BoxRec

gilgamesh wrote:Buzz I have the utmost respect for Archie Moore, and I'm not trying to cut him down. He's a Legendary Fighter and unquestionably one of the very best Light Heavyweights of all time, but you're being ridiculous here.

Ezzard beat him three times dude. Once by KO. He was just better than him man, that's all there is to it.

Next thing you'll be telling me Danny Lopez could've kicked Salvador Sanchez's ass if only he got a 3rd crack at him.

He's just messing around, Archie is his favorite fighter.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Buzz I have the utmost respect for Archie Moore, and I'm not trying to cut him down. He's a Legendary Fighter and unquestionably one of the very best Light Heavyweights of all time, but you're being ridiculous here.

Ezzard beat him three times dude. Once by KO. He was just better than him man, that's all there is to it.

Next thing you'll be telling me Danny Lopez could've kicked Salvador Sanchez's ass if only he got a 3rd crack at him.

He's just messing around, Archie is his favorite fighter.

Ahh, I see. Nothing wrong with that.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Buzz I have the utmost respect for Archie Moore, and I'm not trying to cut him down. He's a Legendary Fighter and unquestionably one of the very best Light Heavyweights of all time, but you're being ridiculous here.

Ezzard beat him three times dude. Once by KO. He was just better than him man, that's all there is to it.

Next thing you'll be telling me Danny Lopez could've kicked Salvador Sanchez's ass if only he got a 3rd crack at him.

He's just messing around, Archie is his favorite fighter.

Ahh, I see. Nothing wrong with that.

It's a fine choice. Much better than Gerry Cooney.

Hold on, I see you both are under false impressions....allow me to illuminate.

My last statement stands.

If they would have fought 4 more times.......

Archie would likely have won them all. Why?

Look at the expiration date of Ezz's best efforts.....and look how Archie continued to improve.

As Archie's manager I pick the dates

So.......4 more cracks at Ol' Ezz.....and Ouila! crackpots like YOU, SAAD, and JACLEM have to eat crow.

Case Closed.

gilgamesh wrote:Charles doesn't get his just due as a fighter period. For the most part it's up to you as a fan to research him and find out just how good he was. For the most part you don't hear a lot about him, even in Boxing Magazines and sh*t.

He definitely deserves to be remembered and discussed more than he is. His resume is one of the very best in the sports history.

I remember in the Dream Fights issue of Ring Magazine. In their mythical Roy Jones Jr. vs Ezzard Charles matchup they picked Roy to win by 15th round KO.

I think alot of the Charles "hate" or ignorance on him, is the fact that in his time he was not a flashy fighter. He was a straight up text book style boxer--- it took equally great fighters to bring the flash out of him--- and he was alot like Gene Tunney in the sense that Ezzard was a quiet, reserved champion who essentially captured no one's imagination. This man was every bit as good as Sugar Ray Robinson, but he lacked the charisma and pizazz that Robinson had.

In a way, Charles gets the same kind of treatment that famed Bantamweight Jofre gets; but then again, in Jofre's case, there simply isn't that much film on him--- but unaminously no one doubts he was one of the greatest boxers of all time, pound for pound. The two men get that respect, but don't get the fanfare that they otherwise deserve. I guess at the end of the day, we expect from our heroes and champions someone along the lines of a superstar---- part athlete, part celebrity--- otherwise they just slip under the radar no matter how great they are.

Charles was easily the greatest LHW to never win the championship, and as a HW he was far better than people realize. This was a man just a shade slower than Muhammad Ali was. This was a man who was a better tactician than 99% of heavyweights who ever held the title, or contended for the title. Only Holmes and Ali, in my estimation can say they were better scientific boxer than he was. It took every bit of ring science that Walcott had in his body to manage one razor thin, and controversial, victory over him--- and one by a surprise kayo that no one saw coming. Charles as a LHW, before being a full-time heavyweight, was so dangerous that he fought Elmer 'Violet' Ray multiple times; and Ray was a man almost everyone thought Joe Louis was ducking. And, of course, Charles got the better of him in the series. The same Charles beat Charley Burley and Archie Moore.

At the end of the day, I would be surprised if someone couldn't easily make a defense for Charles being one of the top ten-fifteen greatest boxers that ever lived--- if not being among the top five.

I don't see any valid argument that has Charles outside of the top 10. He's iron clad top 5 for me.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't see any valid argument that has Charles outside of the top 10. He's iron clad top 5 for me.

Honestly if you know WWW.Squat about boxing....you would have to agree with this assessment.

HomicideHenry wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Charles doesn't get his just due as a fighter period. For the most part it's up to you as a fan to research him and find out just how good he was. For the most part you don't hear a lot about him, even in Boxing Magazines and sh*t.

He definitely deserves to be remembered and discussed more than he is. His resume is one of the very best in the sports history.

I remember in the Dream Fights issue of Ring Magazine. In their mythical Roy Jones Jr. vs Ezzard Charles matchup they picked Roy to win by 15th round KO.

I think alot of the Charles "hate" or ignorance on him, is the fact that in his time he was not a flashy fighter. He was a straight up text book style boxer--- it took equally great fighters to bring the flash out of him--- and he was alot like Gene Tunney in the sense that Ezzard was a quiet, reserved champion who essentially captured no one's imagination. This man was every bit as good as Sugar Ray Robinson, but he lacked the charisma and pizazz that Robinson had.

In a way, Charles gets the same kind of treatment that famed Bantamweight Jofre gets; but then again, in Jofre's case, there simply isn't that much film on him--- but unaminously no one doubts he was one of the greatest boxers of all time, pound for pound. The two men get that respect, but don't get the fanfare that they otherwise deserve. I guess at the end of the day, we expect from our heroes and champions someone along the lines of a superstar---- part athlete, part celebrity--- otherwise they just slip under the radar no matter how great they are.

Charles was easily the greatest LHW to never win the championship, and as a HW he was far better than people realize. This was a man just a shade slower than Muhammad Ali was. This was a man who was a better tactician than 99% of heavyweights who ever held the title, or contended for the title. Only Holmes and Ali, in my estimation can say they were better scientific boxer than he was. It took every bit of ring science that Walcott had in his body to manage one razor thin, and controversial, victory over him--- and one by a surprise kayo that no one saw coming. Charles as a LHW, before being a full-time heavyweight, was so dangerous that he fought Elmer 'Violet' Ray multiple times; and Ray was a man almost everyone thought Joe Louis was ducking. And, of course, Charles got the better of him in the series. The same Charles beat Charley Burley and Archie Moore.

At the end of the day, I would be surprised if someone couldn't easily make a defense for Charles being one of the top ten-fifteen greatest boxers that ever lived--- if not being among the top five.

But......just look at the unquestionably brilliant way that Jersey Joe beat him. That deserves an asterisk in the records of boxing.

Now please don't think I don't admire Ezz. He is truly a first class act in every way. I don't even hold his fluke wins over Archie against him. I agree that he was as good a man as has ever held the HW championship AND every bit as skilled and intelligent a fighter as ever there was. He's one of the 10 most inspirational fighters that have ever lived. IMHO.

BoxBuzz wrote:

But......just look at the unquestionably brilliant way that Jersey Joe beat him. That deserves an asterisk in the records of boxing.

Now please don't think I don't admire Ezz. He is truly a first class act in every way. I don't even hold his fluke wins over Archie against him. I agree that he was as good a man as has ever held the HW championship AND every bit as skilled and intelligent a fighter as ever there was. He's one of the 10 most inspirational fighters that have ever lived. IMHO.

I think when it comes right down to it, no matter how you slice it or dice it, Charles was easily the best fighter (p4p) of his era--- I mean look at the stats--- it is something that can't be avoided.

I'm a huge fan of Archie Moore, I've seen lots of film on him and always stand up for him whenever someone dismisses his heavyweight accomplishments--- but knowing that he was defeated, rather easily, by Ezzard Charles is nothing short of amazing.