Settling the Rivalry once and for all-Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles

[DarkTerror88]

Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott had a great rivalry in the fighting industry. Each man was 2-2 in their bouts and both became heavyweight champions of the world. But the Question is, which one is better? Which one do you rate higher and why?

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott had a great rivalry in the fighting industry. Each man was 2-2 in their bouts and both became heavyweight champions of the world. But the Question is, which one is better? Which one do you rate higher and why?

Charles was terribly treated in his own time --- a fact exacerbated considerably when he faced the fan favourite Walcott. The consensus was Charles out-pointed Walcott in their final encounter, & by rights, should've been handed the decision. Most contemporaneous accounts back such a view, so it seems Charles should be up 3-1 in their quadrilogy. Even if you consider them legitimately 2-2, Walcott was a natural Heavy, while Charles was a former Middle & Light-Heavy. It's got to be advantage Charles, head-to-head.

I think Walcott would give more of the division's greats a tough night, & ultimately, he would beat more HW legends than Charles (who could still topple a few on his best night). Charles seemed to get the better of their head-to-head battles, though.

All things considered, I'd have Charles a hundred places above Walcott in an all-time standing. Charles has one of the top-3 resumes in Boxing history, period. You cannot overstate how big that is.

[DarkTerror88]

Charles was terribly treated in his own time --- a fact exacerbated considerably when he faced the fan favourite Walcott. The consensus was Charles out-pointed Walcott in their final encounter, & by rights, should've been handed the decision. Most contemporaneous accounts back such a view, so it seems Charles should be up 3-1 in their quadrilogy. Even if you consider them legitimately 2-2, Walcott was a natural Heavy, while Charles was a former Middle & Light-Heavy. It's got to be advantage Charles, head-to-head.

I think Walcott would give more of the division's greats a tough night, & ultimately, he would beat more HW legends than Charles (who could still topple a few on his best night). Charles seemed to get the better of their head-to-head battles, though.

All things considered, I'd have Charles a hundred places above Walcott in an all-time standing. Charles has one of the top-3 resumes in Boxing history, period. You cannot overstate how big that is.

Where do you have them ranked, strictly at HW?

[The Surgeon]

Id go with Charles. There Really is next to nothing in it tho. Ive always preffered him to Walcott too

Like WBY says tho if we are talking p4p its easily Charles

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Where do you have them ranked, strictly at HW?

Charles at 14, Walcott, 16.

[sleazyfellow]

I'd have to go with Charles too.