WHAT IS THE GREATEST ACHEIVEMENT BY A BOXER INSIDE THE RING?

[Ezzard]

I think ezzrad Charles ' achievement is overlooked. He started as a middleweight and eventually won the Heavyweight title. People tried to say that RJJ made hsitory but Charles did it first and didn't just win a paper title.

Yes, but as Brockton pointed out, Fitzsimmons won the MW title and then jumped up to win the HW title, so he did it before Ezzard was even born.

yes, of course... I didn't mean to belittle Fitz's accomplishment, just trying to promote Ezzard.

1 point to make is that Fitzsimmon's reputation seems enhanced by his HW title whereas I'd argue that Charles' isn't. Charles rep often seems to be as a good champion whereas I view him as an all-time p4p great.

Some of the old timers fought with terrible disadvantages. Langford nearly blind, Gren blind in 1 eye, Gans going over 40 rounds with TB.

[walshb]

I think we're forgetting Julio Cesar Cahvez's amazing unbeaten run up until Randall beat him...I think he went about 93-0 before being beat

[barry]

>>>I didn't mean to belittle Fitz's accomplishment<<<

But your belittling Jones' accomplishments, and sorry but Charles has not done what Jones did...Charles won the heavyweight title after Louis retired, so when he won the title...it was in fact a paper title, which he solidified when Louis came back and Charles boxed his ears off, but Charles did not win titles at 160, 168, or 175...Jones did, so that has to be respected just as much as anything Charles, or any other fighter has accomplished!

[The Great John L]

>>>I didn't mean to belittle Fitz's accomplishment<<<

But your belittling Jones' accomplishments, and sorry but Charles has not done what Jones did...Charles won the heavyweight title after Louis retired, so when he won the title...it was in fact a paper title, which he solidified when Louis came back and Charles boxed his ears off, but Charles did not win titles at 160, 168, or 175...Jones did, so that has to be respected just as much as anything Charles, or any other fighter has accomplished!

Except for the fact that RJJ beat Ruiz. Just kidding -- RJJ's was indeed an incredible accomplishment, especially when you consider that he beat BHop and Toney on the way to the multiple titles.

[walshb]

My top three would be
1. Barry McGuigan's performance against Cruz in 100+ degree heat
2. Duan defeating Leonard
3. JC beating Taylor with 2 secs remaining

Please dont go down that road, He didnt beat Taylor :x

I almost forgot shoeshine. Richard Steele's call in that fight was one of the greatest performances in a ring. It was certainly one of the most correct and accurate

[barry]

One thing that a lot of people forget to realize about Jones, unlike many fighters that have now won titles in three different divisions, Jones is one of those few that have won titles in three of the traditional eight weight classes and not three titles in the 17 weight class era...of course others being Fitzsimmons and Armstrong, who were the only two to win three titles in the eight traditional divisions, but later on of course there was Duran, Leonard and Hearns...who not only won a couple of jr division titles, but also three in the traditional sense, which is certainly a lot more impressive than other accomplishments.

It's sad that all the extra and unneeded divisions and various sanctioning organizations have cheapened how special it really is for a fighter to win titles in three divisions, which when you honestly look at it...Fitzsimmons and Armstrong are the only true three division world champions as they fought the true world champion for each of their titles, whereas the others won a title, but most of the time it was only one of the three sanctioning titles..

[Chuck1052]

Ezzard Charles fought at a time when a number of the
weight divisions were loaded with talent, especially
the light-heavyweight division, which had Charles,
Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, and
Joey Maxim just after World War II. Yet Charles
dominated that division. Yes, Roy Jones Jr. had
tremendous talent, but lacked the durability
to get through the mentioned group of fighters.
Jones fought when the talent pool was very
shallow.

- Chuck Johnston

[silkov]

Charles may well have won titles at Middleweight, Lightheavyweight and Heavyweight given the chance but he never got a sniff of a title bout at 160 or 175 so had to go for the Heavyweight title. Charles didn't have the luxury of being able to pick from 3 or 4 'world titles' at every weight like Jones did. Had he this luxuray I've no doubt Charles would have won 3 titles as well.
Charles beat the number one contender for the heavyweight title and made about a dozen defences while Jones only fought at Heavy once and against one of the poorest fighters ever to claim the 'title', so really Jones record at heavy does not bare comparison to Charles record imo.

[silkov]

Fighting Harada should really have been a 3 weight champion at 112, 118 and 126 but was robbed in his first fight with Johnny Famechon.

[barry]

>>>so really Jones record at heavy does not bare comparison to Charles record imo.<<<

Of course it doesn't...not even close, but Jones should get the credit that he has truly earned in the ring. Jones pretty much cleaned out the light heavyweight division winning every belt that matters, except the linear, which wasn't a belt, but was the most important, but that is just as much the fault of DM as Jones and Jones certainly fought a lot better competition at 175 than DM did.

I have little doubt that Charles would have won the world title at 160 and 175 had he been given the chance, but unfortunately the history of boxing is loaded with many what ifs, or should have beens. I'm not degrading anyting about Charles as I think he was an all-time great, but I will not overlook Jones just because I don't like him, which many people do.

[Ezzard]

>>>I didn't mean to belittle Fitz's accomplishment<<<

But your belittling Jones' accomplishments, and sorry but Charles has not done what Jones did...Charles won the heavyweight title after Louis retired, so when he won the title...it was in fact a paper title, which he solidified when Louis came back and Charles boxed his ears off, but Charles did not win titles at 160, 168, or 175...Jones did, so that has to be respected just as much as anything Charles, or any other fighter has accomplished!

Charles might not have won those titles but he did beat Burley, Bivins, Marshall, Archie Moore, Maxim, layne, Satterfield, Walcott, lesnevich, ray, Barosa and a host of other top fighters. Charles record at 175 is far far superior to RJJ who won 'a' title a few other versions along the way. Charles achieved far more than RJJ, you only have to compare records to see that.

If alphabet belts turn you on then fine but the real achievement is who you beat. RJJ won 1 fight against Hopkins, 1 fight against Toney and beat an old and naturally smaller McCallum. To me Ruiz would not have even been a top 10 contender when Charles fought. Ezzard couldn't hide behind multilple sanctioning bodies and their haphazard rankings. RJJ won a version of the HW title but nobody believes he was the best best HW in the world, not for a moment.

It's a fair argument to say that RJJ fought who he could and adpated himself to the way boxing is run now. Jones is obviously a talented athlete but his achievements pale in comparison to Charles. The fact that you even bring this up illustrates my point: RJJ receives so many p4p plaudits whilst Ezzard does not.

I know you're a fan of RJJ, Barry. I have a few criticisms of him it's true, but overall I have to admire his skill and his physical abilities, and I rate him as a fighter. I just can't see for a moment how he compares with Charles or how anyone could rate him above Ezzard p4p.

[barry]

I've always been someone that has given Charles very much credit and I have researched his career very thouroughly, but I also give other fighters the same kind of credit without letting my negative thoughts about the fighters personality interfere with my judgement of what the fighter accomplished in the ring...Lennox Lewis is a prime example as he is a fighter that I have disliked about as much as any fighter. I could not stand his boring style and the fact that he had a less than spectacular chin, but he was the best of his era and he beat the best of his era without ducking anyone.

When it comes down to overall achievments Charles just simply does not have the same accompolishments that Jones does and in that respect it's Charles who pales in comparision to what Jones has accomplished and that is fact, not opinion.

As a matter of statistics, overall Jones had more title fights than Charles, won titles in four divisions (I don't like the various sanctioning organizations but they are a fact of boxing today, but Jones could have beaten the linear champions at 160, 168 and 175, just Like Charles could have won the titles at 160 and 175 if given the opportunity) of which he beat the best that 160 had to offer for the title, he beat the best that 168 had to offer for the title and he beat the best that 175 had to offer...of course he beat probably the worst heavyweight belt holder in history, but fact remains he did win and he did it in three of the traditional eight weight classes.

Like I said earlier, I have little doubt that Charles would have won titles at 160 and 175 if he had been given the chance, but the fact remains that he didn't. In some of my all-time lists I have Charles ranked 15 at heavyweight and 3 at light heavyweight, behind Langford and Fitzsimmons and I have Jones at 8. I think Charles would have beat Jones if the two fought, but Charles did not accomplish as much as Jones has...sorry but that is just a fact!

[Ezzard]

You can't really compare who had the most title fights when one guy has around 4 titles to choose from each at 5 different weights (giving him potentially 20 titles to fight for) and the other 3 titles, one at each weight. That's a 3:20 ratio in favour of Jones. I know you say that these titles are a fact of boxing today and I know that you agree that Charles would have won these titles if he were fighting today so there seems to be little point in holding this up as evidence in any comparison.

Once you take the discrepancy in available titles into account then I question your perception that RJJ accomplished more. Roy beat Ruiz and dropped back down. I don't blame him. It took a lot of nerve to fight a much biggger man and Roy proved his point. Ezzard won the title against a rated contender. I know you called it a paper title but Louis had retired, someone had to be the new champion and having 2 contenders fight for the title seems about as fair as it can be. Charles might not have been popular but he beat a great fighter in Walcott for his crown. Louis was way way past his best but was still Louis. Charles made 8 successful defences before losing his title. He then gave Marciano a life and death struggle in his first fight. Can you imagine Roy at that age fairing so well against a peak Holyfield?

I say Ezzard didn't have the opportunities to lift as many belts but I'm also saying that these belts have lost their significance because there are now so many of them. I also believe that Charles accomplished more because he fought better opponents, in fact probably a step or two up in terms of the quantity of quality fighters. I guess Roy fought who he could, who was available to him, so in that way he was handicapped.

Maybe it's me, maybe I'm too baised towards Ezzard and the old timers but it seems to me that Charles' accomplishments are far more substantial than Roy's.

[silkov]

I agree that the likes of Charles and Moore accomplished more in their careers than Jones if you measure the weight of accomplishment by their opposition. Just imagine how many titles these men would have won if they had operated in Jones era, ....the mind boggles really. The difference in depth between the 40s/50s and 90s to now is hard for most people to concive... there were so many talented fighters and most of todays 'champions' would probably struggle to make the top 10 in Charles era. You look at Winky Wright who is a very good boxer but much of his success is because boxers today don't know how to deal with a decent jab!.
As for Jones win over Ruiz, he recived loads of plaudits for it but basically it was a case of a good little man beating a pretty mediocre big man.
I think Archie Moore scored much more praiseworthy wins over heavies of a much better standered... such as Nino Valdez... than Jones win over Ruiz. And Ruiz's loss to Toney just again sums up how bad he really is.
The fact that Ruiz is still one of the top heavies in the world just proves how awful the division now is... certainly at its lowest talentwise that its ever been in its history.

[barry]

I'm completely old-school in how I view boxing and I am very much for the old fighters. I mean boxing today has continued to sink lower and lower with bullshit stunts like the upcoming Ann Wolfe-Bo Skipper bout and fighters 50 and 60 years old obtaining a boxing license, but especially the alphabet titles which has been the worst thing that has ever happened to the sport. I’m as big a fan of boxing as it gets but all the crap that has been allowed and continues to be allowed in boxing has just about turned me off from boxing to where I am going to quit watching current boxing completely and just stick to researching pre-1950 boxing history, which is very much a possibility unless a big change can be made and things turn around, which is one reason that I really support a national commission because I really hope that it can make a difference before boxing is dead.

As to Ezzard Charles, I agree in that I think Charles is one of the most underrated fighters of all-time primarily because he came along right after a very beloved champion in Louis and I also think that he is one of the p4p greats. Charles was simply outstanding at the 160-175 range and he was great as a heavyweight. The linear championship is what I like go by, which Charles did not get until Louis came back and he beat Louis well, like you said regardless of him coming out of retirement…it was still Joe Louis. Charles beat some of the best fighters ever and his quality of competition, without a doubt, greatly outweighs the quality of opposition that Jones faced.

There is no doubt that boxing record have become very cheapened by all the multiple divisions and especially all the bullshit sanctioning organizations, which I hate with a passion, but I do like the fact that Jones won the titles in three of the traditional weight classes. All the divisions and alphabet titles have made it difficult for researchers…should we go with our opinion and put asterisks beside a lot of records? Should we just ignore a lot of the world title records of today because of the easy availability of winning a world title, or should we list everything as it is and call it the same as that of old? It’s really frustrating because I am so partial to the old timers, or anything pre-1960. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and discussed about boxing today and where in history should today be listed in the keeping of boxing records!

[silkov]

I agree totally, boxing today really is a shambles compared with 20 years ago let alone 40 years ago. The talent level has become so thin we really have reached the point where there is more 'champions' than contenders.
Jones was definately an outstanding talent, but when looking at his career or any of the other modern 'champs' we have to realise the difference in depth of competition between now and the past eras. Fighters such as Hatton, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Ottke making 16+ defences!... is this because they are the greatest ever champions at their weight, no its because most of their opposition has been mediocre at best. Hatton is a pretty good fighter but I doubt that he'd have won a world title 20 or 30 years ago... he certainly wouldn't have made 16+ defences of his 'Title'.
If boxing carrys on like this its just going to end up like wwf wrestling... in many ways its already reached that level.
I spend most of my time now watching fights and reading about fighters of the past because it is generally much more interesting than the diluted overhyped stuff we get today. People seem genuinely shocked when there is a 'great fight' these days. Its a damn shame!.... :x

[Ezzard]

Barry

Thanks for the reply on the Charles-Jones debate. There's no doubt that almost everyone on here agrees with you. The problem for boxing is that it's such a hard sport and now other sports pay more for an average profootball/tennis/etc player than an average pro boxer can dream of getting. So the talent pool is shallow comparatively but it seems that the sanctioning bodies have diluted this even further. The multiple titles allow the top fighters to pretty much avoid one another and this cannot be good for the sport.

Anyway, one point I'd like you to address for me is the linear title. I agree that it is this which we should look to for our champions but when a champion retires then what? Surely a champion unable to fight or who has retired from the sport has to be replaced. I know some people don't regard Marvin Hart as a champion but Jeffries picked the two combatants (not a bad way of solving the problem, certainly I'd trust Jim more than the alphabet boys) and the winner was Hart. There must be some mechanism by which a fighter can retire and yet the division continue. When tunney retired there was no uproar about Schmeling being champion (other than the nature of the victory) because of lineage. Surely Charles deserves recognition as champion the moment he beat Walcott. Who else could be the champion? Louis comming back solved the problem but I'd rather Joe had been able to remain retired.

The Ali lineage problem was the most difficult. With Ali in prison he could not defend the title. I don't want to get into the politics or the morality of Ali's decision (I admire him for his stand but that's for another thread) not to go to Vietnam but could we really continue to recognise even "The Greatest" as champion when he can't actually fight? Anyway, Ali is a bit of a special case and I'm not sure what I think either way but I am interested in your thoughts on Charles claim to the title (and Hart's and Schmeling's too).

[silkov]

Barry

Thanks for the reply on the Charles-Jones debate. There's no doubt that almost everyone on here agrees with you. The problem for boxing is that it's such a hard sport and now other sports pay more for an average profootball/tennis/etc player than an average pro boxer can dream of getting. So the talent pool is shallow comparatively but it seems that the sanctioning bodies have diluted this even further. The multiple titles allow the top fighters to pretty much avoid one another and this cannot be good for the sport.

Anyway, one point I'd like you to address for me is the linear title. I agree that it is this which we should look to for our champions but when a champion retires then what? Surely a champion unable to fight or who has retired from the sport has to be replaced. I know some people don't regard Marvin Hart as a champion but Jeffries picked the two combatants (not a bad way of solving the problem, certainly I'd trust Jim more than the alphabet boys) and the winner was Hart. There must be some mechanism by which a fighter can retire and yet the division continue. When tunney retired there was no uproar about Schmeling being champion (other than the nature of the victory) because of lineage. Surely Charles deserves recognition as champion the moment he beat Walcott. Who else could be the champion? Louis comming back solved the problem but I'd rather Joe had been able to remain retired.

The Ali lineage problem was the most difficult. With Ali in prison he could not defend the title. I don't want to get into the politics or the morality of Ali's decision (I admire him for his stand but that's for another thread) not to go to Vietnam but could we really continue to recognise even "The Greatest" as champion when he can't actually fight? Anyway, Ali is a bit of a special case and I'm not sure what I think either way but I am interested in your thoughts on Charles claim to the title (and Hart's and Schmeling's too).

I think when the linear champion retires then you have to look at the top contenders and whoever comes out the best there should be regarded as the true champion. When Louis retired Walcott and Charles were the top contenders and when Ali was banned there was a tourneyment organizsed by the WBA between the top contenders all except Frazier who opted to go for the New York title instead and eventually Frazier met the WBA champ Ellis for 'undisputed' recognition although he really didn't get this till he beat Ali in '71.
Showdowns between the contenders are definately the best way to find the 'champions' in such situations. Really what needs to happen in boxing now is some sort of tourneyment in each divison, say between the wbo, wbc, wba, and ibf champions with the winners to be recognised as 'undisputed champions'..... this would make redundant all the other 'world titles' and would produce quite a few good fights and make the whole of boxing smell that much sweeter again.
It won't happen though. :x

[silkov]

Charles definately deserved recognition as world champ when he beat Walcott. In the run up to beating Walcott Ezzard had already beaten Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Elmar Ray, Joe Baksi... he had already cleaned up most of the top heavies by the time he beat Walcott so his claim to the title would be without dispute as the only man he had not beaten was Louis himself and that ofcourse sadly happened as well eventually.
I see a lot of parallels between Charles situation and that of Larry Holmes. Both outstanding boxers who followed a legend and suffered for it and furthermore became unpopular partly for not only following this legend but also beating and 'humiliating' the legend in the ring later on.
Charles only really gained some general affection after his fights with Marciano... Holmes too was more popular generally in his 40s career I think.

[silkov]

Its interesting to surmise what the result would have been had Joe Louis fought Ezzard Charles in '48 or 49 instead of retiring. Charles was the top contender so this fight would have happened had Louis decided to take it then. I think Charles would probably still have won... it would have been a closer fight than their 1950 bout but I still think Ezzard would have been too quick and sharp for the fading brown bomber.

[barry]

Whenever a champion retires then the two best contenders should fight for the title, just as Charles and Walcott did and yes that made Charles the champion when he defeated Walcott, but it was not solidified in the linear/lineal sense until he beat Louis, but Charles and Walcott were the top two fighters of the time and the winner certainly should be regarded the champion. Had Louis stayed retired Charles should have have the credit when he defeated Walcott...he fought often and was not afraid to defend the title.

[Jaclem]

..i am always happy when a thread turns into a discussion about the greatness of ezzard charles, which i won't add to here...i've written so much about him already.

now..for the top acheivements...i'll go with armstrong, ali (win over foreman) and foreman (win over moore).

[silkov]

Didn't Joe Louis manage Jimmy Bivins in the 40s?... or was it Charley Burley?..... I remember reading that he was down as the manager of one of these men and it seemed a little strange to me...

[elmersalsa]

Maricano retiring undefeated. I know he didn't face the toughest competition but he fought everybody that was available and he had practically no defense. I mean the Rock got hit a lot. And he never got beat. That's pretty amazing. Robinson's unbeaten streak would be second but Sugar cheated, he ducked. None of that sissy stuff for Marciano.

What do you mean that Marciano did not had the toughest competition???? Walcott, Charles, Louis and Moore was more than anybody could ask for. even though they were not in their PRIMES, still they were DANGEROUS FOES FOR ANYBODY.

[elmersalsa]

As a matter of statistics, overall Jones had more title fights than Charles, won titles in four divisions (I don't like the various sanctioning organizations but they are a fact of boxing today, but Jones could have beaten the linear champions at 160, 168 and 175, just Like Charles could have won the titles at 160 and 175 if given the opportunity) of which he beat the best that 160 had to offer for the title, he beat the best that 168 had to offer for the title and he beat the best that 175 had to offer...of course he beat probably the worst heavyweight belt holder in history, but fact remains he did win and he did it in three of the traditional eight weight classes.

!

RJJ did not fight the best out there...He fought part of the best. What about Gerald McClellan, Michael Nunn, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubanks, Darius Machilweski and al those great rivals??? Jones does not FOOL anybody. He beat some of the best, NOT THE VERY BEST!!!