Surprised Tunney hasn't been mentioned. He filled out very well at heavyweight and had the frame to carry extra poundage.
He does. But that's also because he had a lot more fights above 175. Spinks has the better win (Holmes). How come?
Better than Walcott? Holmes in his prime was better but given that Holmes wasn't prime and the fights were razor close I'd say Ezzard takes it. It's in the post I quoted. It's a bit lengthy. In short the two easiest ways to beat Spinks is to pressure him bad and quickly (Tyson) and let him get aggressive as he could be sloppy, then counter and keep him off balance with spins and timing a jab when his feet are off the ground (Ezzard).
The first Holmes-Spinks fight wasn't close. And that version of Holmes was still the better win imo. Holmes was an undefeated champion who reigned for 7 years and defended his title 20 times. That's who Spinks dethroned. Also worth remembering Holmes weighed 221 lbs. Walcott was coming off 2 losses to Joe Louis when Charles beat him the first time. Walcott may have won the first fight but this was a washed up Joe Louis (EDIT: past his prime, Louis looked washed up when he came back in '50). And Walcott was stopped in the rematch. Walcott was coming off a loss to Rex Layne when Charles beat him the second time. I don't think either win is as great as Spinks' first win over Holmes. Their rematch was close and I do think Holmes won it. Win for win- Spinks' first win over Holmes is better IMO. I read the analysis. Very detailed but too biased. You can't compare Tyson's pressure to anyone tbh. Charles' pressure can't even be compared to Holmes or Qawi. I don't see how Charles can emulate this gameplan. "1) try and find his rhythm, then disrupt it. Make sure he doesn't get involved with it and keep him second guessing with feints, and go full power whenever you follow up a feint, but don't always follow them up" Spinks was one of the most arrhythmic fighters I've ever seen. On top of that, Spinks was actually great at disrupting his opponent's rhythm. By being arrhythmic. So I can counter your point by saying that Spinks' rhythm will be a problem for Charles as he attacks from varying angles, uses his jab well and uses it often. Feints are great but they will be used by both parties (especially at such a high level). "2) let him get aggressive and counter his uppercuts and hooks, but don't get on the inside. Keep him off balance with tip 1, then try and land a counter right hook over his left, and move right to avoid that right hand with your own right hand open to parry his leads" This is pure speculation. If this was based on real-life scenarios (seen on film), I'd be willing to acknowledge it. But this is just vivid imagination. And that will always be subjective. "3) after the watching the Tyson fight, Michael seems open to heavy pressure, obviously everyone is, but I noticed that Spinks's defence wasn't perfect and seemed easy to hit at mid range, get there and after step 2 follow up with hooks to the body, he overreached so counter move back, into orthodox and drop your weight into a check left hook. 4) he seemed to have quite hectic and slow footwork in the Holmes fights, take advantage by using step 5 and using cut off techniques, Spinks on the back foot wasn't too effect when faced with Holmes's pressure, using good cut off tactics whilst ducking with hooks and using a jab should get him stuck on the ropes" How did Spinks look against Qawi? Qawi was a pressure fighter, Charles wasn't. And Qawi wasn't just your typical pressure fighter, he was one of the best in LHW history. On the other hand, Charles was troubled by Valentino's pressure. Was Spinks a better pressure fighter than Valentino? Comparing Charles to Tyson in any way is silly. Charles never displayed the kind of pressure where he had his opponent rattled. Tyson did that on a regular basis. He'd do that to Charles too. "5) Jab, but not a harmful snapping jab, a pawing jab on the half beat, preferably whilst he's got a foot of the floor to step, knock him off balance and set up follow ups, don't pressure to hard after the jab tho, just jab, cross hook follow through, step back and reset" Spinks had a better jab. All the things you see Charles doing, Spinks can do as well. And again, most of this is just speculation on your part. You're envisioning Charles doing all the right things. Both fighters will try to set up their punches (whichever way they do). How did Charles do against Walcott? Walcott was an awkward fighter with a unique rhythm. Charles never figured him out (4 bouts; 51 rounds). I think Spinks was an even better boxer. Charles won't have a significant speed advantage against Spinks, as he did against Walcott. I don't see Charles as a stylistic nightmare for Spinks. I don't see it the other way around either. I think this is an even matchup that can go either way (LHW or HW).
He had the chance... It was decided winning a new unproven world title (WBO) was of more benefit to him than fighting a post Holyfield Cruiserweight division. And we were robbed of such classics as Moorer/Reeson; Moorer/Lumumba; Moorer/90 year old Deleon; Moorer/Nelson... He did the right thing!
I wasn't. That was the other way of beating him. The way Ezzard would use would be to make him miss, which Ezzard was perfectly capable of, and countering whilst Spinks was off balance The idea of pressuring Spinks is too keep him from getting in his rhythm. Ezzard was able to do this with his left hook, jab and feints The whole thing that post pointed out was they to beat Spinks is to keep him off balance and get him out his rhythm. It doesn't need to be. Do you now? Just keeping him off balance, I mean. Not better than Charles imo, or Walcott for that matter. Jersey Joe Walcott was the most arrhythmic fighter I've ever seen and Ezzard clearly won the first, had 2 close fights with Walcott in the 2nd and 4th Whilst he was KTFOd in the 3rd he again pushed him close. Walcott imo was better than Spinks. He definitely had better footwork. It is based on film, he got over aggressive when he couldn't land his power punches, which his awkward stance left him off balance anyway. Ezzard was also much better Defensively than anyone that Spinks faced. Archie Moore was also a better pressure fighter than Valentino, Ezzard Charles had him beat in the first fight clearly. Joe Louis was a better pressure fighter than Valentino, even past prime. Ezzard won that fight clearly. Qawi was 1. Not Ezzard Charles. 2. About 6 inches smaller He was an absolute beast at LHW but he's no Ezzard Charles. He'd keep him backing up but he'd also be walking into power punches, Ezzard wouldn't be. Again, he didn't need to be. Mike Tyson showed one of way beating Spinks. Spinks in his career showed the pieces for another way. He just didn't face an opponent on a level of himself to pull it off. To his credit it was because of how great Spinks was. Nah, he had a snappier jab but Ezzard Charles has a jab that was very hard to time or predict coz he changed the level of power in it. He also changed how he threw it (pawing, snapping, back hands ect.) Spinks's jab just had more power. Like all of his punches. Spinks was good at everything, he was a brilliant fighter. A true ATG. But he wasn't as good at not being hit as Ezzard, he wasn't as quick, he wasn't as balanced, his footwork was definitely worse. Spinks definitely hit harder and seems to have a better chin. He was also more consistent. But Ezzard was definitely quicker. Incorrect. He had him figured out in the first fight and won clearly. We are talking about 2 ATGs here so either pick is acceptable but I think Ezzard has his number.
I’m not of the opinion that Archie would’ve done better at CW? His best opponents are smaller then the modern CW like Rocky Marciano as an example. He faced very few true modern sized heavies and fewer of pedigree ability. It’s hard to say, in the modern landscape Archie would do about the same at CW relatively speaking in the modern landscape he belongs where he started. ditto can be said of Ezzard they would be perfect for the modern LHW division. In my opinion Spinks and Moorer are obvious answers Micheal M was a boiled down CW his entire LHW run so I think for longevity sake it would make sense, he did well at HW but I’m of the opinion he would’ve been the greatest CW to date had he spent an entire career there.
Moorer, Schmeling, Kid Norfolk, Sam Langford, and Bob Foster. I tried to name guys that weren't already thrown out there. Imo being a good light heavyweight isn't enough. I have to see results against bigger men but that's my personal opinion. Foster is an example of a guy that I think fits in well with fighters below 200 lbs but above that his results were clearly negative.
