More complete fighter: Ezzard Charles or Michael Spinks

Two outstanding fighters who have fought at LHW and HW. Both of them were complete boxers who were able to do anything in the ring. But who would you say is the more well rounded and skilled technician out of the two?

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

For me it's Charles

 

Hi Guys.
Any 19 year old, with 2 years experience, that shuts down Charley Burley twice in just over a month, having him on the floor and nearly stopped in the first, is well....... so it's Charles for me.
stay safe .
Mike.

 

Ezzard.

 

Didn't Charles turn pro at 19?

 

Charles for me.

 

Charles all the way, Spinks was good no doubt but in recent years has been elevated to almost super hero status and he wasn't that.

 

Impressive,but Charles had 6 1/2lbs and 9lbs on Burley in those fights.

 

it's still within a weight division one end to the next, No?

and quite the norm if it had been a Catchweight arrangement where Burley came as he was, and Ezz 'might' have had to cut a few, but more than likely, at that point, come as they were under 175lbs or whatever an agreed weight meet might have been.

anyway, the point is it is still within a division range, that might have favoured Burley, and either side of 6 lbs is not a huge ask in Catchweight practices anyway, No?

 

Charles - significantly so.

Spinks was a great fighter - you could arguably claim Ezz at his peak as one of the very greatest fighters ever, as in arguably thee greatest - résumé is exemplary - comparable with Greb's, with the added benefit of his excellence available on film.

 

Probably Charles. Dealt with a wider range of styles

 

Ezzard

 

Charles was more complete.....
That doesn't mean he beats Spinks at Lt. Heavy or heavy.....
Spinks matches up very well against Charles.
A lot like Barkley did with Hearns.....
Spinks awkwardness, power, and toughness....

 

Ez for me but not by a helluva lot.