren't.

 

Ur missing the point completely. Obviously Layne and Satterfield aren’t as good as Wlad (Wlads in my own top ten Hw list and Charles isn’t). But all time rankings Wlad and Holmes can’t sniff Charles jock strap. Not sure how u can even fathom an argument towards it. Who you beat matters. Who those people beat matters etc. That’s why everyone Wlad beat isn’t in the Hall because they didn’t beat anyone. That matters

 

A great place for Holmes to unify would've been against a guy with another belt. Lineage was meaningless because it ran through Ali.

 

Half of the HoFers Ezzard Charles beat never even won a title in the division he fought them in in, while half of the other half were old. One of them never even challenged for a world title. You used to be able to trip over your feet in front of a title and get inducted.

Wlad dominated his field so easily for so long that literally no HoFers were able to develop besides him and his brother. Nobody was wowed by anybody else because everybody knew he was a lightyear above them.