View Full Version : Where do you rank Ezzard Charles on P4P lists?


Barn
01-31-2012, 07:31 PM
I have him at 4. Et toi?

JAB5239
01-31-2012, 07:47 PM
Easy top ten pick.

IronDanHamza
01-31-2012, 09:16 PM
To be honest I think his resume is as good as anyone's.

Ziggy Stardust
01-31-2012, 10:55 PM
Top-5 :boxing:

Obama
01-31-2012, 11:01 PM
He's outside of my top 7. But he could easily be 8. Or he could be 15. I don't think I'd rate him lower than that.

Boxing Bob
02-01-2012, 01:09 AM
with 25 career losses?????

jrosales13
02-01-2012, 01:23 AM
I think he is a top 10 ATG fighter. Last time I did my list I had him at #5 behind SRR, Greb, Langford, and Armstrong. But, all that can change depending on how I'm feeling that day.

Ziggy Stardust
02-01-2012, 01:27 AM
with 25 career losses?????

And? Ray Robinson has 19 career losses. Things like that happen when you continue fighting long after you're washed up.

Poet

Obama
02-01-2012, 03:50 AM
with 25 career losses?????

Truth be told Charles should have retired even before he gave Rocky Marciano life and death...twice.

13 of those losses were post-Marciano, +2 to Marciano. So only 10 losses before that. At one point Charles had a record of 81-8-1..fighting the best fighters from Middleweight to Heavyweight.

There's like a handful of fighters you can rate in the top 10 in 3 real weight classes. Charles is one of them. And to top it off he rates all the way at #1 in the LHW division.

BennyST
02-01-2012, 09:11 AM
with 25 career losses?????

*sigh*

You know a troll when they come up with that comment.

BennyST
02-01-2012, 09:38 AM
Honestly, as to the topic, I don't and have rarely given a great deal of thought as to a top ten specifically, rating each guy exactly, but I do have my general preferences.

Charles, for me, is a flat out definite top ten. His one let down, arguably at that (a bit like Hearns) is his chin. To me, his chin was not a let down at all. When you fight that many great fighters, sometimes you are going to lose, possibly by KO when you are fighting guys above your natural weight...see Duran/Hearns for example.

However, all the chin business aside, when you beat in your 9th fight a veteran of a 100 fights, you clearly show something special. If you then beat guys like Teddy Yarosz and Ken Overlin, both about 120-15 with wins over great fighters, in around your 20th fight it means you're more than special. It means you're scary good.

Simply put, when you have a resume that consists of wins over fighters from middleweight to heavyweight that includes ATGs from each weight, often numerous times mind you, such as the aforementioned plus Charley Burley, Jose Basora, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Jersey Joe, Joe Louis, Gus Lesnevich, and many more, you not only deserve ATG status, you deserve that ATG status that puts you up among the very great of all the greats from boxing. He truly deserves that special status of top ten ATG.

Thing is, he also fought nearly all of them when they were at their best. Note I said 'nearly all'.

Boxing Bob
02-01-2012, 12:20 PM
I wasn't trolling when I made my statement. I just don't have as high of an opinion of Charles as the rest of you. Is that alright? While I rate him third at LHW (behind Foster and Spinks), he's not in my top 10 at HWT. He has a great resume, but he is not a top 10 p4p in my opinion.

NChristo
02-01-2012, 12:35 PM
I wasn't trolling when I made my statement. I just don't have as high of an opinion of Charles as the rest of you. Is that alright? While I rate him third at LHW (behind Foster and Spinks), he's not in my top 10 at HWT. He has a great resume, but he is not a top 10 p4p in my opinion.

Other then 'possibly' being better h2h what does Foster have over Charles ?, also where do you rank 46 Losses Langford ?.

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 12:53 PM
I could die laughing at the thought of Bob Foster being ranked above Ezzard Charles.

JAB5239
02-01-2012, 01:04 PM
I could die laughing at the thought of Bob Foster being ranked above Ezzard Charles.

I use to rank Foster above Charles before I understood the significance of resume. I'd still pick him to beat Ezzard h2h though.

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 01:11 PM
Honestly, as to the topic, I don't and have rarely given a great deal of thought as to a top ten specifically, rating each guy exactly, but I do have my general preferences.

Charles, for me, is a flat out definite top ten. His one let down, arguably at that (a bit like Hearns) is his chin. To me, his chin was not a let down at all. When you fight that many great fighters, sometimes you are going to lose, possibly by KO when you are fighting guys above your natural weight...see Duran/Hearns for example.

However, all the chin business aside, when you beat in your 9th fight a veteran of a 100 fights, you clearly show something special. If you then beat guys like Teddy Yarosz and Ken Overlin, both about 120-15 with wins over great fighters, in around your 20th fight it means you're more than special. It means you're scary good.

Simply put, when you have a resume that consists of wins over fighters from middleweight to heavyweight that includes ATGs from each weight, often numerous times mind you, such as the aforementioned plus Charley Burley, Jose Basora, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Jersey Joe, Joe Louis, Gus Lesnevich, and many more, you not only deserve ATG status, you deserve that ATG status that puts you up among the very great of all the greats from boxing. He truly deserves that special status of top ten ATG.

Thing is, he also fought nearly all of them when they were at their best. Note I said 'nearly all'.

I can't see how he could logically be ranked lower than #10.

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 01:13 PM
I use to rank Foster above Charles before I understood the significance of resume. I'd still pick him to beat Ezzard h2h though.

I'd probably lean on him in a H2H match, maybe.

But in terms of who they beat and what they achieved Bob Foster pales in comparison.

Ray Corso
02-01-2012, 01:19 PM
Honestly some of you guys are just totally green when it comes to the veteran boxers from different eras! I'll explain very simply how a fighter with 25 losses gets a high overall ranking.
First your career lasts 20 years.
When your 18 - 0 and need to be tested you foght someone like Ken Overin who at that time was 122-19-6!!!
Losses are part of being a "Full Time Fighter"!! You young people think that Mayweathers record is incredible where as I think its ok considering the best fighters hes fought were old and beyond their prime or pumped up welters. Its not his fault theres not a great amount of competition but the one guy whocan be a challenge hes avoided for some time.
Back to Mr. Charles the Heavyweight Champion of the World 93 (52ko) 25 losses-7 draws!! He has MORE KO wins then most fighters today have TOTAL fights. Mr. Charles was a well schooled fighter who could box and fight and was always in shape and more than willing to win.
Undefeated fighters simply haven't stuck around long enough in my view. Marciano was caught in an era that was weak but things might have changed with Liston and Williams and Paterson getting ready to knock on his door.
When you fight for 19 years and have 125 fights thats being a career pro fighter, being the champ with 50 fights is being an Entertainer!!

NChristo
02-01-2012, 01:32 PM
Honestly some of you guys are just totally green when it comes to the veteran boxers from different eras! I'll explain very simply how a fighter with 25 losses gets a high overall ranking.
First your career lasts 20 years.
When your 18 - 0 and need to be tested you foght someone like Ken Overin who at that time was 122-19-6!!!
Losses are part of being a "Full Time Fighter"!! You young people think that Mayweathers record is incredible where as I think its ok considering the best fighters hes fought were old and beyond their prime or pumped up welters. Its not his fault theres not a great amount of competition but the one guy whocan be a challenge hes avoided for some time.
Back to Mr. Charles the Heavyweight Champion of the World 93 (52ko) 25 losses-7 draws!! He has MORE KO wins then most fighters today have TOTAL fights. Mr. Charles was a well schooled fighter who could box and fight and was always in shape and more than willing to win.
Undefeated fighters simply haven't stuck around long enough in my view. Marciano was caught in an era that was weak but things might have changed with Liston and Williams and Paterson getting ready to knock on his door.
When you fight for 19 years and have 125 fights thats being a career pro fighter, being the champ with 50 fights is being an Entertainer!!

You didn't explain anything about Charles' ranking ?, all I got from your post is that you think you think we're green to the history of the sport and you tried to bundle us all together / stereotype us (using Mayweather of all people), which doesn't exactly go down well in this section.

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 01:33 PM
Honestly some of you guys are just totally green when it comes to the veteran boxers from different eras! I'll explain very simply how a fighter with 25 losses gets a high overall ranking.
First your career lasts 20 years.
When your 18 - 0 and need to be tested you foght someone like Ken Overin who at that time was 122-19-6!!!
Losses are part of being a "Full Time Fighter"!! You young people think that Mayweathers record is incredible where as I think its ok considering the best fighters hes fought were old and beyond their prime or pumped up welters. Its not his fault theres not a great amount of competition but the one guy whocan be a challenge hes avoided for some time.
Back to Mr. Charles the Heavyweight Champion of the World 93 (52ko) 25 losses-7 draws!! He has MORE KO wins then most fighters today have TOTAL fights. Mr. Charles was a well schooled fighter who could box and fight and was always in shape and more than willing to win.
Undefeated fighters simply haven't stuck around long enough in my view. Marciano was caught in an era that was weak but things might have changed with Liston and Williams and Paterson getting ready to knock on his door.
When you fight for 19 years and have 125 fights thats being a career pro fighter, being the champ with 50 fights is being an Entertainer!!

Why are you addressing "People" as if more than 1 person has stated the stupid argument you are replying to?

Other than the one person, pretty much everyone in this thread considers Ezzard Charles to be a minimum Top 5-10 ATG.

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 01:37 PM
You didn't explain anything about Charles' ranking ?, all I got from your post is that you think you think we're green to the history of the sport and you tried to bundle us all together / stereotype us (using Mayweather of all people), which doesn't exactly go down well in this section.

And the crazy/stupid part about it is the guy obviously must have missed the responses where it's pretty much unanimous praise for Charles.

"I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to not read the posts and just rant about nothing because I'm smart and everyone else is dumb but of course I don't actually know this because I haven't read the posts"

Seems to be a common trend on here.

raf727
02-01-2012, 01:41 PM
with 25 career losses?????

rofl, rookie.


charles was the man though, im pretty sure james toney said that was the one fighter he watched the most tape of and tried to learn from. definately top 10, prolly top 5 for me.

Ray Corso
02-01-2012, 01:51 PM
My comment about inexperienced people not being able to appreciate records of fighters from the eras when fighters fought was directed to THEM, if you don't feel that your apart of that group why cry? My comments are relavant to the forums attitude in general I wasn't aware there was so many green fans here I thought that fighters and trainer both current and past people took part on this forum but its a fans forum. I could careless what "goes down" well here or not, and couldn't drop a dime to watch Mayweather fight. I'm just voicing my opinion and I thought that was the idea of being part of a forum. Is this section any different then any other? I didn't read the rules for this section, where are they? Are you in charge here irondan? Ray Corso

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 01:59 PM
My comment about inexperienced people not being able to appreciate records of fighters from the eras when fighters fought was directed to THEM, if you don't feel that your apart of that group why cry? My comments are relavant to the forums attitude in general I wasn't aware there was so many green fans here I thought that fighters and trainer both current and past people took part on this forum but its a fans forum. I could careless what "goes down" well here or not, and couldn't drop a dime to watch Mayweather fight. I'm just voicing my opinion and I thought that was the idea of being part of a forum. Is this section any different then any other? I didn't read the rules for this section, where are they? Are you in charge here irondan? Ray Corso

What does anything have to do with Floyd Mayweather? Has Floyd Mayweather even been mentioned in this thread?

If your comment was about something so specific then why not address and simply reply to the person making the stupid ideology of basing anything off Charles' 25 losses?

And no I'm not in charge here. That would be JAB, who is in charge of this Section.

Ray Corso
02-01-2012, 02:12 PM
I used Mayweather & Marciano also to explain that some won lost records aren't defined by NO losses. Mr. Charles record is far superior to Marcianos and Mayweathers in my opinion and thats with 25 looses!
Heres another observation the talk about Pac vs Floyd and their fans calling them names and carrying on like a bunch of cheer leader girls is histerical to people in the business. Theres reasons for the delay and its ALL about money. Money to be made now and later!! Fans have never understood that but then again they usually see with their hearts not their minds because they haven't got a MIND in regards to the game.
I rank Mr.Charles very high he was the Champ of the World and that usually means your pretty damn good. Enough of this BS, time for lunch. Ray

NChristo
02-01-2012, 03:29 PM
Edit: **** it, can't be arsed, I'm too green of a fan too understand what this great wise old Mr Corso talks about.

Back on T: For me Ezzard Charles is easily top 10 material.

Boxing Bob
02-01-2012, 07:02 PM
the seventeen fighters I pick over Charles all time p4p- Ali, Duran, Hagler, Armstrong, Pep, Whitaker, Marciano, Mayweather, Monzon, Sal Sanchez, R Lopez, Robinson, B Leonard, Holmes, Chavez, B Ross, Galaxy. There might even be more if I put much thought into it. Charles was an all time great fighter with one hell of a resume, just not top 10 all time p4p in my opinion. Look at my list, he would have to be better than 13 of those to be considered top 5, better than 8 to be top ten. I'm not trying to belittle Charles but look at that list!!!

Ziggy Stardust
02-01-2012, 07:17 PM
the seventeen fighters I pick over Charles all time p4p- Ali, Duran, Hagler, Armstrong, Pep, Whitaker, Marciano, Mayweather, Monzon, Sal Sanchez, R Lopez, Robinson, B Leonard, Holmes, Chavez, B Ross, Galaxy. There might even be more if I put much thought into it. Charles was an all time great fighter with one hell of a resume, just not top 10 all time p4p in my opinion. Look at my list, he would have to be better than 13 of those to be considered top 5, better than 8 to be top ten. I'm not trying to belittle Charles but look at that list!!!

Grossly overrating Chavez for starters. He doesn't belong in the top-50 p4p let alone top-20. Holmes is a great Heavy but a p4p entrant? Huh? Galaxy?

Poet

IronDanHamza
02-01-2012, 07:23 PM
the seventeen fighters I pick over Charles all time p4p- Ali, Duran, Hagler, Armstrong, Pep, Whitaker, Marciano, Mayweather, Monzon, Sal Sanchez, R Lopez, Robinson, B Leonard, Holmes, Chavez, B Ross, Galaxy. There might even be more if I put much thought into it. Charles was an all time great fighter with one hell of a resume, just not top 10 all time p4p in my opinion. Look at my list, he would have to be better than 13 of those to be considered top 5, better than 8 to be top ten. I'm not trying to belittle Charles but look at that list!!!

Monzon, Sanchez, Ross, Hagler being ranked above Charles is one thing.

But Mayweather, Holmes, Marciano, Lopez and Chavez being ranked above him is just overwhelming ignorance or outright delusion.

And :rofl: :rofl: at f*cking Galaxy being ranked above Ezzard Charles.

:lol1: :lol1:

NChristo
02-01-2012, 08:20 PM
And :rofl: :rofl: at f*cking Galaxy being ranked above Ezzard Charles.


It's ludicrous to start with but I think most people know of my opinion on Galaxy while I've been here, trying damn hard to hold back right now and not go ape :lol1:. Bob is a good guy, I'll ignore it.

JAB5239
02-01-2012, 09:47 PM
the seventeen fighters I pick over Charles all time p4p- Ali, Duran, Hagler, Armstrong, Pep, Whitaker, Marciano, Mayweather, Monzon, Sal Sanchez, R Lopez, Robinson, B Leonard, Holmes, Chavez, B Ross, Galaxy. There might even be more if I put much thought into it. Charles was an all time great fighter with one hell of a resume, just not top 10 all time p4p in my opinion. Look at my list, he would have to be better than 13 of those to be considered top 5, better than 8 to be top ten. I'm not trying to belittle Charles but look at that list!!!

Out of that list I think the only legit arguments to rate above him would be Robinson, Armstrong, Pep and Leonard. You could also add Langford and Greb above him but I doubt many more. The guys resume is simply amazing and he was a marvel of a fighter when in his prime. Jmo.

DarkTerror88
02-01-2012, 10:15 PM
i have him at 5
1. SRR
2. Langford
3. Greb
4. Armstrong
5 Ezz

if hes not in the top 10 or at least 15 i dont consider the person that credible

Obama
02-01-2012, 10:32 PM
Out of that list I think the only legit arguments to rate above him would be Robinson, Armstrong, Pep and Leonard. You could also add Langford and Greb above him but I doubt many more. The guys resume is simply amazing and he was a marvel of a fighter when in his prime. Jmo.

If Leonard = Benny Leonard those are 6 guys I do have ahead of Charles. I also have Joe Gans over him. Everyone else is fair game though for me.

JAB5239
02-01-2012, 10:52 PM
If Leonard = Benny Leonard those are 6 guys I do have ahead of Charles. I also have Joe Gans over him. Everyone else is fair game though for me.

Yep, that's the Leonard I was referring to. Forgot about Gans, a case can be made for him as well. In my opinion he's without a doubt a surefire top ten pick. :fing02:

Forza
02-02-2012, 12:54 AM
Would you guys agree he was the best LHW ever?

Barn
02-02-2012, 04:01 AM
Would you guys agree he was the best LHW ever?
Yeah, I think Greb gets under-rated at LHW though I'm not sure if I'd have Greb Top 3 I'd have to look more closely.

BennyST
02-02-2012, 09:22 AM
I wasn't trolling when I made my statement. I just don't have as high of an opinion of Charles as the rest of you. Is that alright? While I rate him third at LHW (behind Foster and Spinks), he's not in my top 10 at HWT. He has a great resume, but he is not a top 10 p4p in my opinion.

Why do you rate him above Charles? Because he has lots of this: WBC light heavyweight title, WBA World light heavyweight title, next to his name? Is that the only reason?

Because beating Dick Tiger, the best fighter he fought historically, and some other decent contenders just doesn't rate next to legends of LHW like Archie Moore (the near consensus LHW king), Lloyd Marshall, Anton Christofofofoloswhatever, Gus Lesnevich, Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Teddy Yarosz etc etc.

Man, rate that next to guys like Mike Quarry, good fighters, but never even champions. Seriously?

BennyST
02-02-2012, 09:38 AM
Would you guys agree he was the best LHW ever?

I think he's right up there as, or next to, my best LHW. The other guys I throw out there, at least above Foster and not in any order, are Charles himself, Tunney, Moore, Spinks, Greb, and I reckon you could also throw Langford, Loughran, Bivins, Jones Jr (how was Fosters comp better than Jones'?), and a few other guys.

I think Foster does great H2H against lots of LHW's, but his resume and general accomplishments don't stand up to others. He is a LHW great, not one of the LHW greats.

Barn
02-02-2012, 11:35 AM
Why do you rate him above Charles? Because he has lots of this: WBC light heavyweight title, WBA World light heavyweight title, next to his name? Is that the only reason?

Because beating Dick Tiger, the best fighter he fought historically, and some other decent contenders just doesn't rate next to legends of LHW like Archie Moore (the near consensus LHW king), Lloyd Marshall, Anton Christofofofoloswhatever, Gus Lesnevich, Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Teddy Yarosz etc etc.

Man, rate that next to guys like Mike Quarry, good fighters, but never even champions. Seriously?
:nonono: @nchristo

NChristo
02-02-2012, 11:49 AM
:nonono: @nchristo

You know what, **** you twat.



But really I kind of lost interest in the essay because of none participating and such, speaking of which, where is your Benny Lynch one you pecker !, still researching him though although only limited resources

Barn
02-02-2012, 12:08 PM
You know what, **** you twat.



But really I kind of lost interest in the essay because of none participating and such, speaking of which, where is your Benny Lynch one you pecker !, still researching him though although only limited resources
:lol1:...............