BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:Here a is a question for people that think Charles is an underrated heavyweight: Where should he be rated?
Top 20? Top 15? Top 10? Top 5? Where?

LHW ranking- #1
P4P ranking- Inside the top 10
HW ranking- Inside the top 15

Broomhall wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's pointless arguing the quality of Ezzard Charles with a poster who spends most his time on the British forum, discussing with great interest domestic journeymen type boxers and their obscure belts, only to pass through here and sneer at an all-time great.

Again, I can only bring it back to ringside IQ. Boxing fans by and large are simple souls. To appreciate a fight they need the bells & whistles of modern television production. It's much easier to quickly glimpse a record, pull up some losses and dismiss one of these dusty old black & white fighters rather than try to learn something. That would be a distraction from all those enthralling bills from Hull, Preston, and Skegness.

Meeeoooow

I dont think I am "sneering" at anyone. I just dont feel Charles is underrated. I have been a fan of the game since I got involved in boxing aged 12, including 20 years as an active boxer to international amateur standard, around 42 years in all as fan, competitor, coach and spectator. I do take great interest in small hall boxing as my view is that is the lifeblood of the sport, and I am sure even the great Ezzard Charles began his career boxing on such bills around the US. But IF YOU CHOOSE TO INSULT THE MEN WHO FIGHT IN THOSE BILLS so be it.

I dont however feel the need to insult you because you disagree with me. You are clearly nobodys fool, but maybe somebody will adopt you someday.

I have watched much footage of Charles over the years, and yes he is a good top quality fighter-but is he underrated? By who? I dont think so. 4 defences and KO losses to both Marciano and Walcott during his peak would say he found his level as a good, but not great heavyweight champion.

If you keep the rattle in the pram it wont make so much noise when you throw it. ;;-)

Heavyweight wasn't his peak, he was well past his prime when fighting for the Heavyweight title. Also, I don't know where you get the four defences from, it was 9. His record between his defeats was stellar, fighting and beating all the top contenders. Where would you put Charles pound for pound?

The thread was about Charles being underrated as a heavyweight not as a light heavy. I dont think he was underrated as a heavy. I think most historians would put him 15-20 which I feel is about right given his size, the age at which he became champ and his record at heavyweight.

The defences refer to his time as being universally recognised as world champ, in which he made 4 successful defences, prior to that being the NBA world heavyweight champ which didnt carry universal recognition.

As for P4P I would probably put him in my top 10-15 pre 1970. I try to seperate the eras in boxing pre 1950, pre 1970 as I think the sport changed so much that it becomes difficult to compare fighters from different eras-how can you compare someone active today with 4-6 world championship belts in umpteen weight classes to someone who had to fight for one belt in 8 weight classes?

But, unlike other people on the site I do accept this is all MY opinion. I think Joe louis is the best heavyweight pre 1970 -many would disagree with me, I think Ike Williams the best lightweight pre 1970-again most would disagree with me-I think both Dempsey and Marciano slightly over rated, but so what? it is all just an opinion.

I listened to three historians the other day each put a compelling case forward for who was responsible for the first world war. They all have the same facts and information to hand and yet each came up with a different theory.

Wouldnt it be boring if someone posted a "Ezzard Charles was the greatest ever" thread and then every poster looked at that and said "I agree"

Broomhall wrote:The thread was about Charles being underrated as a heavyweight not as a light heavy. I dont think he was underrated as a heavy. I think most historians would put him 15-20 which I feel is about right given his size, the age at which he became champ and his record at heavyweight.

The defences refer to his time as being universally recognised as world champ, in which he made 4 successful defences, prior to that being the NBA world heavyweight champ which didnt carry universal recognition.

As for P4P I would probably put him in my top 10-15 pre 1970. I try to seperate the eras in boxing pre 1950, pre 1970 as I think the sport changed so much that it becomes difficult to compare fighters from different eras-how can you compare someone active today with 4-6 world championship belts in umpteen weight classes to someone who had to fight for one belt in 8 weight classes?

But, unlike other people on the site I do accept this is all MY opinion. I think Joe louis is the best heavyweight pre 1970 -many would disagree with me, I think Ike Williams the best lightweight pre 1970-again most would disagree with me-I think both Dempsey and Marciano slightly over rated, but so what? it is all just an opinion.

I listened to three historians the other day each put a compelling case forward for who was responsible for the first world war. They all have the same facts and information to hand and yet each came up with a different theory.

Wouldnt it be boring if someone posted a "Ezzard Charles was the greatest ever" thread and then every poster looked at that and said "I agree"

don't dare say something negative about ezzard or you get attacked saying you no nothing about boxing by many here , don't try to make your own conclusions about a fighter just agree with with the masses

stevedoc wrote:

Broomhall wrote:The thread was about Charles being underrated as a heavyweight not as a light heavy. I dont think he was underrated as a heavy. I think most historians would put him 15-20 which I feel is about right given his size, the age at which he became champ and his record at heavyweight.

The defences refer to his time as being universally recognised as world champ, in which he made 4 successful defences, prior to that being the NBA world heavyweight champ which didnt carry universal recognition.

As for P4P I would probably put him in my top 10-15 pre 1970. I try to seperate the eras in boxing pre 1950, pre 1970 as I think the sport changed so much that it becomes difficult to compare fighters from different eras-how can you compare someone active today with 4-6 world championship belts in umpteen weight classes to someone who had to fight for one belt in 8 weight classes?

But, unlike other people on the site I do accept this is all MY opinion. I think Joe louis is the best heavyweight pre 1970 -many would disagree with me, I think Ike Williams the best lightweight pre 1970-again most would disagree with me-I think both Dempsey and Marciano slightly over rated, but so what? it is all just an opinion.

I listened to three historians the other day each put a compelling case forward for who was responsible for the first world war. They all have the same facts and information to hand and yet each came up with a different theory.

Wouldnt it be boring if someone posted a "Ezzard Charles was the greatest ever" thread and then every poster looked at that and said "I agree"

don't dare say something negative about ezzard or you get attacked saying you no nothing about boxing by many here , don't try to make your own conclusions about a fighter just agree with with the masses

When SteveDim agrees with you, it's time to give up!

I guess I just don't get why he is supposedly underrated.

He is usually rated rated around 15-20. I have seen him in the Top 10. He usually seems to get the benefit of the doubt over several other heavyweights who were roughly even with him; Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, McVey, Jeannette, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Walcott, Patterson, Norton, etc.

He has to be behind Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Tyson, Jeffries, and Liston. That means the highest you reasonably could have him is #14. He seldom is rated much below that.

Ambling Alp II wrote:He has to be behind Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Tyson, Jeffries, and Liston. That means the highest you reasonably could have him is #14. He seldom is rated much below that.

I just checked and I have him at #16, so the 16-20 range. But this is certainly not science.

And why does Charles have to be behind Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Tyson, Jeffries, and Liston? I look at the HWs as Ali, Liston and then everybody else because those two dominated and proved themselves like no one else, and I view the shortcomings of every other ATG HW as more noticeable.

I could never justify Charles in my top 5 or top 10 HW, but it’s not like the others you listed are somehow light years more accomplished or more skilled than Charles. I’m pretty consistent with your rating of Charles, but such an absolute comment that Charles has to be behind some of those guys doesn’t make any sense.

Because they were all clearly better.
Weigh their big wins against their relevant losses. Do the same for Charles.
Marciano is an easy one. Marciano was 2-0 head to head, and was better against common opponents. Charles has no big win better than anyone that Marciano never fought.
What's the argument for Charles? He was 2-2 vs Walcott, but when you are comparing him to Holmes, Holyfield etc. that really isn't that impressive. After, you have what? Wins over a way past it Louis and guys like Ray, Layne, Satterfield etc. All of these guys have better wins than that.
And he had losses to Valdes, Layne, and Harold Johnson. The top guys didn't have that many looses to inferior fighters.

You can make better arguments that he was not as good as say Fitzsimmons, Schmeling, Patterson, or Norton than he was good as the Top 13 or so.

I think there's a strong argument for Charles being the greatest light heavyweight of all-time and as high as the 5th greatest boxer P4P of all-time. I don't, however, think he is underrated as a heavyweight - the last few posts have explained it pretty well. Ultimately he was a blown-up light heavyweight and past his best by the time he was fighting at heavyweight, yet still managed to win the world title and make a number of defenses - which is a testament to how great a boxer he was.

Should have won the title back as he clearly beat Walcott over 15 in their 4th fight. One of the worst decisions to hardly ever get mentioned.

Taking up Alp's discussion with John L...

I'm not so sure his ranking is off. That #15-ish seems about right. I agree.

But he was much closer to the guys above him than he's given credit for. That's where he gets underrated.

The first Marciano fight was close. Had it happened a couple of years before... Give Charles's legs a couple more rounds of bounce and he takes the decision.

I stand by my belief that he has a great chance at upsetting Liston and Foreman. 70s Ali would have hated fighting him as would any version of Holmes and/or Holyfield.

100% right, Ezzard Charles was one of the best of his era and is hugely underrated.

Ezzard wrote:Should have won the title back as he clearly beat Walcott over 15 in their 4th fight. One of the worst decisions to hardly ever get mentioned.

Taking up Alp's discussion with John L...

I'm not so sure his ranking is off. That #15-ish seems about right. I agree.

But he was much closer to the guys above him than he's given credit for. That's where he gets underrated.

The first Marciano fight was close. Had it happened a couple of years before... Give Charles's legs a couple more rounds of bounce and he takes the decision.

I stand by my belief that he has a great chance at upsetting Liston and Foreman. 70s Ali would have hated fighting him as would any version of Holmes and/or Holyfield.

I think #15 is arguable. However, there are many other guys that you could argue for as well.
I think he very well might lose to Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, McVey,Jeannette, Wills, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Patterson, Norton etc.
I think Charles would also have his hands full with guys like Ellis, Young, and Quarry. Shavers and Lyle would be very dangerous opponents for him as well.
You have to consider what they did as well. For example:
Fitzsimmons beat Corbett, Maher, Sharkey, and Ruhlin. I think it's more impressive that he gave Jeffries a tough fight than Charles giving Marciano a tough fight. Charles was 32 in the first Marciano fight; but Fitz was 39 in the Jeffries rematch.

Schmeling beat Sharkey (albiet controversially), Risko, Uzcudun, and a guy named Joe Louis.

Patterson beat Moore, Johansson, Machen, and at the age of 37 he beat Bonavena.

Norton beat Quarry, Young, and what's his name. He barely lost to a prime Holmes.

Of course all of these guys have negatives as well. I'm just saying that you could reasonably have Charles out of the Top 25. There are so many guys that are very close. He always seems to get the benefit of the doubt; so I don't see how he can be classified as underrated.

Havent had anyone on this thread say anything other than how good Charles was. If everyone you speak to says

A) One of the best lightheavies ever if not the best

B) top 15-25 heavyweights EVER

How is he under rated? and who is he under rated by?

There's no doubt the giants would cause Charles problems. And he could be taken out by a huge puncher with the winning ticket.

I don't see any but the very elite boxing HWs beating Charles.

And his record is probably superior to Liston's.

Liston? No way. It's about even with Patterson.

Equal with Patterson? What HOF HW did Floyd ever beat? Charles beat Walcott twice (arguably 3 times as many thought he was lucky in the 4th fight).

I'd agree though Liston has a stronger overall resume (but its close).

Bivins would arguably be the best opponent on Liston's record. Charles beat him 4 times!

He suffers from what are universally accepted as bad decisions against Walcott and Johnson...and a rather iffy decision against Layne which he avenged anyway...and still won the series.

Liston has about 7-8 high quality victories. And the manner of his wins was often significant. But then so were the manner of his defeats.

Charles has about 10-12 quality victories.

There is no way that Bivins was as good of a heavyweight as Patterson.
He was pretty much doe by the time Charles beat him the last time.
I had never heard that the Harold Johnson fight was a bad decision.
The Layne loss was embarrassing for a great fighter. The Valdes loss was embarrassing as well.

Agree that Listons' losses to Ali have to count against him. Not that he lost the way. However, Charles losses were a bigger negative.

I guess I would have to see what you consider to be Charles quality wins at heavyweight. I don't see 10-12.

dempseyfire wrote:Equal with Patterson? What HOF HW did Floyd ever beat? Charles beat Walcott twice (arguably 3 times as many thought he was lucky in the 4th fight).

I'd agree though Liston has a stronger overall resume (but its close).

Patterson beat Johannson twice. His in the HOF.
Charles really only has Walcott as a Hall of Fame heavyweight anywhere close to his best.

Dig deeper and Patterson's best wins are better.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Equal with Patterson? What HOF HW did Floyd ever beat? Charles beat Walcott twice (arguably 3 times as many thought he was lucky in the 4th fight).

I'd agree though Liston has a stronger overall resume (but its close).

Patterson beat Johannson twice. His in the HOF.
Charles really only has Walcott as a Hall of Fame heavyweight anywhere close to his best.

Dig deeper and Patterson's best wins are better.

When you think Patterson won a middleweight gold medal in the Olympics and then FOUR years later was world heavyweight champ, and was never really much more than a light heavy IMO he falls more into the under rated category than Charles.

Broomhall wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Equal with Patterson? What HOF HW did Floyd ever beat? Charles beat Walcott twice (arguably 3 times as many thought he was lucky in the 4th fight).

I'd agree though Liston has a stronger overall resume (but its close).

Patterson beat Johannson twice. His in the HOF.
Charles really only has Walcott as a Hall of Fame heavyweight anywhere close to his best.

Dig deeper and Patterson's best wins are better.

When you think Patterson won a middleweight gold medal in the Olympics and then FOUR years later was world heavyweight champ, and was never really much more than a light heavy IMO he falls more into the under rated category than Charles.

Totally agree. He's downgraded by the losses to Liston and Johansen. I'm sure I read Ali said he was the fastest and sharpest hitter he faced.

Bivins was universally lauded as one of the greatest HWs of the era. Similar to someone like Norton. He's probably very underrated in the division too.

Bivins was a good heavyweight, he simply wasn't a great heavyweight. He had a couple of wins over decent heavyweights; nothing special.

Underrated? No. Generally forgotten in the digital age? Yes. Here anything more than 12 months old is obsolete and 10 years is ancient prehistory.

In his day Charles was an extremely skilled if colourless fighter suffering from the Louis Legacy.