Was Ezzard Charles the best LightHeavy ever?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Feb 2006, 14:20

Absolutley NO QUESTION!!!

Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Lloyd Marshall

are my favorite fighters!

ha!

walcott and charles are both some of my favorites and of all the blac murders row..........lloyd marshall is my favorite!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Feb 2006, 15:24

I've heard that footage exists of his first fight with Ezzard Charles.

really? where can I get it?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Mar 2006, 13:43

Here we have a thread with drama, critical thinking, focused evaluation, high quality emotional and subjective assessing including a sweeping cross section of varied and asundry opinions. Much much heat and an occasional point of light or two within shady subtexts.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 19 Mar 2006, 16:00

Does anyone think Ezzard Charles would beat Sam Langford?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Mar 2006, 22:43

This period is simply so rich in talent and action that is just a pleasure to talk about in any way shape or form. My opinion on the details is nowhere near as important as the general subject being bantered about and read about and reviewed.

Giants walked the earth back then, and I am truly puzzled as to why the breed seems to have died out. In the Light Heavy division any one of about 12 fighters from this era could step up today be Heavyweight Champion of the World....and absolutely dominate.

The short Carnera era is the only other HW era where you could find Middleweights and Light Heavys that could do what James Toney is doing to the elite class of Heavies today.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Mar 2006, 11:55

dr_devious wrote:Does anyone think Ezzard Charles would beat Sam Langford?

Charles would have beaten anyone at the weight. Langford would have won some in the series too. There isn't enough film to be sure who would have won the series out right but Ezzard could beat any top LH ever.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Mar 2006, 17:10

Ezzard....I wholeheartedly agree. Indeed he did beat the very best LH of all time on more than one occasion.

Oxymoronic? I think not. These anomolies in history are what make life rich, and worthy of our time and reflected consideration. If boxing was all math, the old computers and state of the art mathmaticians will tell you that Marciano is the greatest boxer of all time. Something which I take great exception to.

Now I think I should issue the following statement......no one better take that "cheap shot" and say.... "Hey Boxbuzz...I call bullshit". Because as a moderator I will not hesitate take severe editorial action.

......Just kidding folks. Jaclem...I expect not a word from you on this.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Mar 2006, 19:51

Rating who was the best lightheavyweight of all time is much more arguable than the other weight classes. Ezzard Charles is one of 6 guys who you could make a legitimate arguement for. (Interestingly enough only 3 were actually the world lightheavyweight champion; such is the politics of boxing).
The other 5 being:

Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Michael Spinks

All were great fighters who had tremendous accomplishments. All have minor drawbacks against them.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 21 Mar 2006, 02:44

....well buzzy....i'm letting the topic go....but for some reason i'm reminded of an old new yorker magazine feature.....well, ross (not barney) called them justifiers.....the name of which was "in love with his own beautiful writing" or "in love with his own words" ..something like that. don't know what brought it to mind....

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:21

You know I keep thinking about bringing up Nino Valdez in this conversation and then it just slips my mind. I've got to get something for my failing memory. Anyway next time this subject comes up remind me to bring up Nino......I'm sure we can manage to minimize his importance just as we have the Harold Johnson anomolie however it's a stone as yet unturned in this debate.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:32

ezzard charles beat harold johnson though. it was a robbery

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 02 Aug 2006, 08:58

expug wrote:A case could be made that he was. Victories over fighters who were avoided like the plague is a good reason in my opinion. Sorry if this has been posted before, Boxrec has opened my eyes a little to this guys talent. Opinions?

He is in my book. The only other guy I'd seriously consider for this position is Sam Langford, who fought in several weight classes.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 02 Aug 2006, 14:03

..this is just the buzzmeister's way of calling me out. he knows perfectly well that the valdez and johnson fights have no bearing on ezzard's light heavyweight career.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 02 Aug 2006, 14:56

Although it means nothing about Charles as a light heavyweight, does film exist of his fight with Nino Valdez?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 15:26

evndrbsn wrote:Although it means nothing about Charles as a light heavyweight, does film exist of his fight with Nino Valdez?

naw it doesnt. at least im pretty sure it doesnt.

as for the fight..... this was a case of Valdes, an unheard of journeyman at the time, scoring a huge upset over charles . charles went into this fight weighing a carer high 192lb(at the time), and charles was the # 1 contender. he thought this was going to be just another opponent.....he was wrong. for valdes finally lived up the all the potential hes had over the years and fought the fight of his life winning a close but clear decision. charles showed up to this fight out of shape and overconfident, he took nino way too lightly and nino showed he was far more than just a journeyman. charles explained that he had trouble with ninos jab in this fight, he was suprised by it. this win by nino was a start of a 3 year period where nino went undefeated.

i have new york times report on this fight ill post some of there opinions on the fight. they scored it 5-3-2 in rounds for valdez

hebrew_hammer · Post by **hebrew_hammer** » 02 Aug 2006, 16:16

Although it's a bit off topic to the main point of the thread, I'm a bit surprised that in some people's listings of best LH ever that Moorer's name isn't there. I don't want to start a huge debate, but I truly believe he could have dominated the division for years, and was well on his way while he was there. Just a thought.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 02 Aug 2006, 16:17

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 02 Aug 2006, 16:43

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:Although it means nothing about Charles as a light heavyweight, does film exist of his fight with Nino Valdez?

naw it doesnt. at least im pretty sure it doesnt.

as for the fight..... this was a case of Valdes, an unheard of journeyman at the time, scoring a huge upset over charles . charles went into this fight weighing a carer high 192lb(at the time), and charles was the # 1 contender. he thought this was going to be just another opponent.....he was wrong. for valdes finally lived up the all the potential hes had over the years and fought the fight of his life winning a close but clear decision. charles showed up to this fight out of shape and overconfident, he took nino way too lightly and nino showed he was far more than just a journeyman. charles explained that he had trouble with ninos jab in this fight, he was suprised by it. this win by nino was a start of a 3 year period where nino went undefeated.

i have new york times report on this fight ill post some of there opinions on the fight. they scored it 5-3-2 in rounds for valdez

I think I remember you posting about this before, but I can't remember the details. I'd be interested to hear about the fight report again

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Aug 2006, 20:54

Jaclem wrote:..this is just the buzzmeister's way of calling me out. he knows perfectly well that the valdez and johnson fights have no bearing on ezzard's light heavyweight career.

and I always thought it was clearly the key to showing that though Archie lost head to head with Ezzard it was simply a case of "MFS" otherwise known as "Multiple Fluke Syndrome." Since Ezzard could not muster what was needed to get the job done with these guys.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Aug 2006, 18:00

The answer to the original question on this thread has just come in on the wire. The answer is YES except for Archie Moore. Please don't shoot me I'm simply the messenger here.

The truth....can be at times, stranger than fiction.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 07 Aug 2006, 01:18

....indeed buzzy...and the fiction here is that moore was a better light heavyweight than charles.

(box rec members....don't bother to post any thing here.....the buzzbomb just does this to make me even edgier than usual.)

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 07 Aug 2006, 01:23

Jaclem wrote:....indeed buzzy...and the fiction here is that moore was a better light heavyweight than charles.

Of course Moore was better than Charles.

Moore lost to Charles THREE times out of three.

What more conclusive proof could you have that Moore was better than Charles than that?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:09

Decagon wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Does anyone think Ezzard Charles would beat Sam Langford?
In a 15-round bout? Easily. Langford was more versatile in that he could fight in 6-, 10-, 15- or even 45-round fights, but the modern boxer is defined by how well he does in 12- and 15-round bouts. Ezzard Charles was a master of that genre, and that would be the difference in this fight. I rank Charles above Langford at every division they both fought in because my divisional rankings are based on more modern criteria, but I rank Langford above Charles pound-for-pound because he did something that simply didn't exist in boxing by the time Charles came around.

Considering Langford was a huge puncher and Charles didnt have a great chin I dont see how its an easy fight for Charles... a fighter like Langford could adapt to fighting 15 rounds! to say he couldnt is just nonsense.... if these two had 5 or 7 fights itd be about 4-to-3 or 5-to-2 to Langford imo....

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:23

Hey Granperrier your all wet..........

It is at least possible. Can you think of no example where an inferior fighter has had a superior fighters number? Where head to head they lose but yet against the general mainstream they seem to operate in a superior fashion? Let's just suspend the Moore Charles paradox for the moment in order for your embarrasment at your own words to settle a bit, then when you regain your composure try and see if you can possibly cite examples of my radical scenario.

Then drop and give me 20.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:32

silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Does anyone think Ezzard Charles would beat Sam Langford?
In a 15-round bout? Easily. Langford was more versatile in that he could fight in 6-, 10-, 15- or even 45-round fights, but the modern boxer is defined by how well he does in 12- and 15-round bouts. Ezzard Charles was a master of that genre, and that would be the difference in this fight. I rank Charles above Langford at every division they both fought in because my divisional rankings are based on more modern criteria, but I rank Langford above Charles pound-for-pound because he did something that simply didn't exist in boxing by the time Charles came around.
Considering Langford was a huge puncher and Charles didnt have a great chin I dont see how its an easy fight for Charles... a fighter like Langford could adapt to fighting 15 rounds! to say he couldnt is just nonsense.... if these two had 5 or 7 fights itd be about 4-to-3 or 5-to-2 to Langford imo....

charles had a very solid chin though. all time puncher and KO artist archie moore(just as good a puncher as sam) was unable to FLOOR charles in 3 meetings. charley burley unable to floor charles in 20 rounds. charles went 51 rounds with hard hitting jersey joe walcott without being floored. all time puncher lloyd marshall and jimmy bivins were unable to knockout a peak charles 46-49. charles took flush punches from huge punching bob satterfield without going down. charles also took fluish punches from big hard hitting heavyweights like haynes, louis, valdez, wallace, layne without going down. of course the cream of the crop is the first marciano fight which should clearly silence all questions about charles chin.

charles faced a murderous list of punchers, and showed in those fights he can clearly take a punch. charles had a very good chin. certainly at 175lb!

also dont forget charles at 175lb was a great puncher.

Was Ezzard Charles the best LightHeavy ever?

Re: Was Ezzard Charles the best LightHeavy ever?