What if: Ezzard Charles beats Marciano

[Barn]

Automatically?

Well more defences is better than less, so yeah kind of.

Longevity.

Doesn't really trump him IMO.

Thankyou. Bad choice of words as well. Doesn't trump him but, beats him without too much doubt.

His unbeaten record isn't what qualifies him as great IMO. It adds it it but it isn't the be all and end all. I would still rank him in the same place I do right now if he was 1-1 with Charles.

Well that's where the problem in our viewpoints lies then.

But did the others? No.

Being well on your way and getting knocked unconcious isn't close to winning.

Not being stopped on cuts isn't either.

It was by no means easy and if the caliber of fighters were higher during that era (ie: Heavier, fresher.) then he may well have lost a lot of fights.

So?

It still doesn't change the regard that Marciano is held in.

It changes the validity of the statement though.

Disagree.

That's fine.

Who? Archie Moore?

No, Charles.

Not really.

With or without a loss to Charles he'd still have that Aura.

Not to the extent he has now.

My whole argument that's being refuted he would be in their calibre. As argubaly the greatest of all time.

But, you're saying a win like this infact does put him in the same sentance as Robinson, Greb and Langford.

Doesn't that prove my point?

No not really as he's already there. What I'm saying is that lone win would not completely justify a climb of 3-4 places in the P4P ranks as I wouldn't rate the win as highly as you if said events took place.

Disagree.

That's fine.

[IronDanHamza]

Well more defences is better than less, so yeah kind of.

Doesn't mean much though really.

The Title defences argument is the most annoying, to me.

Virgil Hill has plenty. How many resume points do his equate to?

What's better? A title defense against a **** fighter or a win over a great fighter not for the title?

Title defenses mean little to me, it all depends who the defense is against.

Thankyou. Bad choice of words as well. Doesn't trump him but, beats him without too much doubt.

I think there's absolute doubt.

I rank them both around the same place - Marciano #10, Lewis #12.

Well that's where the problem in our viewpoints lies then.

Yeah.

It was by no means easy and if the caliber of fighters were higher during that era (ie: Heavier, fresher.) then he may well have lost a lot of fights.

Of course, again, I've never argued Marciano is unbeatable. Infact, and again, I said the exact opposite.

But, a win over Marciano would be considered amongst one of the best wins in any Heavyweight in history's best win.

That includes - Ali, Louis, Tyson, Holmes, Liston, Holyfield, the list goes on and on.

For a reason, and not because he's undefeated.

It changes the validity of the statement though.

Not really.

With a single loss to Charles or not, he'd still have that aura, that glaring.

Look at Liston, through out the 60's, up to the Ali fights, he had an absolute aura of invincibility.

Does the fact he had a series with Marty Marshall change that? No.

The same applies if Marciano split a series with Charles.

No, Charles.

Wasn't this part specifically in regards to Archie Moore?

Not to the extent he has now.

Why not?

No not really as he's already there. What I'm saying is that lone win would not completely justify a climb of 3-4 places in the P4P ranks as I wouldn't rate the win as highly as you if said events took place.

I guess we disagree.

I just can't see how a win over Rocky Marciano isn't a momumental thing.

If he's already amongst the greatest of all time according to yourself. I can't see how a win over Marciano, in your 3rd weight class (5th in today's standrds) against an ATG at the weight, whilst your past your prime, doesn't justify him moving up a place, or even 2 on the P4P list.

I just can't see how that's possible.

[Barn]

Doesn't mean much though really.

The Title defences argument is the most annoying, to me.

Virgil Hill has plenty. How many resume points do his equate to?

What's better? A title defense against a **** fighter or a win over a great fighter not for the title?

Title defenses mean little to me, it all depends who the defense is against.

Yes but, if one is magically whisked away it's just...worse.

If I have 1 pound and 2 pennies if a penny is taken away I have less money.

I think there's absolute doubt.

I rank them both around the same place - Marciano #10, Lewis #12.

Disagree there as well.

Of course, again, I've never argued Marciano is unbeatable. Infact, and again, I said the exact opposite.

But, a win over Marciano would be considered amongst any Heavyweight in history's best win.

Yes because he is unbeaten for the most part, his resume is nothing special.


Not really.

With a single loss to Charles or not, he'd still have that aura, that glaring.

Look at Liston, through out the 60's, up to the Ali fights, he had an absolute aura of invincibility.

Does the fact he had a series with Marty Marshall change that? No.

The same applies if Marciano split a series with Charles.

If Liston had never been defeated I think it would enhance his aura.

Wasn't this part specifically in regards to Archie Moore?

Don't think so.

Why not?

He is no longer the fighter who "always finds a way to win." He's no longer the fighter who has "never lost."

I guess we disagree.

I just can't see how a win over Rocky Marciano isn't a momumental thing.

It is a monumental thing IF Marciano's record etc stays the same and we somehow still add the win to Charles resume. However he doesn't look nearly as impressive resume wise if as I stated earlier, he loses to the best fighter he faced, has half the defences etc.

If he's already amongst the greatest of all time according to yourself. I can't see how a win over Marciano, in your 3rd weight class (5th in today's standrds) against an ATG at the weight, whilst your past your prime, doesn't justify him moving up a place, or even 2 on the P4P list.

I just can't see how that's possible.

Because it's the norm down there. "Pfft 3 weight classes higher, I've done that." - Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Robinson.

And due to the fact it's not that big addition to Charles' HW resume if Marciano becomes less great due to the loss. He still has his defences, his wins over Jersey Joe Walcott and Joe Louis etc.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes but, if one is magically whisked away it's just...worse.

If I have 1 pound and 2 pennies if a penny is taken away I have less money.

Not really the same though is it

He had 4, he'd have 2. So?

His resume of wins would be the same except he'd have 1 loss to a fighter he's beat who happens to be pretty amazing.

Yes because he is unbeaten for the most part, his resume is nothing special.

It's pretty good.

Not really.

Not really what?

Other than Ali, Fraizer and Foreman, any HW in history a win over a prime Rocky Marciano would be considered possibly their best win.

Tyson, Holmes, Liston, Holyfield, Lewis, etc.

Even Ali, Fraizer and Foreman, a win over Marciano would rank up there with one of their best wins.

This is all for a reason.

If Liston had never been defeated I think it would enhance his aura.

Well yeah it would enhance it.

It still doesn't change the fact it was there. And it was strong, strong as you could ever imagine.

The same would apply for Marciano.

People wouldn't reduce his legacy to a "footnote", how you put it.

You don't become a footnote for having one less to Ezzard Charles. Especially when you beat him once.

It goes back to the same Lennox Lewis argument. When Lennox get's knocked out by two glorifed bums and avenges them it's seen as something good. "He beat everyone he's faced" how many times have I heard that line.

Yet, Marciano would get reduced to a footnote if he went 1-1 with Charles. Nah, sorry, never going to agree with that.

Don't think so.

Pretty sure it was.

I said; "What if Moore beat Marciano? You bet your ass he would be considered a lock Top 10 ATG" or something along those lines.

You then said something about Heavyweight and how he didn't do much there so it would be monumental if he beat Marciano.

To which I replied; "I was talking P4P ranking. Not Heavyweight".

He is no longer the fighter who "always finds a way to win." He's no longer the fighter who has "never lost."

But he's still a fighter he beat everyone he faced. Only lost to an ATG, one of the best fighters ever.

And beat the **** out of almost everyone faced and could probably knock out a live horse with a single punch.

It is a monumental thing IF Marciano's record etc stays the same and we somehow still add the win to Charles resume. However he doesn't look nearly as impressive resume wise if as I stated earlier, he loses to the best fighter he faced, has half the defences etc.

It's still monumental.

Being the only person to beat Marciano would be such an astronomical feat.

Because it's the norm down there. "Pfft 3 weight classes higher, I've done that." - Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Robinson.

So, again, a win over Marciano puts them in that company, no? Without a doubt?

Again, hence why it could easily increase his P4P ranking.

And due to the fact it's not that big addition to Charles' HW resume if Marciano becomes less great due to the loss. He still has his defences, his wins over Jersey Joe Walcott and Joe Louis etc.

Beating Marciano would obviously be a huge addition to his already very good HW resume.

I can't see how it wouldn't.

[Barn]

Not really the same though is it

He had 4, he'd have 2. So?

His resume of wins would be the same except he'd have 1 loss to a fighter he's beat who happens to be pretty amazing.







It's pretty good.




Not really what?

Other than Ali, Fraizer and Foreman, any HW in history a win over a prime Rocky Marciano would be considered possibly their best win.

Tyson, Holmes, Liston, Holyfield, Lewis, etc.

Even Ali, Fraizer and Foreman, a win over Marciano would rank up there with one of their best wins.

This is all for a reason.




Well yeah it would enhance it.

It still doesn't change the fact it was there. And it was strong, strong as you could ever imagine.

The same would apply for Marciano.

People wouldn't reduce his legacy to a "footnote", how you put it.

You don't become a footnote for having one less to Ezzard Charles. Especially when you beat him once.

It goes back to the same Lennox Lewis argument. When Lennox get's knocked out by two glorifed bums and avenges them it's seen as something good. "He beat everyone he's faced" how many times have I heard that line.

Yet, Marciano would get reduced to a footnote if he went 1-1 with Charles. Nah, sorry, never going to agree with that.




Pretty sure it was.

I said; "What if Moore beat Marciano? You bet your ass he would be considered a lock Top 10 ATG" or something along those lines.

You then said something about Heavyweight and how he didn't do much there so it would be monumental if he beat Marciano.

To which I replied; "I was talking P4P ranking. Not Heavyweight".








But he's still a fighter he beat everyone he faced. Only lost to an ATG, one of the best fighters ever.

And beat the **** out of almost everyone faced and could probably knock out a live horse with a single punch.






It's still monumental.

Being the only person to beat Marciano would be such an astronomical feat.





So, again, a win over Marciano puts them in that company, no? Without a doubt?

Again, hence why it could easily increase his P4P ranking.



Beating Marciano would obviously be a huge addition to his already very good HW resume.

I can't see how it wouldn't.

i'll get back to this tomorrow.

[Barn]

Not really the same though is it

He had 4, he'd have 2. So?

His resume of wins would be the same except he'd have 1 loss to a fighter he's beat who happens to be pretty amazing.

So he'd have half the title defences... a loss to one more fighter... that's worse than if it didn't happen. Charles never really accomplished anything after the Rocky bouts. No doubt they took something out of him but he wasn't exactly fresh. Regardless if he's Top 5 P4P he was a weightclass above his natural one and getting on abit. You can't compare it to the LHW version of Charles who beat Moore.

It's pretty good.

As I said earlier he doesn't have a great deal of good wins.

Not really what?

Other than Ali, Fraizer and Foreman, any HW in history a win over a prime Rocky Marciano would be considered possibly their best win.

Tyson, Holmes, Liston, Holyfield, Lewis, etc.

Even Ali, Fraizer and Foreman, a win over Marciano would rank up there with one of their best wins.

This is all for a reason.

With the likes of some of the people you mentioned I'm sure people would point to weight more often than you think. I don't like jumping on this bandwagon but Lewis would beat Marciano handily due to the sheer size difference.

Well yeah it would enhance it.

It still doesn't change the fact it was there. And it was strong, strong as you could ever imagine.

The same would apply for Marciano.

People wouldn't reduce his legacy to a "footnote", how you put it.

You don't become a footnote for having one less to Ezzard Charles. Especially when you beat him once.

It goes back to the same Lennox Lewis argument. When Lennox get's knocked out by two glorifed bums and avenges them it's seen as something good. "He beat everyone he's faced" how many times have I heard that line.

Yet, Marciano would get reduced to a footnote if he went 1-1 with Charles. Nah, sorry, never going to agree with that.

Of course I was exaggerating but that's not the point. If he had lost to Charles, he now has 2 defences, doesn't remain unbeaten in a horrible era so loses dominance and accomplishments points. Split a series with the best fighter he fought who wasn't at his best weight and age.

Pretty sure it was.

I said; "What if Moore beat Marciano? You bet your ass he would be considered a lock Top 10 ATG" or something along those lines.

You then said something about Heavyweight and how he didn't do much there so it would be monumental if he beat Marciano.

To which I replied; "I was talking P4P ranking. Not Heavyweight".

Oh right. Yeah it would enhance Moore's as he's rated about 18 or whatever a win in an entire new weightclass is enough to stick him up quite a bit. If you're ranked 4 a decent win in a weight class you're already very successful in doesn't have the same effect.

But he's still a fighter he beat everyone he faced. Only lost to an ATG, one of the best fighters ever.

Who's not as his best, are we going to give Jimmy McLarnin credit for the Benny Leonard win as if Leonard was the top lightweight in the world?

And beat the **** out of almost everyone faced and could probably knock out a live horse with a single punch.

Yeah and the fact is who he faced wasn't actually that good. Still impressive but when talking about GREAT heavyweights his resume is lacking and I don't see how anyone can argue he has a strong resume in comparison to some of the other heavyweight greats.

Being the only person to beat Marciano would be such an astronomical feat.

Here's an example. Holyfield was the only person to beat Riddick Bowe. We don't talk about it they way you are implying the way we'd talk about it, if it was Marciano who was the one being beaten.

So, again, a win over Marciano puts them in that company, no? Without a doubt?

Again, hence why it could easily increase his P4P ranking.

As I said he's already there, and I'm saying that if Marciano was to be beaten a win against him wouldn't rank so highly.

Beating Marciano would obviously be a huge addition to his already very good HW resume.

Probably just a little less big than beating Walcott again.

And I've made a consistent mistake throughout all this. Marciano made 6 consecutive defences which gets slashed to 2 if he loses to Charles.

[IronDanHamza]

So he'd have half the title defences... a loss to one more fighter... that's worse than if it didn't happen.

Obviously losing is worse than winning But, again, you're acting like it's a travesty if he went 1-1 with Charles instead of 2-0. It's not.

Charles never really accomplished anything after the Rocky bouts. No doubt they took something out of him but he wasn't exactly fresh.

The Marciano fight's were obviously he very last hurrah.

Regardless if he's Top 5 P4P he was a weightclass above his natural one and getting on abit. You can't compare it to the LHW version of Charles who beat Moore.

He was well past his prime. Haven't I stated that like 5 times or something?

Hence why the win would be so great.

He'd be a past prime, former Middleweight being the only person to beat Marciano, in his prime none the less.

As I said earlier he doesn't have a great deal of good wins.

He has a handful.

He's the best Heavyweight of his era, and still would be if the split with Charles.

And let's be honest, I know this is hypothetical, but had he lost to Charles, he'd have gone 2-1 with him had they fought a 3rd time.

With the likes of some of the people you mentioned I'm sure people would point to weight more often than you think. I don't like jumping on this bandwagon but Lewis would beat Marciano handily due to the sheer size difference.

What does that have to do with anything?

I've said, I'd pick a lot of those to beat him.

But, and again, the outright fact remains, that if ANY of those were the only one beat Marciano, it would considered one of their best wins. And pretty much of all them, it would possibly be considered their best win.

Of course I was exaggerating but that's not the point. If he had lost to Charles, he now has 2 defences, doesn't remain unbeaten in a horrible era so loses dominance and accomplishments points. Split a series with the best fighter he fought who wasn't at his best weight and age.

Accomplishment points? It's not really a point's system.

That would just be a credit to the greatness of Ezzard Charles more than a downgrade to Marciano.

Oh right. Yeah it would enhance Moore's as he's rated about 18 or whatever a win in an entire new weightclass is enough to stick him up quite a bit. If you're ranked 4 a decent win in a weight class you're already very successful in doesn't have the same effect.

Of course it would enhance Moore's.

It would enhance Charles' too

It would mean (to me) that he has as strong an argument for the #1 spot as Robinson, Greb and Langford.

And, as you yourself put it, he would be in absolutely that company. Which, was all my actual point was in the very first place.

That, a win over Marciano would elevate Charles into a position were he could be considered THE greatest of all time. Arguably, of course.

Your point that "Pft, we've done that" could be said by the Top 3 merely confirms my point.

That a win over Marciano puts him in their company.

Who's not as his best, are we going to give Jimmy McLarnin credit for the Benny Leonard win as if Leonard was the top lightweight in the world?

Not sure what the relevance of his statement is.

Yeah and the fact is who he faced wasn't actually that good. Still impressive but when talking about GREAT heavyweights his resume is lacking and I don't see how anyone can argue he has a strong resume in comparison to some of the other heavyweight greats.

His resume isn't that strong, but it's quite good.

Considering I consider him just about a Top 10 ATG HW right now, I would consider him around the same place if he went 1-1 with Charles.

I don't understand why that knocks him down so much.

I refer again to you saying he reduces to a "footnote".

Yet, "he's beat everyone he's faced!" hasn't he?

He's still the best Heavyweight of his era.

Here's an example. Holyfield was the only person to beat Riddick Bowe. We don't talk about it they way you are implying the way we'd talk about it, if it was Marciano who was the one being beaten.

We do talk about it. I do.

I consider Holyfield to be a Top 10 ATG heavyweight, #6 I last had him I think.

Beating Bowe is a BIG reason for that.

And Marciano is better than Bowe anyway.

As I said he's already there, and I'm saying that if Marciano was to be beaten a win against him wouldn't rank so highly.

Of course it would. I can't see how it wouldn't.

If anyone was the only person to beat Marciano, it would be huge.

And I've made a consistent mistake throughout all this. Marciano made 6 consecutive defences which gets slashed to 2 if he loses to Charles.

I did notice. It happens.

I don't really care about Title defences or atleast I don't if it's just the "brand" title defence.

Title defences don't make, or break anything.

[Barn]

Think I'll just stop this now before it gets out of hand.








































































JK

Obviously losing is worse than winning But, again, you're acting like it's a travesty if he went 1-1 with Charles instead of 2-0. It's not.

Of course it's not a travesty but it lowers his ranking by a bit.

The Marciano fight's were obviously he very last hurrah.

Yes I agree.

Hence why the win would be so great.

Fair does.

He'd be a past prime, former Middleweight being the only person to beat Marciano, in his prime none the less.

Also the best person to face Marciano.

He's the best Heavyweight of his era, and still would be if the split with Charles.

A very bad era at that.

And let's be honest, I know this is hypothetical, but had he lost to Charles, he'd have gone 2-1 with him had they fought a 3rd time.

I agree.

Accomplishment points? It's not really a point's system.

It was an expression, how else do I word it?

That would just be a credit to the greatness of Ezzard Charles more than a downgrade to Marciano.

Bit of both.

Of course it would enhance Moore's.

It would enhance Charles' too

Not to the same degree it would advance Moores.

It would mean (to me) that he has as strong an argument for the #1 spot as Robinson, Greb and Langford.

Yes of course he would but, it's already there and wouldn't make it super clear as you said earlier. "I may well rank him as the greatest fighter in the sport." And you have him 4 or something just now. One win would not justify climbing so many places when you're dealing with fighters so great.

That, a win over Marciano would elevate Charles into a position were he could be considered THE greatest of all time. Arguably, of course.

Your point that "Pft, we've done that" could be said by the Top 3 merely confirms my point.

That a win over Marciano puts him in their company.

I don't think you get what I'm trying to argue.
- I think Charles is a lock Top 5 and happy if anyone places him first.
- I also think that one win over Marciano would not be enough for someone to move Charles up numerous places on that list.
- I also think that Marciano's legacy would be hindered if he were to lose to Charles making the stock of the win lower.

His resume isn't that strong, but it's quite good.

Yeah it's alright. But when it comes down to other greats it doesn't match too well.

Considering I consider him just about a Top 10 ATG HW right now, I would consider him around the same place if he went 1-1 with Charles.

Don't see that.

I don't understand why that knocks him down so much.

He could no longer dominate a weak era ruled by prime LHW's and past it greats.

I refer again to you saying he reduces to a "footnote".

Well that was silly wording. I apologize.

He's still the best Heavyweight of his era.

I would take any of the great Heavies to go unbeaten in that era. If he didn't then it's a question mark.

We do talk about it. I do.

I consider Holyfield to be a Top 10 ATG heavyweight, #6 I last had him I think.

Beating Bowe is a BIG reason for that.

Well that's fine then. However I see Holyfield outside the Top 10 a lot. I credit you for your consistency here then.

And Marciano is better than Bowe anyway.

I agree.

Of course it would. I can't see how it wouldn't.

If anyone was the only person to beat Marciano, it would be huge.

Not huge enough to justify moving up to number 1 from number 5.

I don't really care about Title defences or atleast I don't if it's just the "brand" title defence.

Title defences don't make, or break anything.

Well they help Joe Louis.

[IronDanHamza]

Of course it's not a travesty but it lowers his ranking by a bit.

Abit.

Also the best person to face Marciano.

So?

He's that whether he wins or loses to him.

A very bad era at that.

Still would be the best of his era.

Win or lose to Charles.

Not to the same degree it would advance Moores.

Obviously.

Still advances it.

Yes of course he would but, it's already there and wouldn't make it super clear as you said earlier. "I may well rank him as the greatest fighter in the sport." And you have him 4 or something just now. One win would not justify climbing so many places when you're dealing with fighters so great.

When have I ever said it would be super-clear?

Infact, when have I said it would be clear?

"May well rank him as the greatest fighter in the sport"

What does that statement tell you right off the bat?

That it's not clear. But, he would however, have a very strong argument. Even more than he has now.

The "Top 3" (Robinson, Greb, Langford) would be known as the "Top 4"

A win over Marciano would put him regularly alongside the "interchangeable's".

This is all I've said from the very start. And I can't see how that's not true either.

I don't think you get what I'm trying to argue.
- I think Charles is a lock Top 5 and happy if anyone places him first.
- I also think that one win over Marciano would not be enough for someone to move Charles up numerous places on that list.
- I also think that Marciano's legacy would be hindered if he were to lose to Charles making the stock of the win lower.

I understand what you're trying to argue. But, I think your off on your points.

If Marciano went 1-1 with Charles he would still be considered;

A great Heavyweight
The best Heavyweight of his era
A hard man to beat
A Legend

Charles would have a win over this man. He'd be the only man to beat him.

It would mean he holds wins over Top ATG MW's, is the consensus Top 2 LHW of all time (Most consider #1) and an strong argument for a Top 10 HW ranking.

All I've said from the very start is with that win, it moves him into a catergory where he has a very strong argument to the #1 fighter of all time.

Never once have I said a win over Marciano makes him the undisputied #1, with that being irrefutable and undebatable.

Would I rank him #1 with that win? Quite possibly.

But not once in this thread, or any thread have I stated that he becomes the #1, without question with a win over Marciano.

And, you yourself even agreed with me that he has an argument now.

Let alone with a win over Rocky Marciano on his resume.

We've gone back and forth on how Marciano would or wouldn't be a spectacular win for Charles but in all honesty I can't see how a win can not be seen as incredible.

A past prime, former Middleweight, being the only man to beat Marciano is an incredible feat.

He could no longer dominate a weak era ruled by prime LHW's and past it greats.

Losing once, Splitting a 2 fight series with Ezzard Charles suddenly means he didn't dominate his era?

So, did Lewis dominate his era on your opinion?

I would take any of the great Heavies to go unbeaten in that era. If he didn't then it's a question mark.

Of course.

Again, not sure the relevance here.

Well that's fine then. However I see Holyfield outside the Top 10 a lot. I credit you for your consistency here then.

Can't understand anyone rankings Holyfield outside the Top 10 HW's.

He's a Top 10 HW at the very lowest, IMO.

Not huge enough to justify moving up to number 1 from number 5.

I thought you said he has an argument for #1?

Well they help Joe Louis.

Who they were against helps Joe Louis.

They don't help Calzaghe, they don't help Ottke, they don't help Calderon, they don't help Virgil Hill.

[Barn]

So?

He's that whether he wins or loses to him.

Exactly and the fact Ezzard Charles a former LHW getting towards the end is your best win is not a good fact on your resume. If he was to lose to this version as he is in this scenario then he wouldn't be remembered as highly. I don't see what's not to get here.

Still would be the best of his era.

Win or lose to Charles.

Again it's a week era, Jim Jeffries was the best of his era at a time he doesn't get stock for that.

When have I ever said it would be super-clear?

Infact, when have I said it would be clear?

"May well rank him as the greatest fighter in the sport"

What does that statement tell you right off the bat?

That it's not clear. But, he would however, have a very strong argument. Even more than he has now.

The "Top 3" (Robinson, Greb, Langford) would be known as the "Top 4"

A win over Marciano would put him regularly alongside the "interchangeable's".

The first bit is my fault for not remembering the quote correctly.

What I'm saying is he's already there BUT, if you were to rank him say 5 or so then a win against Marciano does not justify a move to the 1 spot. You can have him at No1 right now that's jolly well fine and I wouldn't criticize anyone. The point moreso is if he wins against Marciano it does not mean you can move him 5 places to reach the top spot.

If Marciano went 1-1 with Charles he would still be considered;

A great Heavyweight

Less great though.

The best Heavyweight of his era

I agree but I think Charles could be in with a shout.

A hard man to beat

Jimmy Young was a hard man to beat.

A Legend

Yes.

Charles would have a win over this man. He'd be the only man to beat him.

What would be the better win in your opinion, this or Greb over Tunney?

We've gone back and forth on how Marciano would or wouldn't be a spectacular win for Charles but in all honesty I can't see how a win can not be seen as incredible.

Losing once, Splitting a 2 fight series with Ezzard Charles suddenly means he didn't dominate his era?

Well he would still have dominated his era but, not with the same conviction.

So, did Lewis dominate his era on your opinion?

Yes, however his era was harder to dominate. Lewis would not have lost to anyone on Rocky's resume.

I thought you said he has an argument for #1?

By that I mean not that I would argue it strongly as I don't think he is quite number 1 but, anyone else could argue it and I wouldn't call him out.

Who they were against helps Joe Louis.

Guaranteed the fact Joe Louis had 25 title defences consecutively helps him.
[/QUOTE]