BoxRec

Here is another interesting one of who should be rated higher. (Not necessarily who would win head to head)
Who do you rate higher (at heavyweight) between Ezzard Charles and Ken Norton?

Not even a serious question.
Charles is an all time legitimate top 10 to 15 heavyweight

At Heavyweight only ? Then it's Norton. If it's overall, it's easily Ezzard Charles.

At HW Norton easily surpasses Charles.

Charles' biggest win name-wise is shot Joe Louis. His biggest win in terms of quality is Jersey Joe Walcott. It was repeated, but then avenged twice. He had a legit claim for the place in the top 5 of the 50s.

Norton's biggest win is near-to-prime Muhammad Ali and Ken deserved to have their rivalry been scored in his favor. His wins over Young and Quarry follow. He had a legit claim for the place in the top 5 of the 70s.

This is a tricky one for more than one reason.
Both had very good good performances in a loss: Charles to Marciano and Norton to Holmes. They each lost decisions in close fights that could have gone the other way; Charles to Walcott in their fourth fight and Norton to Ali in their third fight.

They had wins that were a big deal at the time and gets dismissed these days : Charles against Ray and Norton against Bobick.

They each had losses where there was a gray area concerning how far past their best they were. Charles to Valdes and Norton to Shavers.

Other fights to consider: How much should Charles get penalized for losing to Layne? What about Norton losing to Garcia? What about the Young fight where he fought well but easily could have lost the decision?

One way of looking at it is that Norton did not successfully defend the WBC title whereas Charles defended the lineal heavyweight title a couple of times.

Sure Norton fought in a better era, but Charles fought more matches than Norton. 1954 really was the end of the line for Charles, although he would fight on until 1959. He was 85-11-1 in that last fight with Marciano and he was never the same again. Norton ended his career at 42-7-1.

Charles already was the greatest light heavyweight there ever was prior to winning the heavyweight title. Norton was never the top guy in his era. Ali, Foreman, Frazier were ahead of him and he arguably was given a gift decision over Young and he got blasted out by Shavers. At best a top five heavyweight in the best era for heavyweights ever.

It's kind of a hard call but I would lean towards Charles. Why? He was of a higher pedigree than Norton. He had wins over far more quality opposition than Norton did: Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim
Lloyd Marshall, Rex Layne, Bob Satterfield, etc. He overcame greater odds than Norton considering he started out as a welterweight in the amateurs. And even in defeat and on the decline he gave one of the greatest heavyweights of all time (Marciano) two of the best remembered fights of the past 100 years.

As much as I like Norton part of his success was that he was brought in to be cannon fodder for an unmotivated Ali who did not expect a glorified journeyman (as Norton was seen) to do anything to him. He had already previously lost to Garcia by kayo in the 8th round, and Garcia was a 5-1 underdog. So in a lot of ways he got the win because of the element of surprise and Ali not preparing properly for the fight.

If you really look at it, the only reason why Norton kind of stayed around was because he fought guys like Ron Stander and Boone Kirkman and Larry Middleton and Pedro Lovell and Duane Bobick--- if you take away the Ali fights the only real fight of consequence that Norton won that looks impressive was Quarry (50-7-4) whose scar tissue had scar tissue and retired after the fight only to come back 2 years later only to retire again after one fight.

That's not to diminish Norton, because he was good, but a lot of his success in staying in the top 10 or top five was because of him facing less than stellar opposition and because of the lone win over Ali--- although I do think he should have won the third fight as well.

Charles had his ups and downs too don't get me wrong but he usually would fight the man he lost to multiple times to prove he was the better man to leave no doubt at all. Rex Layne, for example, was beaten two out of three by Charles. One can argue he should have won three out of the four matches with Walcott.

Outside of Garcia I don't think Norton ever was able to conclusively prove he was better than somebody he lost to. And unlike Charles he kind of benefited from getting gift decisions, because he deserved to lose to Cobb and LeDoux but because he was Ken Norton he got the nod.

Some of these arguments are legit, some aren't.

It doesn't matter what Charles did at light heavyweight. This is just about heavyweight. Wins over Moore and Marshall don't count. At all.

Yes Charles had some successful title defenses? So what? Look at who they were against. Gus Lesnevich, Valentine, Behsore, Barone, Oma? Don't mean much at all.
Norton's first title defense was Larry Holmes. And he barely lost in a great fight.
Norton's fights against Ledoux and Cobb were not gifts. and he was past it by then anyway.

One argument that people use that shouldn't is the "if you don't count his biggest win, then....."
Which is what is done with Norton's win over Ali.
Well you can't take out a guy's biggest win. It happened.

P4P I'll take Jersey Joe

At HW I'll take Norton

EDIT: I meant Ezzard. Not sure where my mind is at.

Norton arguably beat Ali twice, and ran a prime Larry Holmes close. That's well beyond Ezzard Charles' abilities at Heavyweight.

Ezzard Charles is unquestionably ahead of Norton in terms of accomplishments. He was the best heavyweight in the world for a period, won the lineal title, made numerous title defenses whereas Norton never won a title fight. His only clear loss at heavyweight during his prime was the third Walcott fight. He also did a better job of fighting contemporary top guys. Norton would likely have more prime losses had he fought Frazier, Shavers earlier, and others. Norton's only edge is having the better top win.

If fighters are ranked solely on their best wins than Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe are greater than Joe Louis.

At heavyweight, Charles is not clearly ahead on "accomplishments. "


Of course you don't only rate fight soley on their best win. However, it's certainly not something that should be disregarded. It's not the only factor, but it is a huge factor.

Charles only lost once decisively at heavyweight? Guess that depends on when you consider his prime to be. He certainly lost more fights at heavyweight than Norton.

As for the title defenses? Again so what? The sheer number of title defenses doesn't mean anything by itself. Most of the his challengers were mediocre at best.
How many title defense would Charles have had if his first was Larry Holmes? Answer is zero.
Beating a mediocre fighter in a title defense is not an accomplishment. Almost beating Larry Holmes is.

Again not saying you can't argue for Charles. It's close. However, these arguments are weak.

Charles a greater fighter by a long margin, at heavy only its norton, His 3 fights with Ali are enough to put Ezzard's heavy resume in the shade. Really he edged the greatest heavy ever 2/3 or you could argue 3/3 even He was the 4th best heavy of a tremendous era. Ezzard fought at heavy in a weak post war era,

I think it's clear Charles prime ended circa 1951 and that by 1951/52 he was showing signs of decline and struggling and losing to guys at a level at which he previously thrived against.
His numerous losses can be attributed to fighting until he was far past it and don't seem of much relevance.

As for his title defenses being against guys some consider mediocre, many were highly ranked and among the best available to fight at the time. If unexceptional competition renders title defenses meaningless does that mean that Louis's and Holmes title defenses are meaningless given the lack of great opponents among their challengers?

As for Holmes beating Chales h2h I don't think we can be sure given people cannot even predict fights between fighters of the same era. I would tend to favor Holmes due to his size advantage but Holmes is not a big puncher and I don't think he beat someone as skilled as Charles. He was also inconsistent in his performances. I don't think anyone can argue against Charles achieving more in his era than Norton did in his

I agree that some of his losses are irrelevant. However the ones against Walcott, Valdes, Layne and Johnson have to count. He should not have lost to Valdes at that stage of h his career.
Of course you do have to take into consideration that Walcott was a great fighter and that the scoring for the Layne fight was dubious. Obviously losing to Harold Johnson is not exactly embarrassing. Still, these are losses worth noting.

Not accusing Charles of ducking anyone. Realize that some of these guys were simply the best available. However, they were nevertheless weak opponents. He should not be given credit for it.

Holmes and louis defended the title against a mixed bag of opponents. some of them were stiffs. They should not get credit for beating those particular opponents. They should get credit for beating quality opponents.

We need to get away form the accomplishment of have a certain amount of title defenses. Tommy Burns had 11. Nobody thinks that means anything.

Ken Norton is right there with Ezzard Charles in terms of "accomplishments." And it's not just the win over Ali. Beating Quarry and Young were "accomplishments". Giving a prime Larry Holmes all that he can handle is an accomplishment. Beating Lee Oma, Gus Lesnevich etc. aren't "accomplishments."

At heavyweight, it is Ken Norton, no doubt.

P4P there is also no doubt, but the fighters have to be flipped.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Dec 2021, 11:59 I agree that some of his losses are irrelevant. However the ones against Walcott, Valdes, Layne and Johnson have to count. He should not have lost to Valdes at that stage of h his career.
Of course you do have to take into consideration that Walcott was a great fighter and that the scoring for the Layne fight was dubious. Obviously losing to Harold Johnson is not exactly embarrassing. Still, these are losses worth noting.

Not accusing Charles of ducking anyone. Realize that some of these guys were simply the best available. However, they were nevertheless weak opponents. He should not be given credit for it.

Holmes and louis defended the title against a mixed bag of opponents. some of them were stiffs. They should not get credit for beating those particular opponents. They should get credit for beating quality opponents.

We need to get away form the accomplishment of have a certain amount of title defenses. Tommy Burns had 11. Nobody thinks that means anything.

Ken Norton is right there with Ezzard Charles in terms of "accomplishments." And it's not just the win over Ali. Beating Quarry and Young were "accomplishments". Giving a prime Larry Holmes all that he can handle is an accomplishment. Beating Lee Oma, Gus Lesnevich etc. aren't "accomplishments."

I think the evidence pretty heavily points to him being past his prime by the time of the losses to Valdes, Johnson, etc. For years he was consistently winning against the best available and suddenly he is losing fights left and right sometimes to pretty unexceptional opponents inferior to the guys he was routinely beating previously. He had more than 80 fights by this stage so its hardly surprising he would start to slip at a young age. He was also having many fights per year and taking more punishment than most fighters take during a similar period. Its reasonable to hold the first loss to Walcott against him but it looks he started a major decline shortly afterwards. You also have to take into account the sheer number of good opponents he had been in with. He had fought Charley Burley, Ken Overlin, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, etc. I would say Ezzard Charles prime was 1942-1951 and Norton's was 1972 to 1977.

Sometimes its a gray area as to when a fighter's prime is. For most guys it is gradual. Didn't seem to be that way for Norton but it did seem that way for Charles,
Norton fought a great fight against Holmes in 1978. That version of Norton was better than any version of Charles. However, he was never the same afterward.
Charles seemed close to his prime in the fights immediately after losing to Valdes and Johnson. Johnson was a great fighter himself, losing to him is not an embarrassment, but worth noting. He should have beat Valdes at that stage of his career and that should count against him.

Seamus wrote: ↑15 Dec 2021, 13:09 At Heavyweight only ? Then it's Norton. If it's overall, it's easily Ezzard Charles.

^ I'd agree with this.

Though Charles has a case for being a better Heavyweight as their achievements as Heavyweights aren't far off. Charles is the better fighter overall by miles.

I think Charles is a good example of a guy who became underrated once the generation that remembered him died out. People around today don't feel a connection with his era because they either weren't alive or at least not old enough to be following boxing. Ironically, we see the same trend with increasing numbers of younger fans who don't rate heavyweights from the 1970s or even the 1990s very highly. Norton's reputation seems to be based almost entirely on the first fight with Ali which is a good win but Ali was out of shape and in the rematch he lost to a better-conditioned Ali who showed up in decent shape. I'm curious as to why wins over Quarry and Young are being held up as more impressive than many of Charles's wins. Why is a win over a faded Quarry more impressive than beating a prime Rex Layne? Why is beating Jimmy Young more impressive than beating Jimmy Bivins? Young lost in his very next fight to Ossie Ocasio.

Moreover we have numerous examples of fighters from Charles era (and the prior era) beating fighters from subsequent eras some of whom beat direct contemporaries of Norton.
Bob Satterfield beat Cleveland Williams and John Summerlin (who beat Folley)
Jimmy Bivins beat Mike DeJohn
Joey Maxim beat Floyd Patterson
Bob Baker beat George Chuvalo
etc

Charles also had to deal with killing a man Sam Baroudi after their fight in the ring and some think it affected his career. Charles was better overall. Norton could be had by almost anyone who could throw a left hook. I would have like to see a Norton- Lyle fight. Norton didn't beat a boxing prime Holmes. Holmes body was in its prime by his skills were not. I think Larry learned alot from Fighting Norton. Norton was a foil for boxers like Ali and Young and Holmes. I do believe that Norton won all three fights with Ali and was screwed by boxing who wanted to keep their cash cow alive. Ali to me isn't as great as the fanboys believe. In another 20 years you will see more realistic ranking of Ali.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2022, 16:18 I think Charles is a good example of a guy who became underrated once the generation that remembered him died out. People around today don't feel a connection with his era because they either weren't alive or at least not old enough to be following boxing. Ironically, we see the same trend with increasing numbers of younger fans who don't rate heavyweights from the 1970s or even the 1990s very highly. Norton's reputation seems to be based almost entirely on the first fight with Ali which is a good win but Ali was out of shape and in the rematch he lost to a better-conditioned Ali who showed up in decent shape. I'm curious as to why wins over Quarry and Young are being held up as more impressive than many of Charles's wins. Why is a win over a faded Quarry more impressive than beating a prime Rex Layne? Why is beating Jimmy Young more impressive than beating Jimmy Bivins? Young lost in his very next fight to Ossie Ocasio.

Moreover we have numerous examples of fighters from Charles era (and the prior era) beating fighters from subsequent eras some of whom beat direct contemporaries of Norton.
Bob Satterfield beat Cleveland Williams and John Summerlin (who beat Folley)
Jimmy Bivins beat Mike DeJohn
Joey Maxim beat Floyd Patterson
Bob Baker beat George Chuvalo
etc

Not sure what any of these fights have to do with Norton and Charles. Norton never fought any of these guys, and Charles didn't might many of them.
btw- Williams literally took the Satterfield fight at the last minute. Patterson got totally robbed against Maxim. He may have lost one round.

Head to head I’d pick Charles. Resume, Charles by a mile. Tenure as heavyweight champion, Charles.

So I guess I pick Charles…

Head to head doesn't count because it didn't actually happen.
Resume at heavyweight is close. Charles beat Walcott 2x, a past it Louis, Ray, and then what?
Norton beat Ali which trumps Charles biggest win. Also beat Quarry and Young. Lost Holmes in a great fight,

As for the title reign, well that is part of the resume. It's not it's own category. Charles only had one title defense (2nd Walcott fight) that is noteworthy anyway.
They each had some noteworthy losses.
This is about as close as it gets.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Jan 2022, 09:46 Head to head doesn't count because it didn't actually happen.
Resume at heavyweight is close. Charles beat Walcott 2x, a past it Louis, Ray, and then what?
Norton beat Ali which trumps Charles biggest win. Also beat Quarry and Young. Lost Holmes in a great fight,

As for the title reign, well that is part of the resume. It's not it's own category. Charles only had one title defense (2nd Walcott fight) that is noteworthy anyway.
They each had some noteworthy losses.
This is about as close as it gets.

I picked Charles mate.

Not sure why you are laughing.
You seemed to think Charles was clearly better. I think they are very close, and was questioning your reasoning.