What ATG Heavyweights could Ezzard Charles Beat.

Think Charles beats a lot of guys especially decent contenders like Quarry, Lyle, Ellis, Byrd, Bruno etc
Some champs
Patterson Dempsey Tunney Holyfield and the best fighter he has a shot against Foreman.
I don’t mean to say these are definitive but he’s got a shot

 

And Charles was of a higher level than Tunney.

 

Try researching before commenting:

This content is protected

Tunney clearly moves much better. He was also a remarkable puncher and had a kevlar chin.

He's able to tie up Dempsey, he'll have no problem handling Charles inside.

You are really picking the dude who fumbled through his bout with Pat Valentino to beat Tunney!?!?!?

 

Is this a joke? Sorry. I am new here. It looks like you are being funny, but I cannot tell.

 

If were talking great or ATG no one. That simple.
Especially the heavyweights after the late 1930's.
Prior to the 1930's. Possibly.

 

I’m picking the guy who beat Archie Moore x3, Walcott x2, Burley, Maxim, Bivins, Ray and Louis to beat Tunney. I don’t see a problem with that. Far more proven at HW then Tunney ever was

 

Tunney's two wins over Dempsey are far better than anything Charles did across his entire career, LHw or Hw.

Charles clearly struggled with movers and was decked by lesser punchers than Tunney.

The record actually suggests Charles was still at his best when he met Marciano... if he was a few years past it, he hadn't fallen terribly far off.
Dempsey, even when he met Tunney, was far superior to Marciano. Look how their respective fates played out.

Tunney is too tough, too smart, too mobile and too hard hitting for Charles. The footage and records say it all.

 

Lol one post you’re arguing how great Charles is compared to everyone else including Ali but yet you have a serious issue with picking him over Tunney at HW who only had 7 fights? Not gonna lie little strange.

 

Because Ali's competition at Hw is great by Hw standards. It's like naming the 10 best boy bands. Either way you cut it, you lose.

Ali was more athletic than Charles and had a much better chin. But again, we're talking about competition.

I acknowledge Gene's record at Hw is horrendous. No matter how great he looked against Dempsey, his career at Hw is too short for me to warrant ranking him there, even though it was his natural weight.

But this isn't about who has the better record, and just like Ali would, Tunney spanks Charles.

I acutally wouldn't be surprised if he makes it short and nasty. Tunney abandoned his bombardier ways against Dempsey because he respected Dempsey's offense and athleticism. He has no reason to pay the same respect to Charles or Marciano. They get exposed.

 

Agree to disagree on everything good sir. I like Tunney but he only had the win over very rusty Dempsey x2 at Hw. Almost getting stopped the second time. I’m not convinced he takes prime Dempsey and I def don’t think he stood a chance against Marciano. Charles seemed like a better boxer then Tunney to me even. So you see we will never agree here. I do hold Tunney very highly at the LHW level though.

 

I agree Dempsey was not at his best. I am not sure how rusty he really was, though.
My argument, would be: Gene wasn't yet at his best, either. Sadly, he retired before showing us what he was really capable of.

But yeah, I respect your opinion even if we disagree on minor details (in the grand scheme of things).

 

Tunney was a better mover, sure. Not sure I'd call him a remarkable puncher, but a good one. Certainly not better than Charles. Probably does hold the chin advantage.

Charles was a better in-fighter than Dempsey. Not the same ferocity, but from a technical viewpoint. He's a completely different matchup inside than Dempsey, so simply saying "he can tie up Dempsey, so he'll have no problem with Charles" doesn't hold water. Charles did some of his more effective work in the clinch, especially at the higher weights.

If we had more footage of Tunney, I'm sure we'd be able to critique his poor showings in the same way you managed to do with one solitary Charles fight.

 

Dempsey said Tunney hit him harder than anyone else he ever faced.

Tunney was still relatively green and he decked maestro Loughran several times IN THE FIRST ROUND.

Gibbons was at the end of a long illustrious career when Tunney retired him, but before that KO there was no sign of Gibbons stopping.

Greb clearly HAD faded when Gene finally bested him, but he did it in a way no one else could. He kept Greb at the end of his power punches.

Tunney's KO record speaks for itself, and he was improving just as he was filling into his Heavyweight frame.

His years of decapitating foes has gone forgotten due to the gravity of his victory over Dempsey and the fact that the public loves the "brains over brawns" trope which Tunney so perfectly delivered.
It's kinda how Las Vegas Elvis overtook previous iterations of The King in the collective mind of society.

I can see an argument that collectively Charles had better competition start to finish than Gene, and he didn't engineer his career like Gene. But this really feels like a Pacquiao-Mayweather debate. Between the two I like Pac MUCH better as a person and professional than Mayweather, but the outcome of that fight was pretty predictable. And at no point does Pac beat Floyd.

Oh, and check out the Valdez fight. I am not sure there's recordings of it, but the news report is damming. Charles got man-handled. Yes, he's more skilled than Dempsey on the inside. He is definitely better refined, particularly defensively. But he lacks Dempsey's strength. He would have never been able to stop Sharkey like Jack did.

Assuming it even came to it, Gene would just clinch and wear Ez down before resetting.

Again, I really suggest you WATCH Ezzard Charles' fights before further posting.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I've watched his fights. Believe me, I have little desire to watch any more Heavyweight Charles. He was never a favorite of mine from an aesthetic standpoint. The Emile Griffith of the Heavyweights. But, as with Griffith, I can't deny his effectiveness.

You mentioned in your first post how Charles struggled with movers. If we're discussing the mid to late 50s Charles (akin to the mid 2010s Pacquiao in your analogy) then OK. I'd say he struggled with more than just them. I'm talking about the best version at Heavy. Roughly '49 to '51. Small window. The majority of his prime came well before that.

 

Give over you clown.