How highly do you rate Ezzard Charles?

[wmute]

Yeah, i see your reasoning. However, i don't do rankings based on head to head (otherwise it leads to people saying that Marciano should be rated above Louis because he beat him for example). Charles was also the fresher of the two, and obviously had the style to beat Moore consistently. Still after all is said and done, I have Charles numero uno currently.

This actually makes for more interesting conversation than rankings. What do you think made Charles Kryptonite to Moore?

[I am tyler]

I can understand disregarding h2h but comparing Charles-Moore 1,2,3 to Marciano-Louis is simply ridiculous.

Moore was 30-32 when they fought, and went on to have the most celebrated part of his career *after* those fights. Louis was 37, shot to pieces and retired after the bout.

I also don't usually look at h2h (Holmes-Ali, Tyson-Holmes are other examples of terrible ones) but when you have a 3 fights series among prime fighters, it seems valid information.

I'm not trying to draw you into an argument haha. I was stating it's subjective and not how I look at things. Like i said 5 times now, I have Charles number one.

[I am tyler]

This actually makes for more interesting conversation than rankings. What do you think made Charles Kryptonite to Moore?

The fact he was such a good technician. Fast, strong and athletic. A style like Moore's is generally not favorable against top technicians.

[IronDanHamza]

Arguably THE greatest fighter that ever lived.

[IronDanHamza]

The fact he was such a good technician. Fast, strong and athletic. A style like Moore's is generally not favorable against top technicians.

I'm not sure.

Moore beat Harold Johnson 4 out of 5 times and Johnson was one of the best technicians you will ever see.

[wmute]

The fact he was such a good technician. Fast, strong and athletic. A style like Moore's is generally not favorable against top technicians.

I'm not sure.

Moore beat Harold Johnson 4 out of 5 times and Johnson was one of the best technicians you will ever see.

I think Moore also beat Marshall, who was pretty skilled.

I think physical talents, which you also point out, might have been making the difference.

[I am tyler]

I'm not sure.

Moore beat Harold Johnson 4 out of 5 times and Johnson was one of the best technicians you will ever see.

Yeah, the other physical gifts play a huge part. But if there is a technician like Charles, who won't stand in the pocket and get countered, and who is mobile, then they have a great chance of beating Moore, as long as they don't get drawn into his mind games.

[I am tyler]

Yeah, the other physical gifts play a huge part. But if there is a technician like Charles, who won't stand in the pocket and get countered, and who is mobile, then they have a great chance of beating Moore, as long as they don't get drawn into his mind games.

Also Charles was bigger than Harold Johnson.

[I am tyler]

Thinking about it, it is probably speedy technicians, with height and reach that most exploits Moore's style.

[orriray59]

I can understand disregarding h2h but comparing Charles-Moore 1,2,3 to Marciano-Louis is simply ridiculous.

Moore was 30-32 when they fought, and went on to have the most celebrated part of his career *after* those fights. Louis was 37, shot to pieces and retired after the bout.

I also don't usually look at h2h (Holmes-Ali, Tyson-Holmes are other examples of terrible ones) but when you have a 3 fights series among prime fighters, it seems valid information.

I agree with this also. Charles proved himself to be the superior fighter not once or twice, but thrice. I usually don't give H2H a huge amount of pretense when it comes to ranking fighters P4P, but Charles clearly proved himself Archie's superior.