Can anyone make an argument for Charles being p4p goat?

[Marchegiano]

I know it's silly to get too invested into Boxrec ratings but while taking I look and seeing Ezzard still on top I thought to myself I wonder if anyone actually feels that way though.

[cfang]

No its greb for me but you can defo make a case for Charles. He proved superior to moore for a start and for that matter all the murders row (burley, ray, bivins, Marshall) He beat a louis that was still great and beat many top heavys despite giving away size. He went life or death with Rocky and without some very dodgy corner work, he'd have won the second fight. A case can be made and a good one.

[DeeMoney]

I like Ezzard, but I think you'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work.

I think you'd have to start by trying to diminish fighters who may have cases that surpass his. You could argue fighters who fought most of their career pre-WWII come from a primitive era, and though they may have good resumes fighters from that time cannot be compared to the more modern boxers who have better training and skill sets. (Not writing I agree with that, but making the argument).

That eliminates a lot of fighters right there. Then you should start focusing specifically on 'Prime Ability' as opposed to 'Career Accomplishments'; narrowing down his prime to specifically post WWII up through the 1st Walcott fight. Its a pretty solid run with a few ATGs, and the only loss being a split decision that was later avenged. No fighter in the last 40 years will have had as many fights, let alone top line fights, in such a short period of time- so you can eliminate more modern fighters for not being as active.

Even then, I think there are a few who show higher. So you'd have to over emphasize what the Baroudi fight did to him, then argue that had it not been for that he wouldve continued his greatness at levels never matched.

Once again, not that I agree with it, but its an argument. You just have to predicate it on eliminating whole eras as not being good enough, then twist the criteria to fit your argument.

[them_apples]

I know it's silly to get too invested into Boxrec ratings but while taking I look and seeing Ezzard still on top I thought to myself I wonder if anyone actually feels that way though.

Charles resume is one of the greatest in boxing bar non.

[The Old LefHook]

Charles did it without the fast twitch fibers or the flash of RJJ and Ray Leonard.

If resume is important then Charles is a true great. He fought everybody who was anybody during his era, and almost always beat them.

[QueensburyRules]

I know it's silly to get too invested into Boxrec ratings but while taking I look and seeing Ezzard still on top I thought to myself I wonder if anyone actually feels that way though.

- -Ez a p4p fighter at his peak, but never in the SRR level with the public.

[Anthony342]

So could a good top 5 P4P based on resume then be something like:

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Charles
Langford

Or should someone else be in the 5th spot? Would you swap Armstrong and Greb?

[ShoulderRoll]

A case can be made for Charles without a doubt.

But how do you knock Ray Robinson off his perch? Very hard to do.

[slicksouthpaw16]

I don't make pfp lists because of how subjective they are, but just based on body of work alone, I don't see how he rates over Robinson or Greb. I don't see how a case can be made.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes it can.

A truly incredible resume.