Let's Review the Career of the Great Ezzard Charles

[elmersalsa]

When I was growing up in the 80s, I used to read boxing magazines and watch documentaries of the all time greats of the past, especially of the 1940s, 50s and 60s because they were way before my time. One time I saw a magazine about the great Joe Louis and how great he was and all that. Definately, he is a top 10 all time great, and of course, a top 3 heavyweight all time great. In one of his fights viewing on the magazine, was his comeback fight against this boxer named Ezzard Charles. At the time, I did not knew who he was. All I knew was that he beat Louis by a 15 round decision, but, the same magazine downplayed the Charles victory as Louis was over the hill, in which justifiable so, he was. Charles in my eyes was a good fighter back then, but, I did not know much about him. Then, in his fight with the great Jersey Joe Walcott, in another magazine and time I see that Walcott KOd him in 7, and became the oldest fighter to win the heavy crown. Then, I saw another magazine and video in which Charles lost to the great Rocky Marciano twice.

When at the time in my teen age years, all the old folks and magazines like the Ring and KO were talking of past greats, it was the usual: Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Louis, Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano, Archie Moore, Sandy Saddler, Kid Gavilan, Henry Armstrong, etc, etc, etc, but no Charles. Like if Charles was not even relevant. Then, in the 80s, Donald Curry had the nickname "The Lone Star Cobra" and before the great Thomas Hearns was nicknamed the "The Hitman", he was named "The Motor City Cobra", too. But I found out later that Charles was named "The Cincinnati Cobra" way before them. So what is this?

In 1996, I read the Ring Magazine 50 Greatest Fighters of the Last 50 Years: 1946-1996. I read that Charles was called "The Greatest Light Heavyweight of all Time" and to my amusement I said "What?" All along I thought it was the great Ol' Mongoose or the great Bob Foster. Something tell me inside to make an investigation on my own about Charles, and I did. To my surprise, this guy had wins over who of who of the best fighters of the 1940s had to offer. I found out that he was Moore's GREATEST NIGHTMARE. He whupped him 3 times! I said to myself, Are you serious? Then his resume read other good and great quality fighters like Elmer Ray, Lloyd Marshall, Joey Maxim, Charley Burley, Jimmy Bivins, Gus Lesnevich, Ken Overlin (he never beat Overlin), Bob Satterfield, and Rex Layne. Not only he beat them, he whupped them more than once, LEAVING NO DOUBTS, like a real great fighter he was. Sometimes twice, thrice and four times!!!

I said to myself then, why this guy is not rated like the other greats? The more I found out about his record, the more I got interested in him. He even stopped Moore in third and final fight. That is somebody that proved once time and time again that he was better than the other guy. He fought guys that NOBODY AT THE TIME, wanted to fight them. Not only he fought them. He whupped them. And this guy is not rated high enough after all these years. For example, in 2002, he was listed at #13 by The Ring Magazine list of the 80 Greatest Fighters of the Last 80 Years. ESPN does not even had him rated that high. Others, back in the day, like Revista Guantes, did not even regard him. This guy was a complete fighter. A beautiful fighter on film and also in appearance. Shiny black and handsome. Tall. But no media coverage of him?

Was he the victim of racism, or the media? Was he greatly underappreciated because he beat popular Archie 3 times?

Until this day, I had him rank at #13 all time p4p rankings. Today, I have changed my mind. This guy was better than the great Muhammad Ali by far. Today, I ranked Charles at #7 all time. He got to be. The only reason I do not rate him higher was because by the end of his career, he lost lots of fights, but that cannot diminish his overall resume when he whupped all those men.

He fought from middleweight all the way to heavyweight. And by 1951, when he lost the heavy crown to Walcott, he only had 5 losses. He was 30. An age when someone starts to slow down in boxing, especially after so many fights that he had by then, against EXCEPTIONAL OPPOSITION.

WHAT YOU GUYS THINK OF THIS GUY?

[gilgamesh]

When I was growing up in the 80s, I used to read boxing magazines and watch documentaries of the all time greats of the past, especially of the 1940s, 50s and 60s because they were way before my time. One time I saw a magazine about the great Joe Louis and how great he was and all that. Definately, he is a top 10 all time great, and of course, a top 3 heavyweight all time great. In one of his fights viewing on the magazine, was his comeback fight against this boxer named Ezzard Charles. At the time, I did not knew who he was. All I knew was that he beat Louis by a 15 round decision, but, the same magazine downplayed the Charles victory as Louis was over the hill, in which justifiable so, he was. Charles in my eyes was a good fighter back then, but, I did not know much about him. Then, in his fight with the great Jersey Joe Walcott, in another magazine and time I see that Walcott KOd him in 7, and became the oldest fighter to win the heavy crown. Then, I saw another magazine and video in which Charles lost to the great Rocky Marciano twice.

When at the time in my teen age years, all the old folks and magazines like the Ring and KO were talking of past greats, it was the usual: Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Louis, Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano, Archie Moore, Sandy Saddler, Kid Gavilan, Henry Armstrong, etc, etc, etc, but no Charles. Like if Charles was not even relevant. Then, in the 80s, Donald Curry had the nickname "The Lone Star Cobra" and before the great Thomas Hearns was nicknamed the "The Hitman", he was named "The Motor City Cobra", too. But I found out later that Charles was named "The Cincinnati Cobra" way before them. So what is this?

In 1996, I read the Ring Magazine 50 Greatest Fighters of the Last 50 Years: 1946-1996. I read that Charles was called "The Greatest Light Heavyweight of all Time" and to my amusement I said "What?" All along I thought it was the great Ol' Mongoose or the great Bob Foster. Something tell me inside to make an investigation on my own about Charles, and I did. To my surprise, this guy had wins over who of who of the best fighters of the 1940s had to offer. I found out that he was Moore's GREATEST NIGHTMARE. He whupped him 3 times! I said to myself, Are you serious? Then his resume read other good and great quality fighters like Elmer Ray, Lloyd Marshall, Joey Maxim, Charley Burley, Jimmy Bivins, Gus Lesnevich, Ken Overlin (he never beat Overlin), Bob Satterfield, and Rex Layne. Not only he beat them, he whupped them more than once, LEAVING NO DOUBTS, like a real great fighter he was. Sometimes twice, thrice and four times!!!

I said to myself then, why this guy is not rated like the other greats? The more I found out about his record, the more I got interested in him. He even stopped Moore in third and final fight. That is somebody that proved once time and time again that he was better than the other guy. He fought guys that NOBODY AT THE TIME, wanted to fight them. Not only he fought them. He whupped them. And this guy is not rated high enough after all these years. For example, in 2002, he was listed at #13 by The Ring Magazine list of the 80 Greatest Fighters of the Last 80 Years. ESPN does not even had him rated that high. Others, back in the day, like Revista Guantes, did not even regard him. This guy was a complete fighter. A beautiful fighter on film and also in appearance. Shiny black and handsome. Tall. But no media coverage of him?

Was he the victim of racism, or the media? Was he greatly underappreciated because he beat popular Archie 3 times?

Until this day, I had him rank at #13 all time p4p rankings. Today, I have changed my mind. This guy was better than the great Muhammad Ali by far. Today, I ranked Charles at #7 all time. He got to be. The only reason I do not rate him higher was because by the end of his career, he lost lots of fights, but that cannot diminish his overall resume when he whupped all those men.

He fought from middleweight all the way to heavyweight. And by 1951, when he lost the heavy crown to Walcott, he only had 5 losses. He was 30. An age when someone starts to slow down in boxing, especially after so many fights that he had by then, against EXCEPTIONAL OPPOSITION.

WHAT YOU GUYS THINK OF THIS GUY?

I think he's P4P one of the Top 5 fighters in the history of the sport. A truly great fighter.

[BoxBuzz]

In his time, only Archie Moore was better.....

Except for the three times that they fought.

[gilgamesh]

In his time, only Archie Moore was better.....

Except for the three times that they fought.

You think Archie was a better overall fighter Buzz? Or were you just joking?

[dempseyfire]

Charles was a MASTER at pacing, timing, changing fight rhythms (he often threw rather slow punches to lure a guy into complacency and then after minutes or even rounds went by . .BOOM-BOOM lightening fast; lights out), punch placement etc.

I don't think its racism . . I think its a) he followed an extremely popular champion, and usually fighters following very popular champs are in their shadow (Holmes, Tunney).
b) Charles after the Baroudi fight had a style that purists loved but that regular fans didn't appreciate. As a heavyweight he had a knockout punch but not devastating one punch power. He was cautious and tactical in setting his opponents up. Sometimes when he faced a fellow counter-puncher the result was a clinch-fest.

If I were to recommend Charles fights for a newcomer to him, they'd be his fights with Lee Oma, Pat Valentino, the second fight with Jersey Joe Walcott, his 2 round war with Bob Satterfield, and his razor-thin loss to a prime Harold Johnson (probably my favorite 'boxing purist' fight of all time; incredible skills displayed in that fight)

[DaveyMac]

Charles is an all-time great p4p no doubt, I think what hurt his image/legacy was hanging on too long. He fought way past his prime and after his heart wasn't in it and I'm guessing some people saw those losses as a black mark. But in his prime, which was very long, there is no doubt he beat just about everyone you can imagine.

[RadioElRadar]

Charles is an absolute lock for Top-10 P4P imo.

I'd only put Langford, Robinson, Greb and Armstrong clearly ahead of him (not necessarily in that order).

[elmersalsa]

He was indeed a very quiet person. Very private. Not extravagant but sharp dresser. His wife was good looking fox. She was a light-skinned woman named Gladys. She had 3 kids with him: Ezzard Jr., Deborah and Leith

[HomicideHenry]

Ezzard Charles had it all. Speed, accuracy, determination, tremendous conditioning, tough as nails, text book fighter, etc. Ali may of been a shade faster than he was. Ali may of been bit more of a mover, but then again so was Joe Walcott and Charles beat him in the majority of their matches. And, Ezzard had pretty good power for being a tactician. I think he was the greatest 175 pounder of all time, and he still is one of the top 10 p4p fighters of all time. As a heavyweight, very very underated.

[BoxBuzz]

In his time, only Archie Moore was better.....

Except for the three times that they fought.

You think Archie was a better overall fighter Buzz? Or were you just joking?

I do think Archie was his equal....the dice just landed in Ezz's favor every damn time they both showed up to the same poker game. lol

So yeah..I do hold that odd ball opinion in this case.

[gilgamesh]

In his time, only Archie Moore was better.....

Except for the three times that they fought.

You think Archie was a better overall fighter Buzz? Or were you just joking?

I do think Archie was his equal....the dice just landed in Ezz's favor every damn time they both showed up to the same poker game. lol

So yeah..I do hold that odd ball opinion in this case.

It's fair enough. He did fight mostly the same competition as Ezzard and had just as much success as Ezzard for the most part against all of them except Ezz himself. I looked up their records the other day after you made that comment.

It's actually what prompted me to make a thread with a few questions about Archie Moore's record which apparently was deleted...which confuses me.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was certainly one of the best. Arguably the best lightheavyweight of all-time. He was one of the top 20 heavyweights. Overall, in the Top 10. He fought a lot of great competition and usually won.

[ThatOne]

Ezzard Charles

The late-1940's version of Ezzard Charles beats the mid-1960's version of Cassius Clay.

And that, with being outweighed by 20 lbs.

No...Not buying it... He wasn't outweighed by 20 pounds...He was outweighed by nearly 40 pounds, ergo:

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

The mid 40 were 44, 45, 46, and the mid 60s were 64, 65, and 66....

The Muhammad Ali of the mid 60s was not losing to a boxer who weighed thirty five or forty or so pounds less than him...Muhammad Ali isn't losing to a boxer forty pounds lighter than him, nearly three inches shorter than him, and with a nine inch shorter reach. We're talking about arguably the greatest heavyweight fighter in the history of the sport and a top five pound for pound great. We aren't taking about just any other fighter....



Elmersalsa, I'm very sorry that your thread got hijacked. I asked Il Manichino not to interject Muhammad Ali into every discussion on this board. He refused... As long as he's going to lie about Muhammad Ali I'm going to tell the truth about him.

Il Manichino, if you want to start a thread "Ezzard Charles Circa 1964-1966 Beats Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali Circa 1964-1966 " please do. I'll give you a verbal lashing that befits your name.

:P

[man]

Charles was a MASTER at pacing, timing, changing fight rhythms (he often threw rather slow punches to lure a guy into complacency and then after minutes or even rounds went by . .BOOM-BOOM lightening fast; lights out), punch placement etc.

I don't think its racism . . I think its a) he followed an extremely popular champion, and usually fighters following very popular champs are in their shadow (Holmes, Tunney).
b) Charles after the Baroudi fight had a style that purists loved but that regular fans didn't appreciate. As a heavyweight he had a knockout punch but not devastating one punch power. He was cautious and tactical in setting his opponents up. Sometimes when he faced a fellow counter-puncher the result was a clinch-fest.

If I were to recommend Charles fights for a newcomer to him, they'd be his fights with Lee Oma, Pat Valentino, the second fight with Jersey Joe Walcott, his 2 round war with Bob Satterfield, and his razor-thin loss to a prime Harold Johnson (probably my favorite 'boxing purist' fight of all time; incredible skills displayed in that fight)

this the kind of post i love. thnx.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think Ezzard,Langford,Greb,Robinson & Armstrong make up the pretty definitive all time top 5. Mix and match them as you will, he comes in 4th or 5th for me.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Charles is an all-time great p4p no doubt, I think what hurt his image/legacy was hanging on too long. He fought way past his prime and after his heart wasn't in it and I'm guessing some people saw those losses as a black mark. But in his prime, which was very long, there is no doubt he beat just about everyone you can imagine.

Almost every great fighter held on too long. Anybody who starts talking about that isn't qualified for the conversation.

[ThatOne]

Charles is an all-time great p4p no doubt, I think what hurt his image/legacy was hanging on too long. He fought way past his prime and after his heart wasn't in it and I'm guessing some people saw those losses as a black mark. But in his prime, which was very long, there is no doubt he beat just about everyone you can imagine.

Almost every great fighter held on too long. Anybody who starts talking about that isn't qualified for the conversation.

Most athletes and not just boxers hang on too long. I can see why...What other professionals are done in their thirties?

As to highlighting the struggles of "done" fighters that's all some current members or former members care to talk about.

[elmersalsa]

I believe that he was a greater fighter than the greats Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano, buy these 3 were more celebrated and famous. No way Ali is top 5 all time great
No way!

[Giancarlo]

I believe that he was a greater fighter than the greats Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano, buy these 3 were more celebrated and famous. No way Ali is top 5 all time great
No way!

You're the one who keeps babbling on about Ali being rated top 5 P4P.

You've been doing it for years even though very few posters ever make that claim.

Can you not understand the difference between top 5 HEAVYWEIGHT and top 5 P4P?

[Senya13]

You're the one who keeps babbling on about Ali being rated top 5 P4P.
You've been doing it for years even though very few posters ever make that claim.

Probably not on this forum, but IBRO does have Ali sharing 4-5 places P4P with Joe Louis. One of the reasons not to take that organization as a whole seriously.

[ThatOne]

This thread is about the great Ezzard Charles. Let the record show Il Bugiardo hijacked it... That being said:

These lists are subjective but I haven't seen a hw atg list in years that doesn't have Ali one or two, ergo:


http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavylists.htm

Here's Ring Magazine's, ESPN's , and Sports Illustrated atg Pfp lists:

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... reatest110

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multim ... ent.7.html

Again, rating boxings is subjective...Rating boxers pound for pound is incredibly subjective. To me it means comparing the record of boxers to other boxers of the same weight and size.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

A thread isn't hijacked until you guys go a few pages. He's never done that by himself. You're more than willing to massacre threads, so you can spare the blame on the evil Il Duce.

As for Elmer, I agree with him here. I can't see any reasoning that puts Ali in the all time top 5. He could be in the back end of the top 10, but I'd have him outside of that as well.

[Giancarlo]

Who cares if any thread gets 'hi-jacked'.

It's all just mindless chatter anyway.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Who cares if any thread gets 'hi-jacked'.

It's all just mindless chatter anyway.

I don't care, when they start doing their thing I stop checking the threads. It's just ridiculous for the same two people to argue over pages and pages, week after week, and one of them blames the other.

I don't read Il Duce's threads, but saying Ezzard Charles could beat Ali is far from hijacking an Ezzard Charles thread. I realize he has Ali obsessions, but feeding them is on you too.

[DaveyMac]

Just to be clear, I wasn't making a judgement about him hanging on, or even saying it diminished him in my eyes, which it does not. The question that I was trying to answer is why isn't he more accepted as an atg generally. I think part of the reason for that is the impression folks have that he hung on too long.