What's the highest you can rank Ezzard Charles all time?

Well for one thing, he is most people's #1 light heavyweight all time, and given that this was a division with a log jam of all time greats, I'd say that says a lot.. In addition he beat an aged but still reigning Joe Louis, split a series with Walcott, and gave a prime Marciano two good fights... I think top 5 may be high, given his number of losses, but he certainly comes close.

 

he could be number 1 with vctories over burley, moore and walcott. all prime atg's ath their own weight.

 

4, which is where I have him. I think 5's the lowest I could rank him, as he's more or less interchangeable with Armstrong.

 

If you think he's the dead-on best, I don't even think that would be all too difficult or crazy a case to argue, really. I don't rate him there, but still. He could absolutely be 5 without even trying hard to argue. 5-10 slot is probably more often where he's rated by guys here, than not?

 

His run from 1946 (upon his return from service) to 1951 is as good as any in the sport's history I think, outside of Robinson's first 12 years. In that span he had over 50 fights, only losing once, and that a supposed bad decision to top rated heavyweight contender Elmer Ray, whom he violently knocked out in the rematch, weighing 175lbs for both fights. Apart from Ray he also beat Archie Moore 3x, Jimmy Bivins 3x, Lloyd Marshall 2x, Jersey Joe Walcott 2x, Joe Louis, Joey Maxim 2x, Gus Lesnevich, Oakland Billy Smith 2x, and many more, capturing the Heavyweight title and successfully defending it 8 times, while almost always outweighed.

Charles is well within the company of boxing's absolute elite, no question about it. Remarkable fighter.

 

I personally have him at number 7.

louis wasn't reigning when charles beat him, charles was the defending champion.

but his resume is so stacked, his skillset is so amazing and in real terms he was most liekly the best mw, lhw and hw at some point in his career. he could easily be the goat.

 

Well, his run is certainly on par with Armstrong's. He went through the exact same divisions as Fitzsimmons, and did more impressive work in each. Duran, while my favorite fighter of all time, has no serious claim to rank above Charles, as absurd as that sounds considering Duran's career accomplishments and ability level. Frankly, it just isn't there. Same goes for Leonard. Charles' resume is too damn good, his success from Middleweight to Heavyweight to impressive. As for Langford, he's above Ezz, and rightfully so.

Basically, I feel Robinson, Langford, and Greb must rank above him. Armstrong has a perfectly reasonable case to outrank him, but I consider the reverse to be true, and prefer Ezzard's top wins. Fitz, I think you'd really have to sell the case. It can be made, but I like Charles' work more in all 3 of the divisions they fought in. No one else really has an argument, at least not in my mind.

 

He's also 6-0 against guys who probably crack the top 20 all time regardless of weight, with the wins over Moore, Burley, and Louis. Made all the more impressive by the fact that he fought each opponent at a different weight class, the first two in their primes and the other when he was outweighed by 30lbs. Sickening really.

 

Charles has slowly but surely rised in eyes of many boxing fans, and rightfully so.