Don't do many of these but thought this looks quite interesting. My interest in boxing started around the time Charles was British champion, his fights with Cooke, Terrell, Orslicks, etc, thought he was a good boxer, with above average punching power, maybe a tad slow to get started, but could make up ground eventually, his chin was not a issue, and he had good stamina. Stracey was also a good boxer ( if a bit upright ) and he packed a KO punch, particular in his right hand, also had good stamina , of course he went on to beat a ATG ( albeit shopworn at the time ) so his resume is more impressive on balance. For me I fancy Stracey to win in a rough tough contest, mainly because he carried the heavier punch, but I could be swayed the other way, due to Charles being maybe more rugged and durably than Stracey. Thoughts...
I tend to agree on this one ..john H was just a bit better alround than charles ..although he did fight a prime Napoles ..and what a superb fighter mantequila was..admittedly by the time stracey fought Napoles he was gone but still an achievement to get off the floor ! Must say though charles was an underated fighter.
No one had an easy time with Ralph Charles. He was though, a little easy to hit and a sharp, accurate puncher like Stracey is bound to cash in on that. I can see Stracey stopping a busted up Tiger somewhere after the 10th.
