BoxRec

I wasn't saying that you do. I'd say the main reason is that most fans/media aren't very educated about the past fighters. The fact that Ezzard never got a shot at the title to be a 3 division champion probably plays more of a role. They don't know the names and what they mean.

I agree that the late losses make him undervalued as a heavyweight. I really can't see much reason he wouldn't be in everyone's top 5, no possible scenario where he isn't Top 10.

As of 2013, this is my all time top 10 p4p list

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep
6. Harry Greb
7. Ezzard Charles (Formely at #13 and for a long time outside the top 10.....I think JUSTICE IS DUE HERE.)
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Joe Louis
10. Joe Gans

Every list is subjective. Mine is not different.

It is ironic of how Charles is considered much greater fighter through time and guys like Ali, Marciano and Dempsey are considered more overrated as time goes by.

Charles in 1955 suffered of ALS and from then on, he started losing. He could not move well like he used to in the lower part of his body, according to reports.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

I like people who come up with new angles…always willing to hear things out…

But it’s hard to argue with this. Anyone else in the top 5 seems odd.

Boxrec has made a big difference. As had youtube etc…

The old books and boxing encyclopaedias would always say Charles was a great fighter who had to go to heavy to get his shot. But they always focused on the Marciano fights because of the drama.

I have never seen the fight with Harold Johnson but I know some think Ezzard should have got the decision.

Also should have got the decision in the final fight with Walcott…would have made him the first guy to win back the title…

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

But it’s hard to argue with this. Anyone else in the top 5 seems odd.

So Joe Gans or Benny Leonard being in top 5 is odd? It's never too late to learn... Throw Langford and Armstrong out and replace them with those two, and it may start to look reasonable.

Senya13 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

But it’s hard to argue with this. Anyone else in the top 5 seems odd.

So Joe Gans or Benny Leonard being in top 5 is odd? It's never too late to learn... Throw Langford and Armstrong out and replace them with those two, and it may start to look reasonable.

Langford beat Gans. I guess we should throw that out too.

Is that all you know about Gans? Langford lost a gazillion of times, and all those fighters should be ahead of him by the same logic.

Senya13 wrote:Is that all you know about Gans? Langford lost a gazillion of times, and all those fighters should be ahead of him by the same logic.

Nope, I know plenty about him. He was a great fighter, Langford was unquestionably greater.

Yeah, right, skills, opponents he beat, consistency, cleverness, Langford was unquestionably better.

Senya13 wrote:Yeah, right, skills, opponents he beat, consistency, cleverness, Langford was unquestionably better.

At least you can admit when you're wrong.

The only thing that matters comparing two fighters you can't watch is their resumes. If you think Gans was more talented, more power to you. Sam definitely wins the resume comparison 8 days a week.

I see no point argueing with someone who obviously doesn't know much about the opponents Gans beat (as opposed to those beaten by Langford), and who can't count how many times and who they were beaten by or drew with.

Senya13 wrote:I see no point argueing with someone who obviously doesn't know much about the opponents Gans beat (as opposed to those beaten by Langford), and who are uncapable of counting how many times and who they were beaten by or drew with.

I see no point in arguing with someone who is incapable of spelling incapable.

You have a scrap-book of info about Langford's fights (as Clay's book is seriously lacking primary sources)? If not, go and study.

Senya13 wrote:You have a scrap-book of info about Langford's fights (as Clay's book is seriously lacking primary sources)? If not, go and study.

You suck at not arguing. By all means, master, educate me. I've studied both of them but I'm always willing to learn more. Granted, nothing on earth could legitimately place Gans over Langford but I'll gladly read your delusions.

Senya13 wrote: So Joe Gans or Benny Leonard being in top 5 is odd? It's never too late to learn... Throw Langford and Armstrong out and replace them with those two, and it may start to look reasonable.

Those two are the ones who usually get touted. Sometimes Pep.

I see no point argueing with somebody who starts the debate with "Langford beat Gans". And Langford was humiliated by Jack Blackburn two weeks later. And Blackburn, in turn, was outpointed by 132-pound Mike Twin Sullivan a week later, and then by Sam Bolen in another week.

Senya13 wrote:I see no point argueing with somebody who starts the debate with "Langford beat Gans". And Langford was humiliated by Jack Blackburn two weeks later. And Blackburn, in turn, was outpointed by Mike Twin Sullivan a week later, and then by Sam Bolen in another week.

No point in arguing? Again?

The fact that Langford beat Gans in his least accomplished division speaks volumes. I wasn't starting a 'debate', I was pointing out a fact. Why would I bother debating someone whose only information is that there is no point in a debate?

If you studied Gans, you should be aware of the circumstances. Had Gans taken Langford seriously, he'd not be meeting him the next day after fighting Dave Holly in Philadelphia. It may be an excuse, but Herford claimed Gans hurt one of his hands in Langford bout. It's also not clear, whether he was in good health for Langford, as Gans was put to bed with very severe pneumonia several days later, when he had to cancel the bout with Jack Blackburn, scheduled for December 18 (which also shows that none of these three opponents, Holly, Blackburn and Langford were not yet seen as major opponents for Gans, that he was scheduled to meet all three in such a short period of time).

Senya13 wrote:If you studied Gans, you should be aware of the circumstances. Had Gans taken Langford seriously, he'd not be meeting him the next day after fighting Dave Holly in Philadelphia. It may be an excuse, but Herford claimed Gans hurt one of his hands in Langford bout. It's also not clear, whether he was in good health for Langford, as Gans was put to bed with very severe pneumonia several days later, when he had to cancel the bout with Jack Blackburn, scheduled for December 18 (which also shows that none of these three opponents, Holly, Blackburn and Langford were not yet seen as major opponents for Gans, that he was scheduled to meet all three in such a short period of time).

I don't pay much attention to excuses. So Gans was greater than langford because he wasn't 100% when Sam beat him? And you're talking about my faulty logic?

If you see Gans facing Holly in Philadelphia for 6 rounds, then going by train to Boston to meet Langford for 15 rounds the very next day, as an excuse, like I said, this makes me doubt you have studied either fighter, to debate with you.

Senya13 wrote:If you see Gans facing Holly in Philadelphia for 6 rounds, then going by train to Boston to meet Langford for 15 rounds the very next day, as an excuse, like I said, this makes me doubt you have studied either fighter, to debate with you.