Why isnt Ezzard Charles regarded as a puncher?

Maybe not at HW but south of that weight Division, I think he is pretty highly regarded.

 

Coming directly after Louis and shortly before Marciano makes his punching power seem lesser than it really was by comparison.

 

Charles was a vicious puncher...until an opponent died after one of Ez's fight. From that point on, he throttled back (See Emile Griffith's career also).

 

Actually there were statements from Charles' camp that he was looking just as sharp and dangerous in preparation for the first Marciano fight and the Satterfield fight

And he didn't seem to be holding back against Walcott either

But the point still stands. Ezzard is an underrated puncher. Killed a man in the ring, knocked Walcott down with a beautiful counter

 

never knew why.

 

Imo he was a heckuva puncher at 175. Not so much at heavyweight, no.

 

He is one of THE great boxer-punchers.

He could really hit. I’d probably have him in a list of, I don’t know....’The 25 greatest punchers of all time’ or something like that.

 

Charles could punch.

 

A similar aspect as Michael Moorer as well ,the move up in weight caused a dramatic drop in power. But Charles had skill' beyond just being a ''Hard Hitter ''.That s what made him a great fighter and got him the heavyweight title .

 

He isn't? He should be anyway.

 

This is a valid point .He suffered by following a legend,didnt have much personality or razzmatazz about him and was better in the lower divisions.

 

Not sure I see that. Having been part of this forum for 10+ years, he seems very highly regarded? But maybe we have visited different threads?