Rank them 1-4 on ability at lhw: E.Charles, A.Moore, B.Foster, M.Spinks

For the second criteria i'd be happy going Charles, Spinks, Moore, Foster.

But the first part is harder.

Clearly Charles>Moore in a series. I reckon Charles-Spinks is the fight at 175 so i always find it hard. I reckon if anyone should have a great chance against Charles it should be Foster, personally. Moore-Spinks, well Moore has the ability to take it to a dog fight but even there Spinks is effective because of his strength.

I'll be back on this.

 

Charles>Spinks>Foster>Moore using criteria one.

 

I'd put Tunney over all of them. then Charles:hat

 

Charles
Moore
Foster
Spinks

 

I'm currently on my iPhone having a smoke out the famous shed.

This thread requires thought, analysis and a keyboard.

I'll be back. Later. Quality thread about my second favourite weight class :good

 

Taking your second criteria,I would put them in this order.
Charles
Moore
Foster
Spinks.

 

Are you ever not stoned Flea? Not that it's a criticism

Charles
Moore
Spinks
Foster

But it's close, almost inconsequentially so. You could argue that Moore looks better than Charles on film owing to there not being much footage of the latter at 175, but still, Charles owned him over their series. The only one whose place I feel sure about is Foster. He was more dominant than the others, but his competition was substantially weaker than theirs. They were all also able to compete at heavyweight successfully too, though Foster is still a h2h nightmare at 175. Spinks could rank above Moore too, depending on preference. He fought in a good era and was relatively dominant, plus he had the style to give them all trouble.

 

Charles
Moore
Spinks
Foster

 

spinks
charles
moore
foster

spinks and charles may be swappable .