Michael Spinks vs Ezzard Charles

[uncle ben]

Best versions of each. 15 rounds of boxing for the WBC light heavyweight championship of the world.

[Willow The Wisp]

Charles by allot. Fighters had more highly developed skills in the 40's than they typically did in the 80's. But its more about Charles and Spinks.

[Willie Pep 229]

I wouldn't touch this fight on a bet . . . But I lean towards Spinks. In a one fight bout with no chance to learn, Spinks' in-out style would be difficult for the 1940s style Charles to adjust to.

Plus I think Charles was a late bloomer and reached his peak at HW; opposite for Spinks.

Which makes the 'best version of each' comparison difficult for me because I believe Charles was better as a HW.

[Willow The Wisp]

I know Michael and I love him. A humble and deeply committed man of faith, and a genuinely great fighter. 6'5"+ in his boots and with his ever present hat, surprisingly tall too. He is every inch a superstar among the Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Arguello, Sanchez, Pryor, Holmes greats of the 1980's. Here's my 2 cents though....
Lloyd Marshall, 60-15-3, WKO2 & 58-14-3, WKO6 ; Archie Moore, 88-13-7, WKO 8 & 84-12-7, WMD10 & 80-11-5, WUD10; Jimmy Bivins, 66-12-1, WUD 10 & 56-8-1, WKO 4 & 52-7-1, WUD 10; Charley Burley, Ken Overlin, Anton Christoforidis, Teddy Yarosz beats Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Gregory, Marvin Johnson, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Murry Sutherland and Diamond Jim McDonald and Vonzel Johnson. That's nothing that anyone you'd waste 60 seconds talking Boxing with would challenge. Now Michael cleaned out his division thoroughly and unified it too; but Charles came up rock hard through a prodigious 175 lb. Era as a black man in an age still unforgiving of that.

[GhostofDempsey]

On paper, Charles has one of the best resumes in boxing, let alone at 175. I could see this being a trilogy, with the Victor taking 2 out of 3, and fans still arguing who is the better of the two. They were both two of the greatest LHW’s to enter a ring, but I would give a slight edge in a head to head fight to Charles. Spinks relied a lot on his jab and I think Charles would be savvy enough to solve that puzzle and make needed adjustments.

[billeau2]

I have to say that reading everyone who wrote thus far, and... the selection of this match for a thread, has been an excellent read, kind of a treat, along with some of the humor in the Klitsko thread. Everyone makes really good points.

I tend to find that my own process is such that I get lost trying to pick the very best light heavies... I get them confused with the cruisers, and I find it so easy to leave people out... So its actually easier to take a match and look at it than try to rank these guys!

On Charles: Fantastic fighter. Many people think he put the breaks on his own progress after he may have caused a ring fatality. When I watch Charles I can't ever put my finger on what makes him so great: He is not the slickster that Moore was, not by a stretch the pure technical genius that someone like Burley was... Not a super man like Robinson, Jones, or Ali was... Then it hit me: What makes Charles so fantastic is the competition he faced, and mostly won against.

And wouldn't you know it? Its kind of similar with Spinks. Spinks was not a prodigy in the way that Jones was, and frankly when we look at form, Michael Moore, (an underated light heavy/cruiser imo) was much more spectacular looking. Spinks and Charles did not depend on a big punch... with the caveat that Charles did seem to have a big punch at one time...see above.

Both of these guys have similar profiles. They are excellent fighters who do the things well that they do and win doing them. Spinks is perhaps more ackward, Charles has more power. Both guys came up and conquered... while other light heavies with more power like Foster could not make the switch. Charles fought the better competition. He might also be more durable than Spinks, though precident does not really suggest this. Im willing to give it to Charles, slowly and painfully... in a decision. Spinks could win this... Charles is perhaps a bit more likely to do so.

[Dynamite76]

Honestly, a hard fight to judge. Both are all-time greats. But Charles faced tougher competition and takes this on a close unanimous or majority decision.

[The Old LefHook]

This thread has been done 5 million times already.

[QueensburyRules]

- - $5,000,001 now

[The Old LefHook]

I know Michael and I love him. A humble and deeply committed man of faith, and a genuinely great fighter. 6'5"+ in his boots and with his ever present hat, surprisingly tall too. He is every inch a superstar among the Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Arguello, Sanchez, Pryor, Holmes greats of the 1980's. Here's my 2 cents though....
Lloyd Marshall, 60-15-3, WKO2 & 58-14-3, WKO6 ; Archie Moore, 88-13-7, WKO 8 & 84-12-7, WMD10 & 80-11-5, WUD10; Jimmy Bivins, 66-12-1, WUD 10 & 56-8-1, WKO 4 & 52-7-1, WUD 10; Charley Burley, Ken Overlin, Anton Christoforidis, Teddy Yarosz beats Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Gregory, Marvin Johnson, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Murry Sutherland and Diamond Jim McDonald and Vonzel Johnson. That's nothing that anyone you'd waste 60 seconds talking Boxing with would challenge. Now Michael cleaned out his division thoroughly and unified it too; but Charles came up rock hard through a prodigious 175 lb. Era as a black man in an age still unforgiving of that.

How do you fight a guy who always appears to be off balance but isn't?