at LHW.... Please rank them in order and how a fight would've looked between each of them going at it.
Holyfield really didn't spend much time at light heavyweight to be a part of the equation. As for the remaining two? 1. Charles 2. Spinks Winner - Charles via decision.
Holy was 176lbs for one fight, but he was only below 180lbs for the first 4 fights of his career. He shouldn't really be included in this topic.
I know he didn't spend much time there.. but was still an ATG HW and some say his best weight would've been LHW... So while he didn't spend much time there he still had a lot of quality at that weight and could be a h2h monster at that weight imo
I agree that Holyfield could have made 175 , and it would have been much easier for him than becoming the HW that he became : much less roids , hgh and training and a little dehydration b4 weighins. So : 1. Holyfield 2. Spinks 3. Charles 1 could add Marchegiano 2d comparison , I think he could/would have beaten Holyfield of Qawi #1 . And 1 could always make Holyfield vs. Marchegiano at , say 190 lbs also . If Holyfield was not dehydrated 4 his CW fights then he sure as hell could have shed d less than 15 lbs needed to make 175 lbs .
Holyfield was a CW and HW only IMO. Anyway, they all fought over LHW as well. They were all LINEAL HW Champs! To keep it in perspective I'll rank Holyfield as he was just prior to his climb up the HW rankings in the late 80's. I'm gonna make the weight limit 190Lbs. 1. Holyfield- 6'2 1/2" with a 77 1/2" reach and a rock solid 190 Lber. 2. Charles- 6'1" with a 74" reach and 185 Lbs. 3. Spinks- 6'2" with a 76" reach and 190 Lbs. Holyfield is the biggest, the strongest, and the most durable of these 3 Hall of Famers. Holyfield had the 2nd quickest hands of the 3... behind Charles. I think he had the best footwork of the 3. I also think Holyfield was the 2nd best boxer of the 3... behind Charles. Power? Some will probably say Spinks but I'm going with Holyfield. They all had good stamina and workrate.
I think you are underrating Spinks. Michael was a much better boxer than Evander, and he was never outboxed in a fight. Spinks' ring generalship was better than both.
Holy was not a LH, so I will disqualify him. Charles was one of the best LH's ever, but I just love what Mike did at LH. I also think Spinks had a better chin at LH than Ezzard, and he was never outboxed. 1. Spinks 2. Charles
IMHO no man in history below 190lbs beats Evander Holyfield. Spinks and Charles would split fights. I think Mike Spinks would do better against Bob Foster from a stylistic point of view. Charles would have less of a problem with Mike's goofy body rhythm then most at light heavy. Spinks was just incredible at 175 though. Awkward style, vicious on the inside and KO'd guys with some of the most sneaky punches i've ever seen (check out his hybrid left hooks).
I think a 175lb Charles beats Holyfield anytime, except perhaps the Bowe versions. I think Spinks would give him much more trouble.
