What was Ezzard Charles' Best Win???

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Not really the same at all.

Golovkin's close to 170 on fight night and both Burley and Charles were legit MW's unlike Mayweather's who's not even a legit Jr MW.

Burley moved from 151-160 all the time. In his very next fight after the second Charles fight where he weighed in at 151 just months later against Holman Williams he weighed in at 160 lbs. The fight before the second Charles fight he weighed in 157 lbs.

Burley's a Top 10 ATG MW. Charles beat him in his prime, at MW. Self explanatory really.

True, kinda forgot about same day weigh-ins back then....

My whole point, and its not even a big one, is i give the most credit when a guy beats a bigger guy, alittle less impressive when the same size, and alittle less impressive if you beat a smaller guy,,, Its very minute difference, and all i was saying was that ezzard had 10lbs over burley, and i thought they were very close in weight say less than 5 lbs apart
Thats why i said dilutes was probably too strong of a word,
Example would be floyd beating jmm, corrales, canelo,,, all good wins but i rate jmm lower because he was smaller, corrales was the same size, and canelo was much bigger weight wise,,,
Just a small difference, kinda used as a tie-breaker when really trying to differentiate between wins, thats all

[IronDanHamza]

True, kinda forgot about same day weigh-ins back then....

My whole point, and its not even a big one, is i give the most credit when a guy beats a bigger guy, alittle less impressive when the same size, and alittle less impressive if you beat a smaller guy,,, Its very minute difference, and all i was saying was that ezzard had 10lbs over burley, and i thought they were very close in weight say less than 5 lbs apart
Thats why i said dilutes was probably too strong of a word,
Example would be floyd beating jmm, corrales, canelo,,, all good wins but i rate jmm lower because he was smaller, corrales was the same size, and canelo was much bigger weight wise,,,
Just a small difference, kinda used as a tie-breaker when really trying to differentiate between wins, thats all

Corralles was much bigger than Floyd. Like 10-15 lbs heavier.

I don't see it that way, I mean they both fought at MW. Burley was always that size at MW and he did pretty well at MW against great fighters he just came up short against a better fighter. Weight wasn't in issue, he was at his best weight.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Corralles was much bigger than Floyd. Like 10-15 lbs heavier.

I don't see it that way, I mean they both fought at MW. Burley was always that size at MW and he did pretty well at MW against great fighters he just came up short against a better fighter. Weight wasn't in issue, he was at his best weight.

yeah but ezzard was the naturally bigger guy than burley,,,

[IronDanHamza]

yeah but ezzard was the naturally bigger guy than burley,,,

Just about.

He wasn't all that much bigger at the time.

In the first fight he only had a few lbs on him.

Burley beat naturally bigger guys at MW. He wasn't any smaller for the Charles fight than he was for his other MW wins. The weight had nothing to do with why Charles won.

They both made the MW limit, both are proven MW's, Burley a Top 10 MW (Fighting at the weights he fought Charles at). Charles fighting as a MW beat Burley as a MW I don't see why that has to be lessened at all.

It's basically saying that if you're lighter than someone then you don't get full credit for beating them despite the fact they've proven that they can be succesful and even great at that exact same weight.

It's like a fighter beating Mayweather now at WW. Most at WW are heavier than Floyd on fight night except Pacquaio and Marquez. It's like saying Thurman for example wouldn't get full credit if he beat Mayweather at WW for example because he's bigger despite the fact Mayweather has shown time and time again that he can beat much bigger men at the weight he's at.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Just about.

He wasn't all that much bigger at the time.

In the first fight he only had a few lbs on him.

Burley beat naturally bigger guys at MW. He wasn't any smaller for the Charles fight than he was for his other MW wins. The weight had nothing to do with why Charles won.

They both made the MW limit, both are proven MW's, Burley a Top 10 MW (Fighting at the weights he fought Charles at). Charles fighting as a MW beat Burley as a MW I don't see why that has to be lessened at all.

It's basically saying that if you're lighter than someone then you don't get full credit for beating them despite the fact they've proven that they can be succesful and even great at that exact same weight.

It's like a fighter beating Mayweather now at WW. Most at WW are heavier than Floyd on fight night except Pacquaio and Marquez. It's like saying Thurman for example wouldn't get full credit if he beat Mayweather at WW for example because he's bigger despite the fact Mayweather has shown time and time again that he can beat much bigger men at the weight he's at.

Difference being is that thurman is not considered to be an elite guy, good fighter that shows promise, but not on the burley-ezzard level, so yes thurman would get all the credit in the world,,,

all im trying to say is that if i have to pick one best win for ezzard, him being slightly larger vs burley kinda sways it in regards to other top level wins like moore, etc....
Im pretty much splitting hairs here, but when trying to rank the best out of alot of great wins for ezzard, then it does kinda get into hair splitting

[LacedUp]

I would say Moore or Walcott.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I would say Moore or Walcott.

This is like HighLander,, "there can be only one"

Now choose

[LacedUp]

This is like HighLander,, "there can be only one"

Now choose

I would have to go with Moore if I had to choose one. One of the greatest LHWs of all times.

But Walcott would be a close second.