Light - Heavyweight History Hd 2 Hd debate

Charles was hard to hurt at light-heavy, he was only stopped once in that division. If you discount his last few fights when he was clearly shot, his only other KOs were by Walcott and Marciano, two heavyweights with excellent power. And remember, Charles past his prime went 15 rounds with Marciano in their first fight. Spinks does not hit anywhere near as hard as Walcott or Marciano. Charles' chin stood up to many heavyweights including some real bombers, so I think we can say he is pretty safe vs Spinks, barring some kind of fluke punch.

Spinks had good power but was it any better than Archie Moore, who actually *proved* he could knock out heavyweights, something Spinks never did? If anyone is getting knocked out in this fight it is Spinks, not Charles.

Other than that I generally agree with your points.

 

I'm going to have to stick up for someone's chin again Tunney was *never* KOd, and took Jack Dempsey's best punch and got up. I think Dempsey hit a little harder than Foster! Tunney was also hard to hit, and had good footwork and liked to stay on the outside. A guy who is hard to hit and has a granite chin is pretty darn hard to KO, even for a bomber like Foster.

Another factor is that Tunney was possibly the best strategist in boxing. He prepared game plans better than any other fighter, which is how he beat Greb 4 times after the first licking, and how he tamed Dempsey. Since Foster is a known quantity, Gene would figure out the right plan to beat him, and execute it effectively as he almost always did.

I see this as a clear points win for Tunney, with maybe a hairy moment or two as he eats a Foster bomb but then gets on his bike and survives the round with his excellent durability.

 

Tunney had a fast and hard right hand that would have hurt Foster. I think I always cite Tunney's focus and discipline as being as important as the very conservative boxing style he used, as opposed to the occasional swagger that Billy Conn was noted for. That style, along with Tunney's aforementioned toughness, chin and fast footwork would have guided him to victory when others would have succumbed to the scary preying mantis demeanor and deadly one shot power of Foster. Tunney is one of the very few lightheavies of history that could have negotiated the threats that Bob Foster would have presented. Gene Tunney, in my opinion, would have taken a unanimous decision over Foster with no kd's scored by either man.

 

Yeah, Tunney's discipline was superb. I wonder if it was innate or if he learned it in the marines. He's also one of the few boxers who made a success after retiring from the ring, and not from hawking his fame like Foreman, De La Hoya etc. Pretty interesting chap.

 

Yeah,i don't mean to detract from Charles' durability, i do think that he can be hurt though, he was dropped a few times by good fighters in or in a close vinicity to the weight. But i agree with you in that he's hardly ever getting finished off by an opponent at the weight. Just thought i had to combinethat with a big asset of Spinks' in his power, in the context of the fight.

Good post.

 

I go for Tunney now, i've gotten past the interim stage.

 

Charles was hurt or dropped on quite a few occasions at 175. Spinks could quite easily add to the list.

Bob Foster never really proved his power at Heavyweight either but we sure know he had it at 175.

 

He KO'd about 20 men at Heavyweight, he just lacked the durability and especially the physical strength to contend with the best.

 

Against the better fighters he didn't make his mark power wise tho. Not like Moore i think.

 

True. Could've had more to do with the factors I mentioned rather than a relative lack of power, though. I guess we wouldn't know for certain, but it's hard to believe he couldn't have effected damn near anyone with his power were he to land the killer blow in the flow of the fight like he was able to do at Light Heavy. He just didn't hold up well in the face of that kind of strength and size that he met against guys like Ali and Frazier. I wonder if someone like Monzon would've been the same at Light Heavy had he tried his hand.

 

Solid stuff. The other thing is bob never really made any serious weight gain efforts when fighting at Heavy. It was more just a trip here and there nad he never comitted full time unlike Moore.

 

Charles vs. Spinks... great fight.

Spinks is slightly taller with a slightly longer reach... no big advantage with either really.

Both men are quick but Charles had the faster hands and better footwork IMO.

Both men had good power, it's close IMO. No real advantage either way.

Both men were durable (don't let the Tyson fight fool ya), no real advantage either way.

Both fought good fighters.

Charles beat-

Teddy Yarosz, Anton Christoforidis, Charley Burley x2, Jose Basora,
Joey Maxim x5, Jimmy Bivins 4 out of 5, Lloyd Marshall 2 out of 3, Archie Moore x3, Elmer Ray 1 out of 2, Sam Baroudi, Joe Baksi, Jersey Joe Walcott 2 out of 4, Gus Lesnevich, Joe Louis, and Rex Layne 2 out of 3 among others.

Spinks beat-

Yaqui Lopez, Eddie M. Muhammad, Dwight Qawi, Eddie Davis, Murray Sutherland, Larry Holmes x2, and Gerry Cooney among others.

I think Charles' speed, workrate, and accuracy would be the difference. Spinks would land some good shots and maybe even drop Charles. In the end I think Charles outworks Spinks in the late rounds to win a close decision.

 

Hi SugarSean, and good posts by everyone here. Looks like we agree on Tunney winning then.

We could go for Archie Moore vs someone now. f you're online Sean then let's do this.

 

How about Moore - Loughran?