No. For a modern lightheavyweight Jones was a bit small, but these days fighters have much more muscle in their body because of the developed nutrition and roiding programs. That might not be fair for the old timers but that's how it is. And as I said, I would pick Jones over both at lt-heavy, especially over Conn
On Charles' victim list... Bivins, Moore, Lesnevich, Maxim, Walcott, Marshall, Burley, Yarosz...abruptly, Jones doesn't looks so, "special..."
Walcott and Moore don't make Jones look any less of a fighter. The rest no one has ever heard of. Charles vs Jones isn't so clear-cut, but Jones beats the shit out of Conn. 118 points at the least.
I don't think anybody denies that Charles' ring record was either the best ever or very close to it. That, however, does not prove that he would beat Jones head-to-head
...& I concede that --- I'm just making the point that, when you look at Charles' resume, Jones wouldn't be a stand-out victim (if Charles bested him) the way he would be on many other great fighters' lists.
the fights are out there if you simply take the time to research and find them, this isn't like finding a Harry Greb fight somewhere... there were such things as motion pictures and television in the 1940s... we arent talking about 1905 here... I know, to you, it may seem like it might as well be ancient Egypt but in the grand scheme of things, 1945 is not that long ago shit, I have 5 seperate Ezzard Charles fights from the 1940s on DVD and that was with minimal effort there's more to it than that, even. How do we know, for example, that Babe Ruth was an incredible baseball player? we can't see him, outside of a few snippets of very grainy footage shot with wind-up cameras that comically alter the speed and motion of events, so how do we reconcile his greatness? we do it by comparing the records of all of his contemporaries with his own... we can use the numbers (certainly Baseball above all sports gives us a plethora of numbers to work with, going back even into the 19th century) , we can compare his numbers to the standard of the day, the park he played his home games in, etc. ... that is how we know Babe Ruth was great In boxing of similar times, we can look at all of the fighters in a given weight class, see who they fought, when they fought them, we can examine as many eye-witness accounts as possible and try to get a basic picture of what took place in fights that may be lost to history from a visual standpoint... we can see how fighters that we can't watch did in fights against fighters we CAN watch, that is how you can gauge the excellence of those fighters and the depth of the division they fought in Lesnevich, for example, fought essentially every notable and semi-notable 175 pounder of his era... how do we know they are notable? we look at the records of the fighters, we see how they performed against the very best of the times... since Lesnevich fought every good 175 pounder of the 1940s and beat most of them consistently but lost to men whom we know are the cream of the crop, it isn't difficult to place him or understand his level of excellence I recall having an argument with someone about Harry Greb's place in history, and he brought up the midwest clubfighter Buck Smith of the 1980s and 1990s and pointed out that Smith had an insane record of 130-5 or something like that at one point and the man was trying to use this as an example of why Harry greb's gargantuan win streaks are meaningless because we can't see him... but this is a fallacy... Buck Smith was not fighting ANY ranked fighters at all, NONE ... Greb was fighting top ten ranked fighters of the time in three different traditional weightclasses... you dont have to SEE him to understand he was a dominant force... If a middleweight fighter has a stretch of, say, 110 fights and he beats 40 or 50 fighters ranked in the world top ten in 3 different divisions from Middleweight to Heavyweight, while losing or drawing only a small handful of the fights, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to deduce that the fighter in question is obviously one of the best of his time at the very least. we can look at a lesser fighter like Gus Lesnevich the same way, by examining his record (and whatever footage there is) and seeing who he fought, how highly were they regarded in the rankings, how did he perform against these men? how did he perform against the most well-documented great ones of the time? anyone doing so thoroughly would come to the conclusion that Gus Lesnevich was a very good Light Heavyweight in what was clearly a very deep division
this is why people treat you like a child, because you act like one I answered your fucking question comprehensively here you go, faggot... took me literally 5 seconds to find this on youtube Teddy Yarosz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnfiC8RIQ1I Gus Lesnevich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh6jYFQqxw0 there's two fights right there with almost NO EFFORT on one website... there's lots more elsewhere if you simply take the time, you snivelling twelve year old cocksucker
as many as I have been able to find There are as far as I know, three surving Teddy Yarosz fights... the one with Dundee being of the best quality... I have seen all three for Lesnevich, there are many clips... but I dont know that there is a full fight, rather there are shortened 20 minute highlight reel packages of fights... these are all over the place and I have seen ll the ones I know to exist I mean I just gave you two different fights to look at... why dont you watch them yourself?
