BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote:Sam Langford
Ezzard Charles
Mike Tyson
Salvador Sanchez
Roy Jones, Jr

yes yes no no no

I'd agree with Pundit on all but Sanchez...who was not able to show us all he had....we will never be able to really assess him...but he sure showed promise and delivered about all one could ask of someone his age.

Roberto Duran
Ezzard Charles
Willie Pep
Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong

Langford and Charles were some of the best ever.

Tyson was found wanting on the ring, so there really is no argument regarding his omission.

Sanchez had enough good wins to have got there if only he'd have lived.

Jones didn't take the fights he needed to in order to get in this company. Sanchez fought more top fighters than Jones which tells you all you need to know.

DoubleM wrote:Roberto Duran
Ezzard Charles
Willie Pep
Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong

...vastly superior list...

Why Ezzard Charles?
He lost alot of fights.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Why Ezzard Charles?
He lost alot of fights.

Yes and Sven Ottke didn't lose any...

I'm not saying that Charles wasn't a great fighter.

But could have been the best ever??

A bit farfetched thats all

if ALLOWED his world middleweight title fight and the few defences that come with it, then Jock McAvoy (who already is considered a great), would forever be included in all MW and even p4p lists.

further evidence of this can be seen in his battles in the heavier divisions including HW; and NONE of his MW contemporaries, repeat none - including Freddie Steele did this OR could have taken John Henry Lewis to task for 15 rounds!

JOCK MCAVOY!!!

Robinson, Pep and Armstrong are my top three they coud probably be in any order.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:I'm not saying that Charles wasn't a great fighter.

But could have been the best ever??

A bit farfetched thats all

IMO Charles would have won the MW title from zale if he had been given a shot and would have held the 175 crown for quite some time. Even without winning these titles he beat many top fighters in both divisions, and at 175 his resume stands next to any of the greatest champions from the division. Tyson, Sanchez and Jones are all a lot more far-fetched IMO. You can't decide who the best is by looking at statistics.

Ezzard wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:I'm not saying that Charles wasn't a great fighter.

But could have been the best ever??

A bit farfetched thats all

IMO Charles would have won the MW title from zale if he had been given a shot and would have held the 175 crown for quite some time. Even without winning these titles he beat many top fighters in both divisions, and at 175 his resume stands next to any of the greatest champions from the division. Tyson, Sanchez and Jones are all a lot more far-fetched IMO. You can't decide who the best is by looking at statistics.

Erm.. would he have? You presume a great deal.
Zale was a class act himself.

In HW terms there is no shame in losing to Marciano, but again he lost to Walcott.. and think he had 25 losses as a pro.

I want to reiterate that he WAS a great fighter, but Ezzard Cahrles and 'could have been the best ever' don't go together.
Because he wasn't.
Period

Hmmm I thought this was lists of "potential" top 5's which is why I didnt' offer a big arguement with the weaker of the two lists. Decagon on the other hand blew a fuse when he read what he considered to be blasphemy. He's a boxing bible thumping preacher that Decagon.

A no nonsense boxing fundamentalist.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:In HW terms there is no shame in losing to Marciano, but again he lost to Walcott.. and think he had 25 losses as a pro..

As mentioned statistics do not tell the whole story, the greatest proportion of them 12 or 13 or so come at the tail end of his career when he was well past his best.

Secondly look closer at the losses. Elmer Ray was an increadably hard hitting heavywieght who outweighed him by 20lbs because Charles was still a LHW at the time, and most people feel that fight was a robbery anyway. I mean Charles was fighting people like Lloyd Marshall, Charley Burley, Jimmy Bivins and Joey Maxim in his second and third years as a pro for christsake. His record is vastly supirior to many fighters with far fewer losses

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Erm.. would he have? You presume a great deal.
Zale was a class act himself.

What suggests to you Zale would have been able to handle Charles?

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:I want to reiterate that he WAS a great fighter, but Ezzard Cahrles and 'could have been the best ever' don't go together.
Because he wasn't.
Period

I don't have Charles as the greatest ever but as mentioned he belongs in the discussion far more than some others who have been put forward so far.

a tribute to both, John Henry Lewis and Jock McAvoy...you will be made very aware of the size difference, again showing McAvoy's status as the Top MW... http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 30,00.html


P.S Ezzard Charles IS a Top all-time great, Full-Stop!

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:I'm not saying that Charles wasn't a great fighter.

But could have been the best ever??

A bit farfetched thats all

IMO Charles would have won the MW title from zale if he had been given a shot and would have held the 175 crown for quite some time. Even without winning these titles he beat many top fighters in both divisions, and at 175 his resume stands next to any of the greatest champions from the division. Tyson, Sanchez and Jones are all a lot more far-fetched IMO. You can't decide who the best is by looking at statistics.

Erm.. would he have? You presume a great deal.
Zale was a class act himself.

In HW terms there is no shame in losing to Marciano, but again he lost to Walcott.. and think he had 25 losses as a pro.

I want to reiterate that he WAS a great fighter, but Ezzard Cahrles and 'could have been the best ever' don't go together.
Because he wasn't.
Period

I think he'd have beaten Zale. It's only an opinion but he beat better MWs than Zale.

In HW terms I agree he's not one of the greatest but put his HW record next to any other man who moved up from 175 and I'd say it's as good a it gets.

IMO Robinson, Armstrong, Langford, Greb, Duran, Pep, Saddler, Moore and Charles are the best boxing has to offer outside of the HWs. Charles definitely deserves his place in that company. Who was the greatest of them will always be argued over but his name has to be in the argument for it to be one worth anything.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:I'm not saying that Charles wasn't a great fighter.

But could have been the best ever??

A bit farfetched thats all

IMO Charles would have won the MW title from zale if he had been given a shot and would have held the 175 crown for quite some time. Even without winning these titles he beat many top fighters in both divisions, and at 175 his resume stands next to any of the greatest champions from the division. Tyson, Sanchez and Jones are all a lot more far-fetched IMO. You can't decide who the best is by looking at statistics.

Erm.. would he have? You presume a great deal.
Zale was a class act himself.

In HW terms there is no shame in losing to Marciano, but again he lost to Walcott.. and think he had 25 losses as a pro.

I want to reiterate that he WAS a great fighter, but Ezzard Cahrles and 'could have been the best ever' don't go together.
Because he wasn't.
Period

Look, just give up now. You wouldn't even care to change your opinion even if we spat the facts in your face.

Thats because my opinion is right

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Thats because my opinion is right

Alright, argue with me then. I want you to point out specific reasons, in bullet points, which you think should deny Charles a place at the top. Go.

Never dominated
Lost 25 fights
Got KO'd by Jersey Joe


Look, i do think he was a great fighter, but not one of the elite.

Not on an Ali/Robinson/Marciano/Armstrong/Greb etc level
Do you think he is on that level?

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Never dominated
Lost 25 fights
Got KO'd by Jersey Joe


Look, i do think he was a great fighter, but not one of the elite.

Not on an Ali/Robinson/Marciano/Armstrong/Greb etc level
Do you think he is on that level?

I think his record at 175 is very dominant. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better record in the division.

The number of fights he lost means nothing on its own. He lost to Overlin a very capable experienced fighter when they met. He lost to Marshall and Bivins, fights that he avenged in a series whioch left no doubt as to who the better fighter was. He got KO'd against Walcott by one of the best left hooks ever thrown (when he was fighting in a weight class above his best) and lost a disputed decision in the rematch. He then lost a fierce battle to Marciano, giving him his toughest fight.

I think even Marciano fans will tell you that p4p Charles was better.

How do you decide if someone is elite? Marciano makes the cut, why? he was a great fighter but if you're putting a tier on top of the greats then I don't see how he makes it.

livingstone cole wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

The number of fights he lost means nothing on its own. He lost to Overlin a very capable experienced fighter when they met. He lost to Marshall and Bivins, fights that he avenged in a series whioch left no doubt as to who the better fighter was. He got KO'd against Walcott by one of the best left hooks ever thrown.

Hmm, that reads a lot like the basis for disregarding Lennox Lewis's standing in boxing history.

Lewis never fought any of those guys

livingstone cole wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

The number of fights he lost means nothing on its own. He lost to Overlin a very capable experienced fighter when they met. He lost to Marshall and Bivins, fights that he avenged in a series whioch left no doubt as to who the better fighter was. He got KO'd against Walcott by one of the best left hooks ever thrown.

Hmm, that reads a lot like the basis for disregarding Lennox Lewis's standing in boxing history.

The difference is lewis lost twice.
Charles lost 25 times

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

livingstone cole wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

The number of fights he lost means nothing on its own. He lost to Overlin a very capable experienced fighter when they met. He lost to Marshall and Bivins, fights that he avenged in a series whioch left no doubt as to who the better fighter was. He got KO'd against Walcott by one of the best left hooks ever thrown.

Hmm, that reads a lot like the basis for disregarding Lennox Lewis's standing in boxing history.

The difference is lewis lost twice.
Charles lost 25 times

Come on, Heartbreak, you can do better than that.

How does Marciano make the elite fighters and Charles not?

Take a look at Charles' fights and his record and let me know how Lewis and Marciano can be rated higher in a P4P sense. Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Langford, etc are the cream and Charles, IMO, has the credentials to sit alongside them.