The only fighter more overrated than Ezzard Charles…

So you are doubling down on a worthless factoid.

You should go ahead and rank Holmes above Louis because Louis took a pre-title loss.

 

Unless you're awkward like Spinks, negating Larry's jab presents itself as the most difficult and first aspect of Larry to be dealt with. its not just versatile but so ornery and powerful. So much of Holmes style comes off that jab, and I think if it can be overcome then he comes much less imposing (see Spinks v Holmes 1). Out-jabbing Holmes is a feat in itself and it visibly frustrates and confuses him when it occurs.

I debate with myself once a week whether I feel that prime Mike Tyson is the H2H goat, or entirely overrated and not in my contention for top 10 heavyweights.

 

No, I'm saying I rank Holmes title reign more highly than Wilders. The consensus is he was THE champion during that reign and the best heavyweight in the world, for most of it. Neither is true of Wilder. Of course that isnt the only factor that should be taken into consideration when ranking fighters, but it's relevant to how I rank Holmes and Wilder from a historical perspective.

 

He is not.

 

Nobody is going to put Wilder above Holmes, but lineage has zero to do with it.

As for Holmes’ comp supposedly being better than Wlad’s, Witherspoon and Williams were cherry picks of untested opponents, Norton was past it and shined due to Holmes’ injury and lack of power, and Cooney never panned out. He got Weaver early.

Byrd, Haye, and Iggy were prime champions. Povetkin and Peter were undefeated and prime. Chagaev was a little bit past it but still top 5.

 

Becoming lineal champ doesnt define how I rank a fighter, indeed in this very thread I've been disagreeing with a poster who doesnt think Charles should be ranked no. 1 at LHW, at least partially because he was never champ. Viewed in context it can be a contributing factor though. Again, my post you initially quoted was in response to someone saying Holmes defences shouldn't count for anything otherwise why isnt Wilder rated just as high. I stand by the reasons I gave for disagreeing with that view. Theres a correlation between establishing lineage and all time rankings. All serious contenders for top 10 all time at HW established lineage. That alone doesnt make them better than Wilder, but it's one, of many, indicators that they are. That was the point I was making which you chose to question.

I have a different take on the relative merits of Wlads and Holmes key wins, but I respect what you're saying. FYI, I rank Wlad 7 all time at HW. Couple of questions for you - 1) How to you think that compares to the average boxing historian and/or Classic forum poster? 2) where do you rank him?

 

1. Idk
2. Wlad@5 and Holmes@6

Wilder barely has half of the title defenses of Holmes. That’s his issue plus losing the trilogy to Fury.

 

Larry Holmes is a solid top 10 heavyweight of all time by any knowledgeable boxing expert on the sport . Most have him around 5 give or take a spot. As for Ezzard Charles, you've already been taken to the woodshed on such a ridiculous statement as him being overrated . He was out of his natural weight by a mile at heavyweight and still acquitted himself very well. If you had a time machine and brought a prime 175 lb Charles to the year 2022 I'd take the Cincinnati Cobra about a year to go through Beterbiev, Bivol, Canelo, Benevidez , and any other second tier light heavy.

 

Our respective rankings of Wlad & Holmes aren't wildly different, if you pardon the pun. I have Holmes clearly ahead of Wlad, but it's sufficiently close that I wouldn't have felt strong enough to post questioning someone ranking them as you have.

I did feel sufficiently strong enough to post questioning an implied view that Holmes title defences didn't count any more than Wilder's do, when ranking them historically. It was me mentioning lineal in that response that you objected to.

Wilder was never the consensus no.1 HW in the world &, as is more commonly the case with alphabet title defences, relative to defences of lineal champions pre the alphabet bodies (or at least when there were less of them), his winning defences weren't as good as those of Holmes, taken as a whole. For e.g., he never beat the HW generally considered to be the best in the world aside from him, Holmes did, arguably on more than 1 occasion.

Defences of a single champion, all other factors being equal, likely being of a higher quality than defences of 4+ champions, is self evident. Yes, there were 2 alphabet champs when Holmes was lineal, so you could argue that point is diluted to an extent, but only to an extent. As lineal champion, Holmes was recognised as "the" true champion at HW. Typically throughout his reign he'd have been the most high profile champion a contender could have fought, which at least partially explains why his defences were better than Wilder's.

Imo, it isn't an irrelevant coincidence that one had a long reign as lineal champion, whilst the other was never lineal champion. If you still can't see why I choose to reference Holmes being lineal champion, as one contributing factor to help explain to a poster why I think Holmes reign does more for his ranking than Wilder's does for his, I think I've ran out of ways to try and explain it to you.

 

Would I have Ezzard Charles higher if he didn't lose 19 additional fights?

Is that really a question?

YES. Of course I would rate him higher if he didn't lose 19 additional fights. If Anthony Joshua loses 16 more times, will you look at him as a lesser fighter? I WILL.

I remember when Roy Jones, after beating Ruiz, was being lauded on boards as possibly the BEST FIGHTER Pound-for-Pound all-time. He was what, 49-1. And the one loss was a DQ which he avenged with a one-round KO.

And guys who posted on boards who had been in the gym with Ray Robinson were saying yes, I think Roy Jones is the best ever.

Then Jones got knocked cold by Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson about three months apart ... and nobody said that anymore. Then he got knocked out by Danny Green and everyone watched to see how far Jones would plummet.

Saying Ezzard Charles who never won anything at light heavyweight and was only rated in the division for like two years is the best ever at that weight is a joke and an insult to the great light heavyweight champions in history who won and defended titles in wars there.

And saying he's the best all-time in the sport, BUT YOU HAVE TO IGNORE his last 40 fights ... because he sucked half the time ... doesn't wash with me.

Seems like everyone wants to ignore tens of losses by the oldtimers, and then they crucify modern fighters who have an off night and still win.

Seems like everyone just lists names of fighters old-timers beat and we're supposed to applaud, but if a modern fighter takes on a name they'd better be 100 percent PRIME or it doesn't count.

People can't have it both ways. If you're going to hold losses against modern fighters, hold losses against older fighters. If you're going to bash modern guys because everyone they fought wasn't PRIME, then you'd better bash old timers for fighting guys who weren't at their absolute best prime, too.

Don't just list some names and go ... see, he beat them, he's great.

 

You contest its laughable that Charles is ranked no 1 at LHW. I disagree.

In support of your argument you've said you think Moore would have beaten Charles after he became champion. If your ranking criteria includes your expected results of fights that didnt happen, then fair enough, who am I to question that? Mine factors fights that actually happened. Charles went 3-0 vs Moore. Moore was 34 and a veteran of 109 fights at the time of the 3rd fight. I dont consider him green or pre prime and think it highly unlikely he improved significantly thereafter.

You rank Johnson higher than Charles at 175. I dont. You've complained that people who rank Charles no. 1 at 175 cite wins in fights that weren't contested at 175lbs. I've agreed that factoring fights that only happened at the weight you're ranking that fighter at is a reasonable criteria to follow.

Johnson and Charles never fought at 175lbs. The best LHW either fought is Archie Moore, who Charles went 3-0 against and Johnson went 0-3 with at 175lbs, 0-4 if you include a contest Moore weighed 175.5lbs.

We are in agreement that one of us has made a claim that is laughable.

 

Do you not put context into this? Do you feel the same about Holyfield with his 10 losses in an era where they fought far less against far lesser competition? Or do you take the fighter at their best and whom they actually beat? Taking the losses of fighters far out of prime is ridiculous. I even find criticizing Holmes for his Tyson loss as ridiculous. Maybe a little context and critical thinking in regards.

 

I believe Ring Magazine ranked Holyfield the third-best heavyweight in history after Ali and Louis when he defeated Mike Tyson in 1996 or 1997 (and he was 34-3).

But he wasn't considered the third best heavyweight ever anymore when he got his boxing licensed revoked after losing to Larry Donald in 2004 and fell to 38-8-2.

I think the last list I saw from them had him in the 11th spot all-time.

Losses matter. (At least when it comes to modern fighters.) Old timers like Charles seem to get whole decades put on IGNORE by some fans. Those same fans tend to be the ones so hyper critical of any misstep by modern boxers.

If I treat old timers with the same harshness people dish out to modern boxers, I'm just treating them all the same.

If any time a modern guy is staggered badly in a round but still wins ... and that's held against him like it's some TERRIBLE thing ... I'm certainly not going to forgive an entire decade where a guy like Charles lost basically half his fights.

To hell with that.

 

Solid post