Ezzard Charles or Ray Leonard?

[StarshipTrooper]

Charles was beaten Walcott, Bivins, L. Marshall, R. Layne and other top contenders in his prime. Duran, Hearns and Hagler (maybe Benitez) are generally ranked ahead of them.

Since you have already pointed out both Leonard and Hagler were past-prime for that fight why are you using it as an example? At least be consistant ffs.

He didn't come close to winning the first time. It was a clear win for Marciano. The second time he was knocked out and that's that. Plus, Marciano wasn't a very good technical boxer and it's not a surprise to see him win from being behind on the scorecards.

Yeah, the first fight was such a clear win for Marciano that some ringside observers thought Charles won.

Poet

[Method Checker]

That wasn't a fantasy matchup.

It was a rating of the fighters at those weights. Leonard can only be regarded as the better Welterweight and Middleweight. No one with half a brain would dare rate him ahead of Hearns in the 3 other divisions I listed. Their resumes make it beyond obvious.

Going by resume, let's try it:

Welterweight: You, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better, at this division.

Light middleweight: You're right on this one. Hearns' resume clearly smashes Leonard's.

Middleweight: Another division that you, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better.

Super middleweight: Hearns beat James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. Leonard beat Duran and Lalonde. Leonard's wins are better.

Light heavyweight: Hearns wins on this one. He simply beat the better fighters, at this division.

In the end, that makes it 3-2 Leonard.

[Method Checker]

Since you have already pointed out both Leonard and Hagler were past-prime for that fight why are you using it as an example? At least be consistant ffs.

I never stated that Hagler was past his prime. I said Leonard was. And if there was a comparison of who was more past their prime (not saying Hagler is), Leonard would outshine Hagler.

Yeah, the first fight was such a clear win for Marciano that some ringside observers thought Charles won.

The majority of people, including myself, agree that Marciano won. Yes, Charles did manage to win himself a good amount of rounds and make it a good contest, but Marciano was the clear winner.

[CCobra]

The following resume evaluation is courtesy of Obama:

Ezzard Charles
Notable Wins:
Joe Sutka
Teddy Yarosz [Over the hill]
Anton Christofordis
Charley Burley (x2)
Booker Beckwith
Jose Basora
Mose Brown
Joey Maxim (x5) [Debatably Green / Pre-Prime in first two fights, Prime in last three fights]
Tommy Tee Hubert (x2)
Archie Moore (x3)
Lloyd Marshall (x2) [Post-Prime]
Oakland Billy Smith (x2)
Jimmy Bivins (x4) [Debatably Prime / Post-Prime in first 3 fights, Over the hill in 4th fight]
Erv Sarlin (x2)
Fitzie Fitzpatrick (x2)
Joe Matisi
Sam Baroudi
Elmer Ray
Joe Baksi
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Gus Lesnevich [Post-Prime]
Freddie Beshore
Joe Louis
Nick Barone
Lee Oma
Rex Layne (x2)
Cesar Brion
Wes Bascom
Tommy Harrison
Billy Gilliam
Larry Watson
Coley Wallace
Bob Satterfield
Charley Norkus
John Holman
Paul Andrews
Toxie Hall
Notable Losses:
Kid Tunero [Charles Pre-Prime]
Jimmy Bivins
Lloyd Marshall
Elmer Ray
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Rex Layne
Nino Valdes [Charles Post-Prime]
Harold Johnson [Charles Post-Prime]
Rocky Marciano (x2) [Charles Post-Prime]
John Holman [Charles Post-Prime]
Questionable Wins:
Paul Andrews
Bob Albright I
Questionable Losses:
Kid Tunero
Elmer Ray


'A' level wins:
Burley (x2), Maxim (x3), Moore (x3), Bivins (x3), Walcott (x2)
'A-' level wins:
Smith (x2), Ray, Layne (x2)
'B' level wins:
Yarosz, Christofordis, Beckwith, Basora, Maxim (x2), Marshall (x2), Bivins, Baroudi, Baksi, Lesnevich, Louis, Barone, Oma, Brion, Harrison, Satterfield, Norkus, Holman, Andrews
'B-' level wins:
Sutka, Brown, Hubert, Sarlin, Fitzpatrick, Matisi, Beshore, Bascom, Gilliam, Watson, Wallace, Hall

Point Total: 18 + 6 + 19 + 6 – 21.5 = 27.5

The depth of Charles resume is simply incredible. You could not bring me that sort of depth from Leonard's resume.

[Method Checker]

The following resume evaluation is courtesy of Obama:

Ezzard Charles
Notable Wins:
Joe Sutka
Teddy Yarosz [Over the hill]
Anton Christofordis
Charley Burley (x2)
Booker Beckwith
Jose Basora
Mose Brown
Joey Maxim (x5) [Debatably Green / Pre-Prime in first two fights, Prime in last three fights]
Tommy Tee Hubert (x2)
Archie Moore (x3)
Lloyd Marshall (x2) [Post-Prime]
Oakland Billy Smith (x2)
Jimmy Bivins (x4) [Debatably Prime / Post-Prime in first 3 fights, Over the hill in 4th fight]
Erv Sarlin (x2)
Fitzie Fitzpatrick (x2)
Joe Matisi
Sam Baroudi
Elmer Ray
Joe Baksi
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Gus Lesnevich [Post-Prime]
Freddie Beshore
Joe Louis
Nick Barone
Lee Oma
Rex Layne (x2)
Cesar Brion
Wes Bascom
Tommy Harrison
Billy Gilliam
Larry Watson
Coley Wallace
Bob Satterfield
Charley Norkus
John Holman
Paul Andrews
Toxie Hall
Notable Losses:
Kid Tunero [Charles Pre-Prime]
Jimmy Bivins
Lloyd Marshall
Elmer Ray
Jersey Joe Walcott (x2)
Rex Layne
Nino Valdes [Charles Post-Prime]
Harold Johnson [Charles Post-Prime]
Rocky Marciano (x2) [Charles Post-Prime]
John Holman [Charles Post-Prime]
Questionable Wins:
Paul Andrews
Bob Albright I
Questionable Losses:
Kid Tunero
Elmer Ray


'A' level wins:
Burley (x2), Maxim (x3), Moore (x3), Bivins (x3), Walcott (x2)
'A-' level wins:
Smith (x2), Ray, Layne (x2)
'B' level wins:
Yarosz, Christofordis, Beckwith, Basora, Maxim (x2), Marshall (x2), Bivins, Baroudi, Baksi, Lesnevich, Louis, Barone, Oma, Brion, Harrison, Satterfield, Norkus, Holman, Andrews
'B-' level wins:
Sutka, Brown, Hubert, Sarlin, Fitzpatrick, Matisi, Beshore, Bascom, Gilliam, Watson, Wallace, Hall

Point Total: 18 + 6 + 19 + 6 – 21.5 = 27.5

The depth of Charles resume is simply incredible. You could not bring me that sort of depth from Leonard's resume.

Like I said before, fighters in those days fought a lot more than any of the modern fighters.

The reason a lot of them are HOFers is because they each hold wins over each other. That's because they fought a lot during those days and had to fight just to make a living. It's different than any of the current generations where if you were a top star, you didn't need to fight, as much.

Just compare Ali and Greb. Greb had a lot more wins than Ali and could've arguably fought more A level, B level and C level fighters, but Ali is still regarded as the greater fighter.

[wmute]

Going by resume, let's try it:

Welterweight: You, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better, at this division.

Light middleweight: You're right on this one. Hearns' resume clearly smashes Leonard's.

Middleweight: Another division that you, me and the majority of people agree that Leonard was better.

Super middleweight: Hearns beat James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. Leonard beat Duran and Lalonde. Leonard's wins are better.

Light heavyweight: Hearns wins on this one. He simply beat the better fighters, at this division.

In the end, that makes it 3-2 Leonard.

Duran at age 38, 30 pounds and some north of his prime, and a LHW drained by more than one weight class, are hardly better than anything, especially since Hearns beat Leonard at 168, by Leonard's own admission.

[wmute]

Like I said before, fighters in those days fought a lot more than any of the modern fighters.

The reason a lot of them are HOFers is because they each hold wins over each other. That's because they fought a lot during those days and had to fight just to make a living. It's different than any of the current generations where if you were a top star, you didn't need to fight, as much.

Just compare Ali and Greb. Greb had a lot more wins than Ali and could've arguably fought more A level, B level and C level fighters, but Ali is still regarded as the greater fighter.

That's why they managed to leave no doubts, excuses or anything like that. You saw enough of them against everyone to know who beat who.

Also, they tended not retire to avoid rematches of close fights.

Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.

[Method Checker]

Duran at age 38, 30 pounds and some north of his prime, and a LHW drained by more than one weight class, are hardly better than anything, especially since Hearns beat Leonard at 168, by Leonard's own admission.

Duran wasn't at his best but it was still a better win than either Kinchen or Olajide.

[donkim]

Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.

LMAO at this Duran and Hagler apologist having the nerve to accuse others of ducking certain fighters.


Your idols ducked and dropped their title's rather than face their mandatories,one of which you included on that list of fighters that Leonard "supposedly" ducked.

[Method Checker]

That's why they managed to leave no doubts, excuses or anything like that. You saw enough of them against everyone to know who beat who.

It was common for a fighter to beat someone and then lose to that same person in a rematch multiple times.

Also, they tended not retire to avoid rematches of close fights.

So retiring because of a vision problem means they're ducking someone?

Also, they did not fought aging small greats or dehydrated second tier fighters if they happened to fight in the same division and time of ...say... Benn, Eubank, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn.

He was finishing off his career and you're bashing him for not continuing against the up and coming fighters of a future generation? Wow..