Tommy Loughran VS Ezzard Charles-- LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 14 Aug 2005, 20:56

It is my opinion that tommy loughran was the best light heavyweight boxer ever, and a pretty decent heavyweight as well. loughran would practice his moves in the mirror, as well as his opponents for hours n hours. he often knew exactly how to defend himself for every punch that could be thrown at him. i think he possibly had the best defense ever and he might have been the smartest boxer ever. he knew what you were gonna throw before you did. that aside, the man could not break an egg with his punch. he only recorded 18 Ko in over 100 professional matches, most of which resulted in victory. he would strike, then dissapear, which is probably why he was called the philadalphia phantom.

despite his impress boxing skills and record, i think loughran can be overlooked sometimes mostly because most of his success was at a less popular light heavyweight position. but loughran, destroyed 2 heavyweight champions. max baer and jim braddock. loughran outsmarted these 2 and theyt didnt even put up a decent fight at all.

now ezzard charles, i wont lie i dont really know a whole lot about him and even less about his successes at light heavy. but i have heard many sing high appraises for him as probably being the best light heavy ever. im not sure if this is just the random opinion of a group of people or if he actually was that dominant. that aside, i have read about him and seen a few of his fights, so i know he is also extremely talented and overlooked as well.....

no matter how successful charles was, i still like loughran. i think loughran would have outsmarted charles and found a way to win. i cant tell you how or when, but loughran was just that kind of fighter. he found a way to beat you. what do you guys think?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Aug 2005, 23:09

if u did know about him u would realize he would give loughgran a boxing lesson for 15 rounds. ezzard charles by clear unanimous decision.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 15 Aug 2005, 01:07

..no surprise from veterans here that i'll say ezzard charles. i'm an admirer of loughran though, so i won't go along with my blockbuster buddy and say he'd easily give a boxing lesson. what he would do is be effectively aggressive and with at least equal speed and much harder punch out land him and hurt him and maybe knock him out. ezzard was the most versatile of the boxer-punchers....overlooked is that he was a great in fighter. so he'd be moving and out on tommy, hurting him and outlanding him. plus...ezzard was domininant in the best era ever for light heavies....and he tended to fight up to his opposition.....and loughran would be very "up" opposition indeed. glad to see loughran brought into the discussion here. ezzard, archie and billy conn get the most high ratings these days and the clever tommy should be discussed right up with them.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Aug 2005, 01:27

look noway am i overating or disrespecting tommy loughran here. i think highly of tommy too and hes defintely in my top 10 light-H of all time. its just i think so highly of ezzard charles and say he is the greatest light-H of all time.

early in tommys career, he fought gene tunney and was knocked down and outpointed. he also fought harry greb winning one and losing 2 with a
couple No decisions. tommy hurt his right early in his career and soley relied on his left after that. the fact that he was a one handed fighter probably was the cause of his low KO percentage. out of 94 wins, only 17 were by knockout. tommy was a brilliant boxer who dominated mike mctique to win worl light heavyweight title. he did try to move up to take on heavyweights but he was knocked out by jack sharkey. he beat baer and an aging sharkey in rematch but he was beaten by unanimous decision in heeavyweight title fight against champion primo carnera. i was dissapointed that loughgran couldnt use his boxing skills to outbox carnera and stay away. but his lack of strentgh and power and the fact that he gave up the biggest size advantage ever contributed to his loss. as well as carnera stepping on his toe and breaking it.
ezzard one the other hand matched loughran in boxing skills and cleverness but ezzard also had the two fisted power and KOed a prime archie moore who is a top 5 light-H of all time.

i just think ezzards power and strentgh will enable him to land the harder blows and control the fight and he will win by decision or KO loughran.

but loughran was perhaps one of the greatest boxers of all time as well as light-H. his lack of power prevented him from beign successful at heavyweight division.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 Aug 2005, 04:24

Louhgran was a master boxer but I don't think he ahd Ezzard's speed or power. He was clever enough not to get KO'd but I see Ezzard winning comfortably down the stretch after the effects of his ahrder punching slows Loghran.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 Aug 2005, 06:59

Rory

I think you could make a case for Ezzard being the greatest p4p fighter ever. He beat a list of fighters other people avoided like Burley, Marshall and Bivins to prove himself to be the best of the guys nobody wanted to know. he also defeated Archie Moore who is considered to be the greatest Light heavy champ by many. Moore was also a top 20 p4p fighter in anybody's book (and I'm probably underestimating him with that ranking) often ranked above Charles. It's as if Ezzard's win at heavyweight somehow counts against him on these all time great listings.

He also won the heavyweight championship and defended it with honour. he beat an old, but still capable, Louis and the crafty Walcott. He was then a whisker away from winning the title back again against Rocky. Consider the noise made about Roy Jones holding a version of one title and a piece of another and then handpicking Ruiz... Jones has done well out of the sport but his achievements don't compare with Charles.

He was also a great man from what I've read and I'm pretty sure Jaclem will back this up. I know that you having seen my username will make you think I'm biased, and I am. he gets credit on forums like this because people realsie what a gifted athlete he was but in the mainstream he's all but ignored.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 16 Aug 2005, 01:31

I, too, think that Ezzard Charles could very well have been the best of them all; he gets my vote. Loughran was a master boxer who had severe hand problems throughout his career. He said he fought with a right hand that was broken- good for one good hard shot then ruined- for seven years, so he didn't dare to risk his left hand as well. Also, I don't belive he was like "boxers" of today- helpless in close. How do you fight Harry Greb close three times (at least) and not be very capable when it comes to fighting inside? I see this being a very tactical fight, going the distance and the number of clean punches being none too impressive. At the end Charles would win by decision, probably unanimous but it would be close, no more than two points. The difference would be Charles's harder punches, to the body in particular, on the occasuions when he'd be able to trap Loughran and land them.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Aug 2005, 01:55

interesting... im not doubting charles' superior punching power, which was probably the main reason why he enjoyed much more success at the heavyweight division then loughran did. but at the light heavyweight division loughran had an almost inprenitrable defense and tore up fighters like bear and braddock who were both very capable at the time..his major fault though was the fact that he couldnt break n egg with his punch.

after posting this i have been reading up on charles' light heavywegith career, and it is amazing. his track record is stellar, and i beleive i greatly underestimated him.

ive changed my chance and i beleive charles probably would be able to take a victory over loughran, but loughran was too smart to let it be a massacre or a ko i beleive n it would probly end in SD or UD.. i just think so highly of loughran mainly because ive been a james j braddock fan for the 10 of my 16 years on this earth, and i saw loughran pulverise him and it made me sick.

in the end... i beleive loughran might be one of the most underlooked fighters of all time, because he fought primarily as a light heavyweight, at a time when figures such as schmelling baer sharkey carnera, dempsey..though not fighting,still refereeing and promoting heavyweight boughts, and my hero james j braddock. but thanks for the info on charles hes a fantastic fighter and i would definatly say a top 5 p4p fighter.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 16 Aug 2005, 10:16

I see Charles winning but it'd be a close, tactical affair. This is no Charles blowout b/c Tommy was extreamly quick and crafty, with a superb defense. I actually give the speed advantage to Loughran (although I've seen no film of Charles or Loughran at light HW but comparing their HW days I see Loughran as having the faster hands). Charles would have the edge in infighting and power though which would edge him