Who ranks higher at 175? Bob Foster or Ezzard Charles

It's a tough fight but you have to favor Charles .. I think Foster would have taken Spinks head off and I like Michael a lot ..

 

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, light-heavyweight division was very weak with Bob Foster being an obvious exception. In comparison, the division was much stronger when both Ezzard Charles and Michael Spinks were light-heavyweights. Charles had a fine record while the best light-heavyweights of his day. I doubt if Foster would have piled up as fine a record while facing the same competition as Charles did.

Among the fine crop of light-heavyweights of the late 1970s and early 1980s, Eddie Gregory, later known as Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, may have had the most talent and skills. But Gregory seemed to lack the fire in the belly while in ring, resulting in him putting forth some very poor efforts and losing fights that he should have won. In comparison, Spinks seemed to give his best effort every time that he stepped into the ring, resulting in him doing better against top light-heavyweights than Gregory during their respective careers. As a result, I would chose Spinks over Gregory.

- Chuck Johnston

 

How is this even a legitimate question. Obviously it's Charles

 

So a LHW beating HWs means less than a LHW beating LHWs? Help me out here.

 

He's one of a kind isn't he.

 

No, obviously it proves Charles was simply too good for the LHW division because at Just 175 he could take on and beat 180-190-200lb established heavyweight contenders.

What I am saying is, once he was beating those guys up and taking their heavyweight rakings off them Charles is a heavyweight at that point despite weighing 175 himself.

Included among these wins prior to winning the HW title Charles was beating Bivins who at 184 had not been rated as a LH since 1941. Maxim had also been rated as a top ten HW since 1943.

 

Because they were rated HWs, right? Myself, I can't think less of a LHW beating rated HWs than a LHW beating rated LHWs.

 

I agree. But that is not what I am saying.

What I am saying though is why do guys remembered as LHW get chalked up as part as Charles LHW resume when they were OVER LHW and rated as HW when Charles beat them!!!

Also, what I am saying is why is it that Schmeling, Braddock, Patterson, Tunney proberbly Dempsey and many others beside Charles who were 175 or less fir Just as long not remembered so much as LH ATGs?

 

You simply HAVE to be trolling. Excellent job of it too.

 

I am correct about Charles. He was too good for the LHW division, spending just three years there (like Patterson did) although Charles has the better resume because for the short time he was 175 he beat better 180lb plus heavyweights who used to be lightheavyweights.

 

Charles was campaining in the light heavyweights across a span of 8 years. This cannot be disputed. Even if you want to be utterly ridiculous and take out the 3 year period service took away you are left with 5 years.

If you want to be childishly argumentative and only count the fights Charles had where both participants were in the light heavyweight bracket you are looking at about 33.

So Charles had about 33 legitimate 175 bouts.
Patterson had about 19 legit 175 bouts.
Foster had about 23.
Spinks had 19.

Patterson was making 175 for about 3 years.
Charles was making it for 8 years, 5 catering for your obnoxiousness.

Charles had a crapload of other fights where he was under 175 and belting opponents heavier.

The vast majority of semi normal people will give Charles full credit as a light heavyweight for beating bigger opponents while he himself was under 175. This is the sane thing to do.

If Michael Spinks beat Holmes, Tyson, Witherspoon, Page and others while weighing 175 or less he would sure as hell get that credit too. If a guy weighing 175 was belting legitimate heavyweight contenders then fighters in his own division are sure as hell in trouble.

Charles resume at 175 is sensational.

Let this be the end of all the rot about Charles not being there long enough and all the other silly stuff. It's right there in black and white.

 

Because he himself wasn't over LHW. Since he did the work as a LHW, it should be seen as work by a LHW.

Tunney is seen as an ATG LHW by many. The others, as far as I know, don't have multiple wins, when weighing inside the LHW limit, against guys like Moore, Bivins, Marshal and Maxim. If they do, they belong in the discussion.

 

C. this statement is nonsense .

 

Choklab = troll

 

Right. I get it, unbelievably I didn't quite see it from that angle, but it is also correct. for me, I was seeing it as the guy beat a HW rated guy, he takes his rating, he is then a HW. certainly, this is the best work of a LH.

this is also correct, but by the same token a lot of that number (maxim, Bivins, Satterfeild) were rated as HW too. as HW champion Charles defended against two light heavyweight champions in overweight matches.