The only fighter more overrated than Ezzard Charles…

Don't be naive. You know how this works.

One guy gets in the Hall of Fame, and gradually, over the years, they start putting people he had significant fights with or who he lost to in the Hall of Fame. And then guys they had significant fights or lost to get in.

Some guys can wait a decade or more to get in. Then there's a slow year and they get in.

You don't think anyone Wlad beat will make the Hall of Fame? Wlad just got in the Hall of Fame this year.

In the next 10 or 15 years, names will start appearing on the HOF ballots like David Haye, Hasim Rahman, Alexander Povetkin, Chris Byrd, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sam Peter, Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua when they retire, who knows who else ... it happens in dribs and drabs ...

And 20 years later Wlad fought a laundry list of Hall of Famers.

How many decades was Lloyd Marshall waiting to get in? Now Ezzard has a win over "hall of famer" Lloyd Marshall.

 

When you realize Holmes's win over a faded Norton is the biggest win of his career it makes a post-prime Muhammad Ali's three competitive fights with him look even better. To be fair Kenny makes any boxer who can't back him up life's hell.

 

B1tch please, compare this to what you said about Archie Moore cmon lad. Not to say Larry isn’t GREAT for a HW but in the depths of boxing overall he ain’t great.

 

well from a P4P even playing field scenario, as P4P is supposed to be, both Charles & Holmes would decapitate Fury - 2 TOP Tier Fighters vs a 3rd Rate Fury!

 

I didnt say Johnsons victory over Charles didn't count. You said you didnt agree with Charles being ranked no. 1 at LHW and that when questioned, people that do quote wins he had in fights that weren't contested at 175. You then claimed Johnson may be better than Charles because he beat him. Addressing those 2 points specially, I pointed out that :

1) Charles went 3-0 vs a consensus top 2 ATG at 175, in fights where both fighters weighed under 175.
2) Johnson beat Charles in a fight contested at Heavyweight. It speaks for him at Heavyweight and p4p.

As for your points on age, whilst theres clearly a correlation between age and prime, it's not exact. I'd argue Tyson was further removed from his prime in his mid 20's than Moore or Hopkins were in their mid 40's, for example. Specifically:

Louis was shot when Charles beat him

Charles was past prime when Johnson beat him

Its difficult to tell with Moore. He was at an age where, particularly fighters from that era, were typically past their best. However, in his case, his 10 year reign as LHW champion was ahead of him. So was he past his best or pre prime at those ages? My take is as brilliant as Moore was, a prime Charles was better. Moore blows Charles out of the water for longevity though, as he does most fighters.

 

I wasnt commenting on the quality of the Ali win, just that it marked the passing of lineage. I agree that Ali was shot to hell by the time of the Holmes fight. I think of Holmes as "the man" at the weight from Norton onwards.

I rank Holmes above Wlad because I think he has slightly better wins and didnt lose 3 times before he was 35. That said, I acknowledge Wlad got better so those loses shouldn't affect appraising how good he became and he was every bit as dominant as Holmes was once he got going. Ranking Wlad 1 place above Holmes is defensible, even though I dont.

 

Some posts are comedy central in this one. Some should be linked to online dictionaries under "disingenuous".

 

Holmes is easily the most overrated boxer in history. He's an arrogant ***** who has a **** poor attitude and in general, not liked by anyone.

If there was one person I could throw into "boxing prison" it would be Larry Holmes. Nothing gave me more satisfaction than watching Tyson flatten him with that straight right. It was cathartic.

 

Larry Holmes: top 10 heavyweight all-time. Any position from 3-10 is fine. If you rate him outside the top 10 or top 15 even, I’d say you’re probably underrating him. He earned his place among the great heavyweights.

Ezzard Charles: number 1 or 2 all-time at light-heavyweight and a top 15 heavyweight.
Certainly has a strong case for a top 10 p4p all-time spot if you rate him at no. 1 at light-heavy and just outside top 10 at heavyweight; top 5 is very debatable (as is almost any position in the all-time top 10) and I personally don’t believe he’s no. 1 p4p.

 

I agree with all that. I rank Holmes higher than Wlad as he didnt lose until he was past prime and he his best wins were better, imo. I do have Wlad top 10 though.

 

In your initial post you complained that people defending their ranking of Charles as the greatest at LHW do so by quoting wins in fights not contested at 175lbs. The implication being only fights contested at a division should be considered when ranking fighters at that weight. That seems as reasonable a premise to base rankings on as any to me. Fight records contested at 175lbs between Charles, Moore and Johnson:

Charles 3-0 Moore. Including a KO and a 9-1/10-0 decision win.

Moore 3-0 Johnson. 4-0 if you count a contest where Moore was 175.5lbs.

 

I don't think you have to make it that complicated to be honest.

From 1942 to the end of 1951, Charles scored a record of 73-6-1.
After 1951, Charles scored a record of 22-19-0.

I think it's quite clear that he was significantly diminished by the early 1950s. He could still produce a strong performance from time to time, but he also lost to fighters he'd never lose to in his prime.

Not all fighters age the same way. I guess you can criticize Charles for fighting through the 1950s, but does it mean that you'd have him higher had he retired in 1951 instead? Does it make any sense?

 

I've seen peoples lists of top light heavies or p4p's where Moore has been higher than Charles ??
I like both boxers and both are all time greats but Charles is as overrated as Sugar Ray Robinson if you can imagine that ??

 

So we agreed that it's a completely worthless factoid.

And Holmes has twice as many loses after 35 as Wlad. Wlad was the best fighter on the planet at age when Holmes was losing twice to a light heavyweight and getting laid out by Tyson.

And you're mistaking Wlad's dominance with his opposition being bad.

 

I was responding to someone who asked why Holmes number of defences was relevant to his ranking, citing Wilder as an example why it shouldn't be. I explained why Holmes title defences counted for more than Wilders in my view, and stand by those reasons.

I agree a 35-38 year old Wlad was better than Holmes at that age. All other factors being even, losses at the age was Wlad was for his first 3 are more detrimental to how I rank a fighter than losses incurred post 35.

I dont think Wlads opposition was bad as such, I just rate that of Holmes slightly higher.