Ezzard Charles vs Jack Dempsey

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Mar 2006, 09:57

I am not trying to instill confusion, or attempt obfiscation, or even going about the business of promoting doubt or ambiguity. In fact I will clearly state that in the case of lifetime achievement on a head to head basis Ezzard without a doubt had the Keys to Archie Moore.

However just like Bert Sugar and others, I rate Moore above Charles overall pound for pound. And in 10 theoretical encounters Archie would likely win only 2 or 3. Which means of course that they would need to fight five times in order for Moore to win one. But that one would be of such spectacular proportions as to bring great satisfaction to the many Moore fans who know the truth of the matter.

Ok let's continue quickly...there is nothing to see in that paragraph.

Moving on I think Ezzard is without doubt an amazing and unique fighter who's fights with Moore, Marciano, Louis,Burley and even Johnson show how complete a fighter he truly was win or lose. And the difference in quality and overall skill between Moore and Ezzard is so thin that a single angel hair would get caught and stuck in the gap should it find itself attempting to pass that way.

If you happen to buy my claim here or even if you don't I'd like to ask this question. Perhaps I'll even start another thread on this subject. What boxers who have gone down to defeat "one on one" with other fighters were actually superior "overall" to the fighter that defeated them?

I'll give two somewhat obvious examples. (To me anyway)

Ali-Holmes
Barkley- Hearns

In one case it is age that made the difference, on the other it was style, and perhaps size. With Ezzard and Archie it was purely style, I also think that whoever gets the first win between two very evenly matched fighters has the advantage from that point on.

So in the case of Ali and Frazier you either have to beleive they never were truly evenly matched or Ali was a cut above most and able to shrug off that "psyche" of having lost to an evenly matched opponent.

And to bring this back to it's original premise, Who should be rated higher overall as a champion? Dempsey or Tunney?

Was Dempsey just past his prime?
Was Tunny too big for Dempsey? (I'm smiling on that one)
Were they evenly matched and Tunny won the first one giving him the ongoing advantage?
OR...was Gene simply a greater fighter than Jack?

If one comes to the conclusion that Gene is greater than Jack then it would follow suit that Ezzard just might fall in that catagory as well.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Mar 2006, 11:17

Thats one thing i could never understand. Why Moore gets ranked higher on most all-time list. Although he never won the lightheavy title Charles seemed to be a bit more dominant at that wieght than was Moore; thier head to head series alone cant be downplayed or explained away.
Charles also won the heavyweight title something Moore couldnt do. If my count is right Moore defeated 4 hall of famers in his career, Charles defeated 6.

But for me the clincher is the fact that Charles could arguably make both the heavyweight and lightheavy all time top ten list. Moore, just the lightheavy.

So someone please educate me on why Moore was the better all time fighter.
I just cant see it.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Mar 2006, 14:22

Well to be fair some do not consider Archie the better fighter.

Like you they can not "see" it. Others however are gifted with "super" vision.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Mar 2006, 15:41

.....ah..the buzzy one is always interesting, moreso, i think, when he is wrong....he gives us such terminology as "angel hair", for example,to "obfiscate" as he puts it....but can't spell gene tunney's name correctly.

..is there a category for overacheivers for forum members?

i am not suggesting there is a connection between to two above entries.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Mar 2006, 20:17

BoxBuzz wrote:Well to be fair some do not consider Archie the better fighter.

Jaclem, My spelling has never been all that good and for that I apologize. However I have reviewed all my previous statements and have concluded that the one in quotes above is the "wrong" assertion to which you are referring.

However I can assure you that there are indeed, those who hold fast to the notion, that such is the case.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Mar 2006, 18:48

in defense of archie moore,

the 2nd and 3rd fights with charles were VERY CLOSE and could have gone either way. in the 2nd fight, it was a very close majority decision that some thought archie won. in the 3rd fight, archie was ahead and had charles badly hurt before charles showed how truelly great he was and came back on the verge of KO and knocked moore out.

i think moore was in his prime for the 2nd and 3rd charles fights, BUT NOT THE FIRST.

notice how in the last two charles fights, both are very close fights and very competitive and they easily could have split those last two 1-1.

so though charles won 3 times, the series is a lot closer than u think

- also moore stayed in the division a lot longer than charles and dominated the entire 1950s light-H division and BECAME champion and reigned for many years unlike charles. it can be claimed moore accomplished more than charles at 175

however my rankings are

1. charles
2. moore

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Mar 2006, 20:56

..cute, buzzy, real cute. did you engage in debating class when you were in high school?

brockton boy...dammit....until you can answer my question about seeing..in one form or other...the 2nd charles/moore fight..stop saying archie probably won it. he did not. there is a whole story about the judge who voted it a draw which i am not going to get into.

the first one in pittsburgh charles one clearly. no doubt. it was close...but hey...this was archie moore....and these were two of the best light heavies ever. inidentally, the charles win was an upset, and the one that shot him up in the ratings...where he stayed.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 19 Mar 2006, 21:53

BoxBuzz wrote:If you happen to buy my claim here or even if you don't I'd like to ask this question. Perhaps I'll even start another thread on this subject. What boxers who have gone down to defeat "one on one" with other fighters were actually superior "overall" to the fighter that defeated them?

I'll give two somewhat obvious examples. (To me anyway)

Ali-Holmes

Many people rank Holmes above Ali, and it has nothing at all to do with their fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Mar 2006, 22:27

Jaclem wrote:..cute, buzzy, real cute. did you engage in debating class when you were in high school?

brockton boy...dammit....until you can answer my question about seeing..in one form or other...the 2nd charles/moore fight..stop saying archie probably won it. he did not. there is a whole story about the judge who voted it a draw which i am not going to get into.

the first one in pittsburgh charles one clearly. no doubt. it was close...but hey...this was archie moore....and these were two of the best light heavies ever. inidentally, the charles win was an upset, and the one that shot him up in the ratings...where he stayed.

im not saying archie won. im simply saying the fight was close which it was a majority decision. some say archie won it, others say charles clearly won. archie claims he was robbed in the 2nd charles fight, then again archie was a bullshiter throughout his career and made up false things.

but the series between charles and moore was closer than it looks. al 3 fights were close and very competitive, charles proved himself superior clearly.

but I take ur opinion of moore-charles fight with high accolade since u were around at the time.

fact is they fought 2 fights when both were in there prime, and one was a close but clear ezzard charles win, and the 2nd was an incredible close battle where charles showed the heart of a champion coming back to flatten archie moore in 8 rounds with one punch.

I rate charles # 1 greatest light-H

jaclem, where do you rate ezzard in your heavyweight rankings?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Mar 2006, 22:56

Giants walked the earth in this LH era. There will be a never ending controversy as to who the greatest of this era was. However the greater mystery is where did such talent go? I think Moore, Johnson, Burley and Charles would buzz through the current crop of Heavys like a hot knife through butter.

Hell Patterson could unify the titles in 6 months. That's how truly bad it is folks.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 20 Mar 2006, 02:12

....yes undeed...this era of light heavies was one of the best ever for any weight division....and i think the best all time light heavys. even the secondary group...maxim, biily smith are two that come most quickly to mind were high quality....billy being erratic but one hell of a puncher.

if moore and charles fought a series of bouts..as many of the early black heavyweights did....there's no question archie would pull off a win or two. ezzard was the better one....but with fighters of this supreme quality one is going to have a career high night and the other an off night...and it would take only the slightest slip from top form.

ezzard as heavy? i really don't know. what most people don't realize about ezzard is that he wasn't at his best as early as the joe louis fight. though not known as being as fanatical as marciano in his training, charles was just as demanding of himself. he said he was so "square....after i won a fight against the top light heavies i was back in training the next day."

as a heavy he was never in the condition he wanted to be....he said he always had to slack off because he started losing too much weight. he could fight under the light heavy limit against heavies for a while (the new york scales always gave him the poundage he needed....they didn't like guys too small against big guys....remind me to tell you of the joe baksi weigh in, for example)...plus...he did need the extra poundage for sheer bulk....he was a great infighter and had to give them something heavier than his prime 171-174 to push around.

i'm not dodging the question.....it's just that i'd need damn near an essay to give it the attention it deserves.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Mar 2006, 08:10

When configuring "best" in this case you may have to factor in for what length of time did someone hold on to their best form? This may give you an inkling of why some give Archie the nod as greatest LH. However if you are going refine this to purely "peak form" no matter the length maintained you might lean to Charles. One may have peaked higher the other may have peaked longer. Difficult to average out and come up with a concise answer.

Though some of us have come up with what we feel is the proper answer despite the daunting challenge.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Mar 2006, 14:10

As for the orginal thread, Dempsey vs Charles, Dempsey sometimes did have trouble with boxers. Having said that, Dempsey should still be able to win. Charles may be able to give him some trouble, but eventually Dempsey's effective aggressiveness should take over.