Archie Moore -- who should know -- said a prime Charles would have wiped the floor with Marciano. Marciano's luck was that he fought a seriously deteriorated Charles.Ezzard wrote:Come on, Heartbreak, you can do better than that.Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:The difference is lewis lost twice.livingstone cole wrote: Hmm, that reads a lot like the basis for disregarding Lennox Lewis's standing in boxing history.
Charles lost 25 times
How does Marciano make the elite fighters and Charles not?
Take a look at Charles' fights and his record and let me know how Lewis and Marciano can be rated higher in a P4P sense. Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Langford, etc are the cream and Charles, IMO, has the credentials to sit alongside them.
5 that could have been the best ever?
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
That is fcuking laughable.Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Never dominated
Lost 25 fights
Got KO'd by Jersey Joe
Look, i do think he was a great fighter, but not one of the elite.
Not on an Ali/Robinson/Marciano/Armstrong/Greb etc level
Do you think he is on that level?
You kidding me? He dominated the richest era of light heavyweights and smashed up a few good heavyweights too.Never dominated
Robinson lost 19. Armstrong lost 21. What's your point? Charles lost many of his when he was totally worn out. You wouldn't criticize Robinson for being knocked down by Joey Archer, would you? No, I didn't think so. Notice that up until Charles was well past it, he only lost to top opposition - Jimmy Bivins & Lloyd Marshall, who caught a before-peak Charles while he wasn't training properly. Jersey Joe Walcott & Rocky Marciano, one of whom could only beat a dissinterested Charles after he'd lost to him twice, the other a legitimately great and at-his-peak heavyweight champion. Ken Overlin, who was vastly more experienced than Charles and a genuine contender. Rex Layne, Harold Johnson, Bob Satterfield and Coley Wallace were all quality opponents (Johnson in particular) who caught a now-inconsistent Charles on the downside of his career.Lost 25 fights
Don't be ridiculous. Walcott was a superb heavyweight who was naturally bigger than Charles anyway, and who had lost to him twice before already. Charles had seen his glory days and was now slowing down - there is absolutely no shame in losing to Walcott.Got KO'd by Jersey Joe
Seriously, sort yourself out. At least put forth a proper argument.
Last edited by DoubleM on 13 Dec 2006, 13:34, edited 1 time in total.
Heartbreak, if you knew anything about Charles, you'd realize that between '43 and '46 Charles improved greatly as a fighter. Bivins and Marshall admittedly smashed him up - however, not only are they Hall of Fame material fighters who were nearing their best, but Charles was also in and out of the army, not getting his proper boxing training and was yet to see his best days. Once he came out of the army he was bigger, stronger, fitter, and more importantly, his mindset and outlook was more focused.
Why should Charles be rated in the top tier alongside Robinson, Pep, Duran, Armstrong, Greb and others? Just check out his resume:
Charley Burley x2
Archie Moore x3
Joey Maxim x5
Jimmy Bivins x4
Jersey Joe Walcott x2
Lloyd Marshall x2
Teddy Yarosz x1
Joe Louis x1
I haven't even mentioned the mere contenders, that's just the Hall of Fame bunch. Between '46 and '51, Charles absolutely demolished the very deep light heavyweight division and cleaned out most of the heavyweights too. He went 39-1 from when he came out of the army up until Walcott beat him on the third attempt, thrashing most of the opponents I listed above and rarely coming close to losing, despite the ridiculously high level of competition. One man beat him, vicious punching Elmer Ray - who was a legitimate heavyweight contender at the time and outweighed Charles by twenty pounds. Even so, the decision should have gone to Charles. Imagine Ray Robinson losing controversially to Rubin Carter and then knocking him out with a vengeance a year later.
Ezzard Charles is actually my Fighter of the Forties based on his outstanding wins and domination of perhaps the richest light heavyweight division of all time.
Just think to yourself, Heartbreak... Who else can boast three wins to nil against the all time #2 in their division? Because that's what Charles has over Archie Moore... 3-0.
Why should Charles be rated in the top tier alongside Robinson, Pep, Duran, Armstrong, Greb and others? Just check out his resume:
Charley Burley x2
Archie Moore x3
Joey Maxim x5
Jimmy Bivins x4
Jersey Joe Walcott x2
Lloyd Marshall x2
Teddy Yarosz x1
Joe Louis x1
I haven't even mentioned the mere contenders, that's just the Hall of Fame bunch. Between '46 and '51, Charles absolutely demolished the very deep light heavyweight division and cleaned out most of the heavyweights too. He went 39-1 from when he came out of the army up until Walcott beat him on the third attempt, thrashing most of the opponents I listed above and rarely coming close to losing, despite the ridiculously high level of competition. One man beat him, vicious punching Elmer Ray - who was a legitimate heavyweight contender at the time and outweighed Charles by twenty pounds. Even so, the decision should have gone to Charles. Imagine Ray Robinson losing controversially to Rubin Carter and then knocking him out with a vengeance a year later.
Ezzard Charles is actually my Fighter of the Forties based on his outstanding wins and domination of perhaps the richest light heavyweight division of all time.
Just think to yourself, Heartbreak... Who else can boast three wins to nil against the all time #2 in their division? Because that's what Charles has over Archie Moore... 3-0.
Ezzard Charles was a brilliant boxer and a fantastic technician.
Archie Moore just couldn't figure him out. Each time they fought, Moore brought a different plan, but Charles would suss it early on and adapt. Same with Charley Burley; he tried to box Charles, he tried to punch Charles... Neither strategy worked. And Moore and Burley were not your average fighter, but genuinely great tacticians themselves.
But Charles could also punch with the best of them. I had one poster once criticize Charles for brawling too much in some of his fights... That was part of his style. A complete fighter; he boxed some, he brawled some, he balanced it out. That was one of his biggest strengths, the versatility and variety to win whichever way he wanted. Charles had an answer for everything. He would box on his toes, jabbing, moving, then suddenly switch gears and hook to the body hard. Thing is, there was hardly anyone about who could beat him at either strategy, let alone one of them.
One thing that people will often fault Charles on is his durability. 'He was up and down like a yo-yo' and all that. It's rubbish really. It's true, he got knocked down a hell of a lot against Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins, but, as explained in an above post, he hadn't reached his stride yet; hadn't completed his stint in the army, hadn't found that inner strength yet. Not to mention he wasn't training properly. In those earlier days, Charles was a very good fighter - by '46 he was sensational. Charles went three whole fights with my personal #1 puncher of all time, Archie Moore, without being knocked down once. He went a full fifteen rounds with Rocky Marciano, while past his prime, and didn't go down. Bob Satterfield, Joe Louis (still dangerous), Elmer Ray, Charley Burley, they couldn't knock Charles down. Jersey Joe did, but then again, it did take him a hell of a lot of rounds. That was a great punch. I can't see many fighters taking that one, especially if they've came from a lower weight class like Charles had.
Although Ray Robinson wasn't stopped in his whole career from punches, something to think about is how he never faced punchers as great as Charles did. He fought Fullmer, LaMotta, Basilio and co., but none of them were really devastating hitters. Graziano was, but lacked the skills to land properly. Same with Turpin, Levine, Bell and others; big punchers, just not great punchers. Not like Charley Burley and Archie Moore.
And how about Ezzard's punch? He could certainly whack. His heavyweight reign, for some strange reason, gave the media (at the time) the impression he couldn't hit. He took out many top opponents. It was only because of Charles' stocked arsenal of skills and abilities that he sometimes could afford to win a fight on points (much like Ray Robinson). When he felt like it, he could knock almost anybody out. Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Archie Moore, Rex Layne, Elmer Ray, Gus Lesnevich, these were quality opponents Charles was knocking out. He wasn't a one punch knockout artist like Bob Foster, or a patient stalker like Archie Moore, but more of a surprisingly heavy handed boxer like Michael Spinks. Charles was a very damaging fighter even at heavyweight - Rocky Marciano said the most pain he ever went through came about in his first fight with Charles. Rex Layne was cut to ribbons.
Archie Moore just couldn't figure him out. Each time they fought, Moore brought a different plan, but Charles would suss it early on and adapt. Same with Charley Burley; he tried to box Charles, he tried to punch Charles... Neither strategy worked. And Moore and Burley were not your average fighter, but genuinely great tacticians themselves.
But Charles could also punch with the best of them. I had one poster once criticize Charles for brawling too much in some of his fights... That was part of his style. A complete fighter; he boxed some, he brawled some, he balanced it out. That was one of his biggest strengths, the versatility and variety to win whichever way he wanted. Charles had an answer for everything. He would box on his toes, jabbing, moving, then suddenly switch gears and hook to the body hard. Thing is, there was hardly anyone about who could beat him at either strategy, let alone one of them.
One thing that people will often fault Charles on is his durability. 'He was up and down like a yo-yo' and all that. It's rubbish really. It's true, he got knocked down a hell of a lot against Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins, but, as explained in an above post, he hadn't reached his stride yet; hadn't completed his stint in the army, hadn't found that inner strength yet. Not to mention he wasn't training properly. In those earlier days, Charles was a very good fighter - by '46 he was sensational. Charles went three whole fights with my personal #1 puncher of all time, Archie Moore, without being knocked down once. He went a full fifteen rounds with Rocky Marciano, while past his prime, and didn't go down. Bob Satterfield, Joe Louis (still dangerous), Elmer Ray, Charley Burley, they couldn't knock Charles down. Jersey Joe did, but then again, it did take him a hell of a lot of rounds. That was a great punch. I can't see many fighters taking that one, especially if they've came from a lower weight class like Charles had.
Although Ray Robinson wasn't stopped in his whole career from punches, something to think about is how he never faced punchers as great as Charles did. He fought Fullmer, LaMotta, Basilio and co., but none of them were really devastating hitters. Graziano was, but lacked the skills to land properly. Same with Turpin, Levine, Bell and others; big punchers, just not great punchers. Not like Charley Burley and Archie Moore.
And how about Ezzard's punch? He could certainly whack. His heavyweight reign, for some strange reason, gave the media (at the time) the impression he couldn't hit. He took out many top opponents. It was only because of Charles' stocked arsenal of skills and abilities that he sometimes could afford to win a fight on points (much like Ray Robinson). When he felt like it, he could knock almost anybody out. Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Archie Moore, Rex Layne, Elmer Ray, Gus Lesnevich, these were quality opponents Charles was knocking out. He wasn't a one punch knockout artist like Bob Foster, or a patient stalker like Archie Moore, but more of a surprisingly heavy handed boxer like Michael Spinks. Charles was a very damaging fighter even at heavyweight - Rocky Marciano said the most pain he ever went through came about in his first fight with Charles. Rex Layne was cut to ribbons.
Nice appreciation and post.DoubleM wrote:
But Charles could also punch with the best of them. I had one poster once criticize Charles for brawling too much in some of his fights... That was part of his style. A complete fighter; he boxed some, he brawled some, he balanced it out. That was one of his biggest strengths, the versatility and variety to win whichever way he wanted. Charles had an answer for everything. He would box on his toes, jabbing, moving, then suddenly switch gears and hook to the body hard. Thing is, there was hardly anyone about who could beat him at either strategy, let alone one of them.
One thing I would add with reference to the paragraph above was that Charles would often fight aggressively to his detriment because he was eager to win the acclaim he never truly got during his time as a fighter. He was criticised as being dull and tried to adapt his style because of this (even though IMO it played down his strengths).
Some posters here know more about them man than I ever will. This is just my observation on having read as much as I could about his career and how it fits into boxing at the time.
-
Heartbreak_Kid79
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 418
- Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 13:39
I do put him in the top 10. I'm not sure who else does but I think you can make a good argument for it.Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Bloody hell don't have a heart attack!DoubleM wrote:Heartbreak - I suppose you also think Charles was a light hitter, and couldn't take a punch. Am I right?
So are you putting Charles in the top 10 ever?
Thats what it seems like.
My arguement was that Charles was a great, but not best of the best.
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5348
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
Yes, I put him in the top ten ever. A lot of people do.Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Bloody hell don't have a heart attack!DoubleM wrote:Heartbreak - I suppose you also think Charles was a light hitter, and couldn't take a punch. Am I right?
So are you putting Charles in the top 10 ever?
Thats what it seems like.
My arguement was that Charles was a great, but not best of the best.
Infact, going by accomplishments, I rate him #7:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Roberto Duran
7. Ezzard Charles
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
pundit wrote:Archie Moore -- who should know -- said a prime Charles would have wiped the floor with Marciano. Marciano's luck was that he fought a seriously deteriorated Charles.Ezzard wrote:Come on, Heartbreak, you can do better than that.Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote: The difference is lewis lost twice.
Charles lost 25 times
How does Marciano make the elite fighters and Charles not?
Take a look at Charles' fights and his record and let me know how Lewis and Marciano can be rated higher in a P4P sense. Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Langford, etc are the cream and Charles, IMO, has the credentials to sit alongside them.
archie moore also said the referee gave marciano a standing 8 cout saving marciano from getting knocked out. so clearly archie is a classic bullshiter and con artist. you cant take what he says seriousely. archies comments mean nothing. clearly a fight between a prime charles and marciano would have been a close hotly contested one and they prob would have had to go to a trilogy to decide a winner.
if you think june 1954 ezzard was "seriousely deterioted", then you have a lot to learn about boxing buddy.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
the reason ezzard charles had 25 losses because most of his losses came either when he was young/green or when he was completley washed up post 1954.
ezzard charles was completley ruined after 1954, and he lost 13 times in the late 1950s when he was so shot it wasnt even funny.
imagine if muhammad ali fought in the 1980s and lost 13 times, would you hold these losses against him? i dont think so, niether should you hold them against charles
ezzard charles was completley ruined after 1954, and he lost 13 times in the late 1950s when he was so shot it wasnt even funny.
imagine if muhammad ali fought in the 1980s and lost 13 times, would you hold these losses against him? i dont think so, niether should you hold them against charles
-
Heartbreak_Kid79
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 418
- Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 13:39
There is no way Ali was healthy enough to have continued another 13 fights into the 80s! By the mid 80s that was obvious.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:the reason ezzard charles had 25 losses because most of his losses came either when he was young/green or when he was completley washed up post 1954.
ezzard charles was completley ruined after 1954, and he lost 13 times in the late 1950s when he was so shot it wasnt even funny.
imagine if muhammad ali fought in the 1980s and lost 13 times, would you hold these losses against him? i dont think so, niether should you hold them against charles