Ezzard Charles v.s Michael Spinks

Charles, via razor thin UD. :good

 

A peak 1940s 175lb charles does not press the action, he uses beautiful footwork to glide around the ring and he fights like a defensive counterpuncher. what film of a 1940s charles have you seen? I also disagree on spinx being harder hitting than charles, charles killed a man......the cincinatti cobra was devastating and then he changed his style afraid to finish opponents off after that tragic fight

 

I dont want to veer off subject, but I think calling charles "sluggish" is degrading walcotts fabulous win over charles. Considering charles looked magnificient 4 months earlier from beating charles, It would be wrong to imply charles suddenly faded in those 4 months. You could say charles was "
bored" from fighting walcott so much, i agree their but I have a newspaper article and essentially charles claimed he had no answer for walcott that night. walcott fought more aggresivley this time and it paid off. Walcotts one punch times knockout over charles was the most perfectly timed punch I have ever seen, but I think im just preaching to the choir here.



I agree with the rest of your post, great stuff

 

Excellent matchup. Very,very difficult to pick.

One thing is certain, it would be an EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE and hard fought fight.

I think going with the majority and saying that Charles has the better chance of winning would be more judicious.

 

I will stick with labelling Charles 'sluggish' against Walcott in their third fight. It doesn't mean to say Walcott was in there with a mummy (and the punch was great), it just means Charles wasn't quite as good as before.

 

Well I could see you making a case saying the 1949 charles looked better in the first fight...........but are you trying to claim the charles of the 3rd fight looked more sluggish/worse than the charles 4 months prior who boxed brilliantly to win a decision over walcott in the 2nd fight?


Also I could make a strong case charles never faced the best walcott, as walcott in 1947 against louis were arguebably his most impressive performance with his footwork, jab, movement never looking sharper.

 

Can't pick one very easily. At lightheavyweight, this would be a war.

 

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

 

i have charles-walcott I round 14-15. Charles footwork/movement looked incredible. He was so slippery, slick, calculated in his prime.

 

Spinks by competitive decision for me.

 

Could go either way, but I'll take Michael by a razor-thin split verdict over Ezzard.

 

Ezzard in a very close 1 imo

 

Charles.
Check out the clip in the movie "Resurrecting the Champ" of his fight against bob Satterfield. Awesome.
At light heavy he was Archie moore's master, so he could probably take Spinks

 

The latter

 

To be honest, I don't really pick anybody over Charles 175 at his best. So I'll stay the course here.