Let’s construct a tournament of comparably sized heavyweight champions and see how they do. All fighters in prime rendition. Mind you some of these guys actually met. Who ends up the winner ? - Floyd Patterson - Michael Spinks - Ezzard Charles - Joe Walcott - Max Schmeling - Ingemar Johansson - Jimmy Ellis - Rocky Marciano
Rocky, Floyd and Michael are the ones who stand out. Two of these guys could succumb to a vicious brawler with power. I'm going with Rocky.
While I think Ezzard Charles was the best fighter out of all of them, his best days were at Lightheavyweight. I think most would favor Rocky Marciano but I feel like Michael Spinks would be a bad Matchup for Rocky and would win.
Marciano TKO7 Patterson Spinks UD15 Ellis Charles UD15 Walcott UD15 Schmeling Marciano KO13 Walcott Spinks SD15 Charles* Marciano TKO14 Spinks *I'd say SD the other way round at LHW. Also, unrelated because they didn't reach in the final, but Charles from 1949/1950 could've beaten Rocky, or at least hold him to a split. If a fight with Rocky whilst hopelessly past prime was supposedly very close, and Charles clearly wins the early rounds, why can't a prime Charles keep doing it for longer? Or does Rocky just find a way?
Rocky. he is better setup for grueling or tough matches. I do not like the other guys having to go through 3 or 4 tough fighters in a row. They'll lose to someone because of the wear and tear fator/not able to bring anything other than their A game and get the win.
Honestly that is why I lean towards Spinks winning. As great as Rocky was he would get busted up in fights which would make it difficult to get through a tournament like this. Spinks on the other hand was so versatile and excellent at adapting to his opponents weakness much like Andre Ward did the Super Middleweight series. Spinks had a long amauter career that saw him win gold in Montreal against those excellent Cuban and Russian fighters of that era. Marciano always found a way to win and was probably the best pure puncher out of everyone listed for the tournament but Spinks with his amauter background, long reign at lightheavyweight against crazy good competition and his two wins against Holmes after 30 rounds of boxing makes me think he has the edge.
I can understand that. I find his wins over Holmes impressive though. I have Holmes in my top five at Heavyweight and even though Holmes was on the slide when they fought, there was only a five year age difference between Spinks and Holmes and Holmes ended going on to beat a prime Ray Mercer, and lose a SD to a prime McCall and give a prime Holyfield all kinds of problems. He was not a shot fighter at all. I don't discount any one that thinks Marciano or Charles would win. Both guys were amazing fighters. I even would entertain a sleeper win by Jimmy Ellis who was a hell of fighter. I just like Spinks versatility.
