View Single Post
Old 05-02-2019, 01:02 AM #76
them_apples them_apples is offline
Undisputed Champion
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 30
Posts: 7,094
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Rep Power: 28
them_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond reputethem_apples has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 22,647.62
Bank: 1,270.49
Total Points: 23,918.11
For making sense -- a rarity on BoxingScene. - S a m u r a i You make sense. Cheers, bro! - FightFreak 
Send a message via MSN to them_apples

Originally Posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
Let me premise by saying he's a marvelous fighter. But people are exaggerating his skills and achievement. Often they conflate his career. It happens w/ a lot of fighters. They also over-correct. Again, that happens w/ a lot of fighters.

For example: he carried some considerable weight into the bouts w/ Burley. His fights w/ Burley also sandwiched a bout w/ Williams. Burley might've still been at the heighth of his powers, and Charles still relatively raw. But it seems pretty apparent that Burley's focus was more on his archrival, and that size and youth were the deciding factor.

Likewise, Walcott bested him, and Louis was a shell of his former self.

Again, a lot of impressive names on his resume. I don't wanna spend too much time scrutinizing every opponent and every fight, but some of those name are famous for being famous... it's circular logic: why is Joey Maxim/Lesnevich/Bivins great? Because he faced Ezzard Charles great? Because he beat: Maxim/Bivins/Lesnevich.

Do we have film evidence to work with? Johnson was a fabulous fighter, but it definitely looks like Loughran was better. Moore might have been even better, but was he as good as Tunney? Nope. Much more substantial record. Much more gaudy KO record. Much more fanfare. Much more longevity. But the film shows Tunney's better than Moore. Better than Charles, too.

How about Conn? I won't say he was ruined by the War, but his career was essentially over at 24. We never saw a 24 year old Charles dare to fight Louis. Hell, he couldn't put away Maxim in 5 attempts, while Billy stopped the bigger and better Bob Pastor in 13 rounds.

Again, it's about more than H2H match-ups, or film footage. But when we consider criteria, do "precociousness", "over-coming disadvantages", or "advancing the sport' not have their place?

Wemay never know. It actually sounds like he was a complete boxer-pncher, and he liked to tear into an opponent. He was relentless. Maybe one of the best ever offensively. But like many masters, he'd give away early rounds to figure opponents out. Sometimes he went too hard, and paid for it. But usually he was impossible to out-gun, and in the rare instances he was, he out-boxed his opponents.

But again where is the footage? And what does it matter?

Have you seen Canzoneri? McLarnin? Ross? What does Charles have over any of them? At least we can verify their ability on film?

How about Ortiz? He was pretty complete? How come he doesn't wind up in any P4P top 10 lists?

yup. I know all that. It's pretty common in boxing to have that kinda bio. It's like the Academy Award... every winner is the best ever... until next year's winner is announced.

Charles was great. Top 25 for sure. But people push him into the top 10 - the better half of it, actually. It's great he's getting love for his achievements. But should it come at the expense of those more deserving?
he beat Archie Moore 3 times. His resume at lhw is stacked, but 3 wins over Archie Moore in his prime is a write off on his LHW greatness? how is Ezzard Overrated. the second best LHW in my book is Michael spinks.

I've watched pretty much every bit of footage on Ezzard I while agree he wasn't always exciting he is the epitome of a tactical and high ring IQ fighter.

Alexis Arguello is another fighter than sort of played the same rythm as charles, he lulled his oponents to sleep and into timing a different speed, then when the opportunity presented itself the fast hard shot was fired off when the oponent least expected it. Charles did this so much some of his knockouts looked like a day job to him, like he could do it on 2 hours sleep with his eyes closed.

on the other hand you have a low IQ fighter like Khan, throws every shot as fast as he can, his oponents know this so they prepare for it and his speed becomes pretty much ineffective vs anyone good.
them_apples is offline   Reply With Quote