Let's Review the Career of the Great Ezzard Charles

[elmersalsa]

Well, these are the most defining fights of this all time great. Deservely so, a top 10 all time p4p great.

Defining Fight: W15 Joe Louis... September 27, 1950... Becomes recognized universal world heavyweight champion

Other Defining Fights: W10 Charley Burley, W10 Jimmy Bivins (II), LKO8 Lloyd Marshall, WKO 2 Lloyd Marshall (lII), W10 Joey Maxim, and LKO8 Rocky Marciano (lI)

Just to play the devil's advocate-How about losing to Rex Layne and Nino Valdes? Are they defining?

Losing to Rex Layne and Nino Valdes would not diminish his legacy one iota. His career was already defined after his two great fights with the great Rocky Marciano.

[Ambling Alp II]

That doesn't even make sense. The losses to Layne and Valdes were before he ever fought Marciano. So his career could not have "already been defined".
Obviously he was a great fighter, but those losses to those kind of fighters should count against him. They count for a lot of "iotas".

You are picking and choosing what you want to count just so that it favors Charles. Btw-the win over Louis is hardly career defining. Louis was 36 and had not fought in more than 2 years.

[elmersalsa]

That doesn't even make sense. The losses to Layne and Valdes were before he ever fought Marciano. So his career could not have "already been defined".
Obviously he was a great fighter, but those losses to those kind of fighters should count against him. They count for a lot of "iotas".

You are picking and choosing what you want to count just so that it favors Charles. Btw-the win over Louis is hardly career defining. Louis was 36 and had not fought in more than 2 years.

The Layne and Valdes were losses just as Duran losses to Kirkland Laing and Wilfred Benitez in '82 did not diminished his status as an all time legend. It does not mean one iota. If the great Sugar Ray Leonard would have lost to the great Thomas Hearns in fight #2, in which he REALLY LOST, it would have not diminished his legend one iota.

The win against the great Joe Louis is DEFINING. You forgot that Charles was a light heavyweight. You forgot that Charles became on that night, the Universally recognized and undisputed World heavyweight champion. That is a DEFINING MOMENT. Don't you think?

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course these losses count. The fighters were not way past their primes or anything like that. If really you want to legitimately evaluate fighters, you can't just pick and choose only the fights that are convenient for you.

Sure, it nice that Charles beat Louis. Doesn't really mean much when evaluating him. A lot of guys could have beaten a way past his prime Louis.

[elmersalsa]

Not anybody. A lot of fighters lost to Louis in his comeback.

This is not a nickpicking. Charles victory over Louis is/was a DEFINING MOMENT and a DEFINING FIGHT in the Cincinnati Cobra career. That is a FACT. Everybody that knows his career knows it. He became the Universally Recognized World Heavyweight Champion when he beat the Brown Bomber, whether he was shot or in his prime. I know he was not the same guy of the early 1940s and late 1930s

Lots of fighters lost in their primes. But not all their losses in their prime were defining.

[Chuck1052]

Before losing his world heavyweight title to Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles had sixty-nine wins, five losses and one draw while fighting so many top fighters. Up to that time, Charles had wins over Walcott, Joe Louis, Lee Oma, Joey Maxim, Gus Lesnevich, Pat Valentino, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer "Violent" Ray, Joe Baksi, Archie Moore, Fitzie Fitzpatrick, Lloyd Marshall, Oakland Billy Smith, Jose Basora, Booker Beckwith, Charley Burley, Anton Christofondis and Teddy Yarosz. Charles defeated a number of the mentioned fighters more than once. He lost to Ken Overlin (by an UD in ten-round bout), Kid Tunero (by a SD in a ten-round bout), Jimmy Bivins (by a UD in a ten-round bout), Lloyd Marshall (by a TKO in the eighth round) and Elmer "Violent" Ray (by a SD in a ten-round bout). Charles also have a draw in a ten-round bout with Overlin.

Based on what Charles accomplished before losing his title to Walcott, I have to conclude that he was a one of the pound-for-pound greats. He compiled a tremendous record while facing so many of best fighters in the middleweight, light-heavyweight and heavyweight divisions at a time when there was such tremendous depth among the middleweights and light-heavyweights. In fact, I think that the light-heavyweight division never had such depth in boxing history.

- Chuck Johnston

[elmersalsa]

I saw the Louis vs Charles fight when Charles won the title by UD. Louis was past his best, but he did pretty good despite of it. He gave Charles a black eye. The great Muhammad Ali could not do that against the great Larry Holmes. Another fighter and I think Louis would have been the first ever to regain the heavyweight crown.

Charles victory over Louis should be his HAPPIEST MOMENT. And why not? Here is a guy that was denied title shots at middleweight and light heavyweight, and had to fight guys that nobody wanted to fight and beat them. Then, fights for the NBA World Heavyweight Championship and beats the great Jersey Joe Walcott, and still was not recognized universally and fully as champion. He had to do it against his idol/hero to be recognized.

The crowning achievement of every fighter is to make it on top. Charles did it the hard way. He could have been a triple crown champion.

[elmersalsa]

Charles was too slick and quick for Louis. But Louis fought good despite being WASHED UP.

[Ambling Alp II]

Before losing his world heavyweight title to Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles had sixty-nine wins, five losses and one draw while fighting so many top fighters. Up to that time, Charles had wins over Walcott, Joe Louis, Lee Oma, Joey Maxim, Gus Lesnevich, Pat Valentino, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer "Violent" Ray, Joe Baksi, Archie Moore, Fitzie Fitzpatrick, Lloyd Marshall, Oakland Billy Smith, Jose Basora, Booker Beckwith, Charley Burley, Anton Christofondis and Teddy Yarosz. Charles defeated a number of the mentioned fighters more than once. He lost to Ken Overlin (by an UD in ten-round bout), Kid Tunero (by a SD in a ten-round bout), Jimmy Bivins (by a UD in a ten-round bout), Lloyd Marshall (by a TKO in the eighth round) and Elmer "Violent" Ray (by a SD in a ten-round bout). Charles also have a draw in a ten-round bout with Overlin.

Based on what Charles accomplished before losing his title to Walcott, I have to conclude that he was a one of the pound-for-pound greats. He compiled a tremendous record while facing so many of best fighters in the middleweight, light-heavyweight and heavyweight divisions at a time when there was such tremendous depth among the middleweights and light-heavyweights. In fact, I think that the light-heavyweight division never had such depth in boxing history.

- Chuck Johnston

Good post. I pretty much agree with all of it. I just think you have to count all of his legitimate losses. You certainly have to take into consideration the stages of the fighters careers, the quality of the opponent, the competitiveness of the fight etc. The losses to Layne and Valdes were for a great fighter rather embarrassing.
Layne and Valdes have to count against him. Obviously he had so many good wins that he should still be regarded as one of the best; but those losses still count.

I just think we should evaluate everyone the same way; not just cherry picking what we think were "Defining" wins for some fighters and completely ignoring the negatives by claiming they weren't "Defining".

Also a win over washed up fighter should not count for much when rating/evaluating a fighter. If you want to argue that it made Charles happy, fine.