BoxRec

When CHARLES is mentione in the top 5 of all time-which charles are we referring too ?

How many greats are top 5 in two weight classes?

Excuse me but i have never seen ezzard mentioned in anyones top ten before now.....

Strange

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Excuse me but i have never seen ezzard mentioned in anyones top ten before now.....

Strange

Where have you been posting?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:For a couple of years, about 6 years or so, I have considered the great Henry Armstrong as the greatest fighter that ever was. Every time I look at his accomplishments is something to think and behold.

The elite of the elite for me would be:
Henry Armstrong
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sam Langford
Roberto Duran
Willie Pep
Harry Greb...that's it!

I love Duran, but no way in hell he rates over Charles. To put him at a different level is laughable.

Everything is a matter of opinion, sir. Not everybody could be top 5...It is a big headache.

Charles has a VASTLY superior resume (as amazing as that sounds) to Duran, and since he was every bit the fighting machine Duran was, putting him not even in Duran's realm is a pretty crazy opinion.

Yup, I have Duran in my top 10 so I'm not appalled at placing him a bit higher. But to say Charles isn't in his class isn't an opinion worth hearing. It's pure nonsense.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Yup, I have Duran in my top 10 so I'm not appalled at placing him a bit higher. But to say Charles isn't in his class isn't an opinion worth hearing. It's pure nonsense.

I have never said that the great Ezzard Charles is not in Duran's class. Everybody got their own opinion. But I consider Duran a little better than he.

You did, by answering the thread...if you read it properly.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Charles has a VASTLY superior resume (as amazing as that sounds) to Duran, and since he was every bit the fighting machine Duran was, putting him not even in Duran's realm is a pretty crazy opinion.

Both were COMPLET FIGHTERS IN MY VIEW. Fighting machines. This is not a comparison between Chavez and DLH, GI.

Charles might beat better fighters. Duran had more longevity and was better champ.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You did, by answering the thread...if you read it properly.

If someone says to me that Charles was better than Duran, I am not going to argue about that. Both were magnificent fighters.

If you, GI, rate Charles over Duran, I would not mind. He was that good. He was not Oscar De La Hoya

elmersalsa wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Charles has a VASTLY superior resume (as amazing as that sounds) to Duran, and since he was every bit the fighting machine Duran was, putting him not even in Duran's realm is a pretty crazy opinion.

Both were COMPLET FIGHTERS IN MY VIEW. Fighting machines. This is not a comparison between Chavez and DLH, GI.

Charles might beat better fighters. Duran had more longevity and was better champ.

We love you, Elmo

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Charles has a VASTLY superior resume (as amazing as that sounds) to Duran, and since he was every bit the fighting machine Duran was, putting him not even in Duran's realm is a pretty crazy opinion.

Both were COMPLET FIGHTERS IN MY VIEW. Fighting machines. This is not a comparison between Chavez and DLH, GI.

Charles might beat better fighters. Duran had more longevity and was better champ.

We love you, Elmo

I love you, too, GI.

Saad, get in here, you mad bastard

raylawpc wrote:Joining Robinson in mine are Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard and Willie Pep.

The same for me.

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Joining Robinson in mine are Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard and Willie Pep.

The same for me.

You guys would really put Pep in but not Charles?

I can only presume you consider Charles a visibly inferior boxer, because his CV, frankly, leaves Pep's in the dust.

I wasn't aware the goal of this thread was to reach a consensus . . .

It's my opinion, and I guess Dave's too.

Its a totally innocent question.

Bah! You've been indoctrinated via Jaclem. He would tell you that Charles is better than Moore, just cause he beat him 3 times.

He laces that particular bit of truth in order to cleverly support and lend credence to his insidious claim.

And now you are one of the mind numbed robots that promotes Ezzardism. A dangerous cult if you ask me.

Nothing "innocent" about it.

Gene Tunney is up there too imo.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its a totally innocent question.

Fair enough, and the totally innocent answer is "yes."

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Gene Tunney is up there too imo.

A brilliant boxer.

Maybe the best LHW there ever was.

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Gene Tunney is up there too imo.

I think I would only consider the cases of Tunney, Langford, and Charles for greatest LHW ever.