I think that is fair enough. If Charles gets the decision he is 3-1 vs Walcott. It helps his case in rating him a bit and hurts Walcott's a bit.Ezzard wrote:Charles' 4th fight with Walcott is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in heavyweight championship history.
The great Ezzard Charles does not have the fault on that, neither the Klitschkos. To me, Vitali and Wlad and the Cincinnati Cobra were better than Norton. Would Charles beaten the great Larry Holmes? He was too small for a heavyweight, really. But, of what Charles did at that time frame 1947-51 at heavyweight was remarkable. He beat good and great quality of opposition at heavyweight and was a better champion than Norton. Those are facts that we cannot deny. Charles beat one of the greatest heavyweights in history in Jersey Joe Walcott. Some say he beat him in the fourth fight, but got denied by the judges. He made 9 title defenses and beat top notch opposition. Remember, he couldn't fight Ali, Ali was only 9 years old when Charles was dethroned.Ambling Alp II wrote:
Yet another example of why the sheer number of title defenses is not important. You have to look at who the title defenses were against.
Tommy Burns had 11. Should we rank burns higher than both of them?
Louis was done. It would not have taken that good of a fighter to beat him at that stage.
9 title defenses? Actually there were eight. All but one of them were against people Norton (or any really good heavyweight) would have had won fairly easily.
Yes Norton lost to Holmes. so would Charles. Would Charles have been so competitive? Maybe, maybe not.
First of all, beating a then great Joe Louis in 1950, even though he wasn't at his prime, it's a great achievement for any boxer. This Louis of what I saw in that film against the Cincinnati Cobra was still excellent. It's not the same thing when the great Larry Holmes beat the great Muhammad Ali. Louis of 1950 beats Ali of 1980 EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. TWICE ON SUNDAY.Ambling Alp II wrote:The nine title defenses he made was not at against top notch opposition. The 2nd Walcott fight is the only one. Look at the opponents he defended against one by one. There is nothing special about any of them; at least at heavyweight.
He was a better champion that Norton simply because his title defenses were against weaker competition. If Charles would have been Norton's place, he would have lost to Holmes and would have had zero title defenses.
Beating a washed up Louis is not remotely as impressive accomplishment as beating Ali. Doesn't matter how good Louis once was. The fighter that Charles beat simply wasn't that good anymore. He was old, was clearly declining in his last few previous fights, and coming off a layoff. Dozens of guys would have beaten that version of Joe Louis. It's not that big deal at all.
If you are going dismiss how close a fighter is to his prime, then you have to count all of Charles' losses at the end of his career against him.
If you want to argue that Charles should be rated higher than Norton, that is fine. I am on the fence myself. However, you have to look at their competition, factor in how close to to their primes Norton, Charles and their opponents were at the time of their fights, and of course how did they fare against them.
You do all that, and it is pretty close.
I agree Louis in 1950 was better than Ali in 1980. He was about as good as Ali was in 1978 when lost to Spinks. Louis was 36 years old and had not had a fight in two years when Charles beat him. This is not a big win at all.elmersalsa wrote:First of all, beating a then great Joe Louis in 1950, even though he wasn't at his prime, it's a great achievement for any boxer. This Louis of what I saw in that film against the Cincinnati Cobra was still excellent. It's not the same thing when the great Larry Holmes beat the great Muhammad Ali. Louis of 1950 beats Ali of 1980 EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. TWICE ON SUNDAY.Ambling Alp II wrote:The nine title defenses he made was not at against top notch opposition. The 2nd Walcott fight is the only one. Look at the opponents he defended against one by one. There is nothing special about any of them; at least at heavyweight.
He was a better champion that Norton simply because his title defenses were against weaker competition. If Charles would have been Norton's place, he would have lost to Holmes and would have had zero title defenses.
Beating a washed up Louis is not remotely as impressive accomplishment as beating Ali. Doesn't matter how good Louis once was. The fighter that Charles beat simply wasn't that good anymore. He was old, was clearly declining in his last few previous fights, and coming off a layoff. Dozens of guys would have beaten that version of Joe Louis. It's not that big deal at all.
If you are going dismiss how close a fighter is to his prime, then you have to count all of Charles' losses at the end of his career against him.
If you want to argue that Charles should be rated higher than Norton, that is fine. I am on the fence myself. However, you have to look at their competition, factor in how close to to their primes Norton, Charles and their opponents were at the time of their fights, and of course how did they fare against them.
You do all that, and it is pretty close.
I got to DISAGREE that Charles didn't fight top notch opposition while he was champion.
He beat the great Jersey Joe Walcott again, beat former light-heavyweight champ Gus Lesnevich in his first title defense.
He beat top notch contenders like Freddie Beshore and Lee Oma.
He beat the world light-heavyweight champion Joey Maxim.
What else can we ask of the man. Charles did what he had to do. Let's give him credit for that. He beat them convincingly.
We never know if his first title defense would've been Holmes, how it would turn out. But, what if Holmes is the challenger as he won the crown against Walcott. Still, the level of competition for Charles and what he beat was formidable. He beat Rex Layne, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, Bob Satterfield, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, and Gus Lesnevich. All of them at heavyweight. That's a great company. Four HOFs in that group.
While Norton beat only Ali and Jerry Quarry? Who else? ah, Duane Bobick and Jimmy Young. One HOF in that group. And it wasn't Ali's prime, but, still formidable. Let's give him that. Still, not enough in quantity.
And don't forget, Charles was also The Ring Fighter of the Year in 1949 and 1950. When Norton has won something like that? Charles did it at heavyweight winning those awards. Just food for thought.
Yep. Plus JL Garcia was a helluva lot better that Purrity . . I wouldn't equate those two losses at all.Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, he doesn't have so many big wins/great peformances that he deserves to be in the Top 10.
However, he beat Ali! Thats a helluva of a lot more impressive than beating Sanders or Byrd.
I'm guess you are guys are into the myth that the Quarry fight doesn't count. OK fine.
How about Young? A prime Young was a helluva lot better than Sanders or Byrd.
Where are the big wins that either Vitaly or Wladimir beat?
Yes Norton lost to Garcia early in his career. If you want to count that, then count Wladimir's losing to Purrity and call it a wash.
Is getting destroyed by Brewster and Sanders the same as getting destroyed by Foreman and Shavers?
Yes Vitaly had an injury against Byrd. You have to tough it out, or it counts against you. All he had to do was stand there for three more rounds. Not to mention that he looked awful in the fight anyway.
Look at the shape that Lewis was in. He never looked like that in any other fight. He slower than molasses. And yet, Vitaly face looked like it went through a meat grinder after just six rounds.
It goes down to these two points:
1. Norton's losses are not nearly as embarrassing as either of the Klitschkos.
2. Norton's wins are much more impressive.
Charles beat more opponents with quality. It is not his fault that light heavyweights came up. Charles was a light heavy himself. Charles fought more great and good quality fighters than Ken Norton ever did at heavyweight, his weight class:Ambling Alp II wrote:I agree Louis in 1950 was better than Ali in 1980. He was about as good as Ali was in 1978 when lost to Spinks. Louis was 36 years old and had not had a fight in two years when Charles beat him. This is not a big win at all.elmersalsa wrote:First of all, beating a then great Joe Louis in 1950, even though he wasn't at his prime, it's a great achievement for any boxer. This Louis of what I saw in that film against the Cincinnati Cobra was still excellent. It's not the same thing when the great Larry Holmes beat the great Muhammad Ali. Louis of 1950 beats Ali of 1980 EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. TWICE ON SUNDAY.Ambling Alp II wrote:The nine title defenses he made was not at against top notch opposition. The 2nd Walcott fight is the only one. Look at the opponents he defended against one by one. There is nothing special about any of them; at least at heavyweight.
He was a better champion that Norton simply because his title defenses were against weaker competition. If Charles would have been Norton's place, he would have lost to Holmes and would have had zero title defenses.
Beating a washed up Louis is not remotely as impressive accomplishment as beating Ali. Doesn't matter how good Louis once was. The fighter that Charles beat simply wasn't that good anymore. He was old, was clearly declining in his last few previous fights, and coming off a layoff. Dozens of guys would have beaten that version of Joe Louis. It's not that big deal at all.
If you are going dismiss how close a fighter is to his prime, then you have to count all of Charles' losses at the end of his career against him.
If you want to argue that Charles should be rated higher than Norton, that is fine. I am on the fence myself. However, you have to look at their competition, factor in how close to to their primes Norton, Charles and their opponents were at the time of their fights, and of course how did they fare against them.
You do all that, and it is pretty close.
I got to DISAGREE that Charles didn't fight top notch opposition while he was champion.
He beat the great Jersey Joe Walcott again, beat former light-heavyweight champ Gus Lesnevich in his first title defense.
He beat top notch contenders like Freddie Beshore and Lee Oma.
He beat the world light-heavyweight champion Joey Maxim.
What else can we ask of the man. Charles did what he had to do. Let's give him credit for that. He beat them convincingly.
We never know if his first title defense would've been Holmes, how it would turn out. But, what if Holmes is the challenger as he won the crown against Walcott. Still, the level of competition for Charles and what he beat was formidable. He beat Rex Layne, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, Bob Satterfield, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, and Gus Lesnevich. All of them at heavyweight. That's a great company. Four HOFs in that group.
While Norton beat only Ali and Jerry Quarry? Who else? ah, Duane Bobick and Jimmy Young. One HOF in that group. And it wasn't Ali's prime, but, still formidable. Let's give him that. Still, not enough in quantity.
And don't forget, Charles was also The Ring Fighter of the Year in 1949 and 1950. When Norton has won something like that? Charles did it at heavyweight winning those awards. Just food for thought.
Gus Lesenevich? Seriously? That would be like Norton beating Mike Rossman and making a big deal about it.
Beshore was not even the top 10 when Charles beat him.
Lee Oma? So what. Same with Nick Barone,Joey Maxim, Bob Satterfield. Big frikkin deal.
Yoiu keep saying 4 HOFers but you are including two light heavyweights and an ancient Joe Louis.
The only really impressive win Charles has against Walcott.
Norton's win over Ali trumps Charles over Walcott.
Quarry and Young are better than Charles next best wins (Ray and Layne).
If you are going to count Charles win over light heavyweights and people like Freddie Beshore, then take a look at Nortons win over Duane Bobick Boone Kirkman, Larry Middleton, Henry Clark, Ron Stander, and Lorenzo Zanon.
That guy, The Cincinnati Cobra was a special fighter. A Complete boxer!hhaehre wrote:One can dissect their respective career and come up with arguments favoring either guy. Is defending the title 9 times more impressive than losing in your first defense, is beating a close to prime Ali more impressive than beating over the hill Louis and so on. At the end of the day they seem to come out fairly close I think.
What tips it in Charles' favor for me is how he looked. I his prime he seemed to be very close to a complete fighter. Other than being a bit small for heavyweight he really ticked all the boxes. He was fast, had good power, could take a punch, exhibited very good boxing skills and handled a variety of styles. To me he was clearly a more complete boxer that Norton.