BoxRec

...is considered the greatest Light-heavyweight of all time and above Spinks, Foster, Tunney and Charles.

I think many rank Charles over Moore. But many probably edge Moore simply because he spent most of his career at 175 and Charles moved up to HW which is where they rank him (it's like Sam Langford . . .I personally rank him the greatest light HW of all time but most rank him at heavyweight).

Ditto with Tunney . . many rank him at heavyweight instead of light heavyweight.

As for Foster and Spinks, Moore clearly has a superior resume to both . .in fact I'd say far superior.

Because of his list of victims, Archie liked to knock 'em out... And he did (most of the time).

Archie was always considered to be the greatest LHW Champion. In the pre-boxrec days it wasn't easy to just scan the record of Ezzard Charles (who was never champ at the weight)... But Archie's list of victims is up there with anyone's.

Ezzard wrote:Archie was always considered to be the greatest LHW Champion. In the pre-boxrec days it wasn't easy to just scan the record of Ezzard Charles (who was never champ at the weight)... But Archie's list of victims is up there with anyone's.

ezzard charles wasn't that rated 30 years ago and i knew of him more for being one of the worst heavy weight champs rather than a great light heavy weight ...

Please explain how Ezzard Charles could ever qualify as one of the worst heavyweight champs?

Tuan_Jim wrote:Please explain how Ezzard Charles could ever qualify as one of the worst heavyweight champs?

he was a light heavy weight that beat an ancient joe louis and then lost to an even older jersey joe walcott ,hardly the stuff of legends is it

Oh, so this is your personal opinion, rather than actual fact. That makes a lot more sense.

Ezzard Charles was a brilliant stylist, who I always associated with suffering the Larry Holmes syndrome of being flanked by two giants of the division.

Your dismissive writeup of him is quite ignorant. I imagine you haven't seen him fight.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Oh, so this is your personal opinion, rather than actual fact. That makes a lot more sense.

Ezzard Charles was a brilliant stylist, who I always associated with suffering the Larry Holmes syndrome of being flanked by two giants of the division.

Your dismissive writeup of him is quite ignorant. I imagine you haven't seen him fight.

no this is fact .the facts are charles was a good stylist that had a very average heavy weight reign his claim to fame is getting ko'd by the oldest man to hold the heavy weight belt he never held a light heavy weight belt even thou he beat moore , charles while a great fighter was not a great heavy weight champ no more than micheal spinks was a great heavy weight champ

..ezzard charles was at his best against heavyweights before he won the title. he was often outweighed by as much as 25 pounds. ezzard was past his peak when he beat joe louis.

stevedoc wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Oh, so this is your personal opinion, rather than actual fact. That makes a lot more sense.

Ezzard Charles was a brilliant stylist, who I always associated with suffering the Larry Holmes syndrome of being flanked by two giants of the division.

Your dismissive writeup of him is quite ignorant. I imagine you haven't seen him fight.

no this is fact .the facts are charles was a good stylist that had a very average heavy weight reign his claim to fame is getting ko'd by the oldest man to hold the heavy weight belt he never held a light heavy weight belt even thou he beat moore , charles while a great fighter was not a great heavy weight champ no more than micheal spinks was a great heavy weight champ

This guy is one of, if not THE most pathetic posters of all time. Just when I think he can't possibly get worse he posts again.

Steve, it's over, you have been exposed.

Tomasino wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Oh, so this is your personal opinion, rather than actual fact. That makes a lot more sense.

Ezzard Charles was a brilliant stylist, who I always associated with suffering the Larry Holmes syndrome of being flanked by two giants of the division.

Your dismissive writeup of him is quite ignorant. I imagine you haven't seen him fight.

no this is fact .the facts are charles was a good stylist that had a very average heavy weight reign his claim to fame is getting ko'd by the oldest man to hold the heavy weight belt he never held a light heavy weight belt even thou he beat moore , charles while a great fighter was not a great heavy weight champ no more than micheal spinks was a great heavy weight champ

This guy is one of, if not THE most pathetic posters of all time. Just when I think he can't possibly get worse he posts again.

Steve, it's over, you have been exposed.

i stand by what i said charles wasn't thought of as one of the better heavy weight champs ,great fighter but not a great heavy weight champion ,his style has gone on to be used and emulated but that doesn't make his reign any better

Steve doesn't even rate a win over Joe Louis or wins over Jersey Joe Walcott.

Steve . . . who does impress you? Give me a list of heavyweight champions who aren't "average"?

I think we all agree that, as a fighter per se, Charles was a true great. no question for me. that he campaigned at the more lucrative heavier weight and didn't clean everyone out is almost meaningless. he was a lighter heavy whose great skill and style took him to the world title against bigger foes. that's some achievement.
having said all this EZZARD CHARLES has been slightly overrated on this forum for a couple of years now.

archie moore remains for me the greatest LH even though Charles beat him

Just because a guy campaigns as a heavyweight at 183 lbs. does not make him a heavyweight. I consider Charles a light-heavy as I do Spinks (who derailed Larry Holmes unbeaten heavyweight record) and Gene Tunney whose fame was as a heavyweight but campaigned as a light heavy.. Equally by today's standards I also consider Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey as the greatest cruiser weights.

I do not believe that Moore was the greatest light heavyweight ever. Ezzard beat him 4 of 5 times.

actjac wrote:Just because a guy campaigns as a heavyweight at 183 lbs. does not make him a heavyweight. I consider Charles a light-heavy as I do Spinks (who derailed Larry Holmes unbeaten heavyweight record) and Gene Tunney whose fame was as a heavyweight but campaigned as a light heavy.. Equally by today's standards I also consider Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey as the greatest cruiser weights.

I do not believe that Moore was the greatest light heavyweight ever. Ezzard beat him 4 of 5 times.

bingo

Charles beat 3 HOFers during his HW title reign in Louis, Walcott and Maxim (and the World Boxing HOF has Lesnevich as an inductee too). That's better than a lot of champs past and present.

Oma was past his best but still forgot more about boxing than any heavyweights, cruiserweights or light heavyweights around today ever knew not named Bernard. Valentino, Beshore and Barone were pretty weak challengers but at least they came to the fights in top shape without flabby guts and tried their very best when they got their title shot . . not stinking out the joint like a David Haye or Eddie Chambers.

"stevedoc"]

Tomasino wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Oh, so this is your personal opinion, rather than actual fact. That makes a lot more sense.

Ezzard Charles was a brilliant stylist, who I always associated with suffering the Larry Holmes syndrome of being flanked by two giants of the division.

Your dismissive writeup of him is quite ignorant. I imagine you haven't seen him fight.

no this is fact .the facts are charles was a good stylist that had a very average heavy weight reign his claim to fame is getting ko'd by the oldest man to hold the heavy weight belt he never held a light heavy weight belt even thou he beat moore , charles while a great fighter was not a great heavy weight champ no more than micheal spinks was a great heavy weight champ

This guy is one of, if not THE most pathetic posters of all time. Just when I think he can't possibly get worse he posts again.

Steve, it's over, you have been exposed.

i stand by what i said charles wasn't thought of as one of the better heavy weight champs ,great fighter but not a great heavy weight champion ,his style has gone on to be used and emulated but that doesn't make his reign any better[/quote]

What on earth are you going on about. You said you thought he was a poor heavyweight champ, not "that he wasn't thought of as one of the better heavyweight champs". Who told you he wasn't any good? You should stop posting on their behalf Steve you are looking so stupid doing so. Try to do your own research and post your own opinions. I really liked when you mentioned Achilles, that was very insightful and a truly original thought.

I think it's important to note that all but one of the Moore Charles fights were extremely close.

And...in a bit of Irony, the one fight that Charles ended in top fashion, was the one he came closest to being KO'd himself.


Those two were FAR more evenly matched than their records would indicate.


100% is a difficult percentage for people to put in perspective. But if that tells the whole story, then Sven Ottke is one of the greatest fighters to ever lace 'em up.

dempseyfire wrote:Charles beat 3 HOFers during his HW title reign in Louis, Walcott and Maxim (and the World Boxing HOF has Lesnevich as an inductee too). That's better than a lot of champs past and present.

Oma was past his best but still forgot more about boxing than any heavyweights, cruiserweights or light heavyweights around today ever knew not named Bernard. Valentino, Beshore and Barone were pretty weak challengers but at least they came to the fights in top shape without flabby guts and tried their very best when they got their title shot . . not stinking out the joint like a David Haye or Eddie Chambers.

Hey Dempsey, I think it's you that sort of stands up for Carnera now and again.....and I'm not here to pick a fight with you over that...though you know my opinion is different than yours.

But it occurs to me to ask you who you got your money on in a Carnera vs Charles affair.

And I'm serious....I aint takin' shots at no one for their opinions on this

BoxBuzz wrote:I think it's important to note that all but one of the Moore Charles fights were extremely close.

And...in a bit of Irony, the one fight that Charles ended in top fashion, was the one he came closest to being KO'd himself.


Those two were FAR more evenly matched than their records would indicate.


100% is a difficult percentage for people to put in perspective. But if that tells the whole story, then Sven Ottke is one of the greatest fighters to ever lace 'em up.

Buzz, you are are very big on Moore but you got to admit Charles was his master.

....you mean "different from"....not "different than"...

hey jack......not sure about the "difference" you are referring to here. Though I did try to find it.

Tomasino wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I think it's important to note that all but one of the Moore Charles fights were extremely close.

And...in a bit of Irony, the one fight that Charles ended in top fashion, was the one he came closest to being KO'd himself.


Those two were FAR more evenly matched than their records would indicate.


100% is a difficult percentage for people to put in perspective. But if that tells the whole story, then Sven Ottke is one of the greatest fighters to ever lace 'em up.

Buzz, you are are very big on Moore but you got to admit Charles was his master.

He was the "master" of getting the nod over Moore in some very close fights. But had they fought 4 more times......Archie would have won them all. Well not all, but the final 4 fights.

BoxBuzz wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Charles beat 3 HOFers during his HW title reign in Louis, Walcott and Maxim (and the World Boxing HOF has Lesnevich as an inductee too). That's better than a lot of champs past and present.

Oma was past his best but still forgot more about boxing than any heavyweights, cruiserweights or light heavyweights around today ever knew not named Bernard. Valentino, Beshore and Barone were pretty weak challengers but at least they came to the fights in top shape without flabby guts and tried their very best when they got their title shot . . not stinking out the joint like a David Haye or Eddie Chambers.

Hey Dempsey, I think it's you that sort of stands up for Carnera now and again.....and I'm not here to pick a fight with you over that...though you know my opinion is different than yours.

But it occurs to me to ask you who you got your money on in a Carnera vs Charles affair.

And I'm serious....I aint takin' shots at no one for their opinions on this

Charles by decision. Similar to the Gaines fight.