Ezzard Charles v.s Michael Spinks

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bad_Intentions, May 5, 2008.

  1. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    51,187
    Likes Received:
    25,460
    very tough call.. I love both of these fighters and both are p4p giants and among the very best of light heavys... Michael was a slow starter but I wouldn’t be as concerned about this against an opponent like Charles as I would be against someone like say Archie Moore.. Ezzard threw great combinations and had good footwork which would make Spinks work very hard for the win.. the Cincinnati Cobra was a better technician than the punchers Spinks beat at 175 in his own time.. Michael was awkward and dissimilar in style to anyone Ezzard ever met and at 175 could hit as hard as most of them in that class... I’m not sold 100% on either man but here’s a vote for Charles by a close 15 round decision..
     
  2. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    27,133
    Likes Received:
    44,921
    Excellent fight, between two guys who I rank top 5 H2H at 175. 50/50.

    Charles's biggest weakness was his lack of a jab on Spinks's level imo, Spinks was on a level of his own when it came to jabbing at 175. I think that Spinks would eventually start to keep Ezzard from doing much with his lanky, awkward style and longer limbs. A past prime Charles had issues with Harold Johnson's jab. Spinks's was better and quicker than their's, and longer than Johnson's.

    Spinks was an infamously slow-burner, aside from the Marvin Johnson fight. Charles took a good lead pretty often, but could squander it. I have a feeling Spinks's combined assets of trickiness and devastating power would cause Charles to switch to a spoiler style and resort to shutting Spinks down, instead of mounting his own tools for winning.

    Charles had issues with Walcott's trickiness, and Spinks was better, and trickier than Walcott imo. Whilst Spinks managed to keep Qawi off the inside, for the most part, who was much better than Charles at forcing the fight imo, but Spinks wasn't against fighting on this inside, which whilst I think would play into Ezz's hands, the power that Spinks brought isn't a something to be played with. No, I think Charles's counters are what give Spinks the bigger problems here. Spinks could throw himself off balance when he missed a left hook or a supercharged Jinx. Spinks did have a few issues with Eddie, who was a counter-puncher, similarly to Charles but not as good. This is why I think all of the late rounds would be very closely fought with Spinks's awesome jab giving Charles issues but also opportunities.

    So basically, I think it goes with Charles taking the early rounds, with the middle rounds becoming increasingly competitive, with Spinks's power slowly taking effect and his jab taking the close ones. Spinks could maybe get a KD here, which would tick it in his favour, but ultimately I think Charles nicks it based on his better start.

    Charles SD15(8-7)

    Obviously we know how much I love Charles, but Spinks is one of my favourite LHWs too. I can completely see Spinks winning this and actually started writing this post with Spinks having the edge, a true 50/50.
     
    AwardedSteak863 likes this.
  3. Dance84

    Dance84 Unicorn and seastar land Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2017
    Messages:
    8,066
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    Charles
     
  4. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7,124
    Likes Received:
    8,839
    Like both fighters but Michaels scalps are few and far between despite being solid ones. Wish he had a larger resume to compare but I’d have to give it to Charles off what we have.
     
  5. AwardedSteak863

    AwardedSteak863 Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2018
    Messages:
    6,066
    Likes Received:
    11,274
    I see it pretty much the same way. You're analysis is spot on!
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.