Who beats Spinks at Light heavyweight?

Also, is it really just me who's confident in picking Spinks over Foster? His chin is so much more proven.

 

Without a doubt, if you factor in there HW records it paints an even clearer picture Ezzard has an undeniable level of pedigree matched by no one at LHW.

 

Maybe Thomas Hearns or Virgil Hill would give problems but he could expose both of their flaws.

 

He beat every lhw he ever fought

 

Moore and Charles, thats it. I dont think anyone else would.

 

I honestly believe neither one stands a chance and both get battered.

 

And lost to a few. To me that’s not cleaning out a division. Especially if he didn’t beat anyone in a title fight — big difference between 12 and 15 rounds.

He ranks second to me at 175 behind Spinks, who did clean out his division.

 

I don’t agree on either count. Spinks didn’t lose to anybody and there was no robbery involved — there’s a debatable decision. Not a deal where he lost every round and was given a gift. Charles had some competitive fights too, and if we had film of them we might think he got a break on a decision or two.

Beating a champion with the belt on the line > winning a non-title fight. I don’t doubt that he would have won the title had he stuck around a bit longer, but I still don’t think you can claim to clean out a division without becoming champ and facing all the top contenders who are gunning for you (it’s easier to be the hunter than the hunted — you get the other guy’s best every time as champ).

I also don’t hold with “if two guys fight twice and split the fights, then whoever won the second one gets credit for being the one who came out on top.” If you split, you split — order doesn’t matter.

 

You're right, of course. The outcome of Spinks-E.Davis is debatable, but I've only ever seen about five scorecards for Spinks - and three of them came from the officials. If we're in agreement that it was a close fight, either way, and I'm sure we are, then you must agree that the the two scorecards which were both near shut outs for Spinks were absolutely criminal. Charles had no fights like the above. The controversial fights he were in, were the ones he lost. And none were to fighters the level of Davis. Charles also gave anyone who was competitive with him a rematch so he could further prove he was the better man.

You seem to not know much about Charles. Charles didn't lose series with anyone at LHW. The two men who beat him there, beat him either while he was injured or outweighed. Charles beat them both in the rematch, and destroyed them in the third fight.

So your argument is that Charles couldn't claim to have cleared out the division because he didn't beat Maxim in a title fight, despite beating him four times while he wasn't champ, and once while he was? And y'know Charles actually beat him in a title fight, right? While Maxim was champion, It was just for Charles' title, not Maxim's. And then he beat Lesnevich!

What does your semantics have to do with Charles vs Spinks?

 

1.Ezzard Charles
2. Bob Foster
3. Archie Moore
in that order I think.

 

What does whether Charles cleaned out a division have to do with whether he beats Spinks? You’re the one who made that claim and I was discussing that since you brought it up.

I maintain someone didn’t clean out on division if he didn’t win the title. Was he the best 175-pounder for a period of time? Sure. There’s also a period of time when he was fighting in that division where he clearly wasn’t (lost back-to-back fights).

A title fight in another division? That’s like saying, had Hearns rightfully won the decision in the rematch with Leonard at super middle, that it proves Thomas was a better welterweight than Ray.

In fact, did Ezzard ever beat Maxim when Joey was 175? Beating him over the weight (and I think there were occasions where Ezz was way lighter and also heavier than Maxim when they fought) isn’t the same as beating him over 15 rounds with both at or under the light heavyweight limit.

Charles was a better fighter than Maxim, but he didn’t clean out the 175-pound division.

 

What? I replied to someone else who said Spinks cleaned up the division, by saying so did Charles. You then interjected saying that Charles didn't.

Keep up.

There was also a time where Spinks got a blatant shitty decision vs Eddie Davis. Does that mean he didn't clean up his division because at one point or another someone was better than him? Do you think he was the best in the division when he was in his pro debut? Context matters.

Charles hadn't completely developed by the first two Bivins/Marshall fights. He filled out in the war, during his service. When Charles fought them when Charles wasn't injured, or wasn't giving up 10lbs, he whipped their asses.

No, it isn't. It's like saying that if Floyd Mayweather beat Alexis Arguello at 130 and 140, he'd be better at 135 too.

I don't know about you, but I don't have any issues with that.

I think if you can beat him FIVE TIMES, two of which while giving 20lbs to him, and then again three times when you're the same size albeit slightly above the weight limit, in a 15 rounder, you can safely tick him off the 'clean up' list.

No, he just beat everyone relevant including the champ who ducked him and the sitting champ at the time.

And a better fighter, with better wins, than Michael Spinks.

 

I guess we agree to disagree. I don’t consider not winning the title cleaning out the division.

Spinks won a close fight. End of story. You’re acting like he got shut out. Ezz had a couple of verdicts where all three judges didn’t go his way so I guess we’re counting those as losses, lol? Spinks had one off night in a dominant run at 175 and still won — Ezzard had a few off nights where he lost (and won rematches, but he still lost those fights so let’s not pretend they didn’t happen).

Yes, fighters in Ezzard’s era fought more often. But if Spinks had defeated Marvin Johnson or Yaqui Lopez or Qawi five times each, I don’t think that necessarily makes him a better fighter with better wins. Eras are different.

He beat everyone there was to beat during his time, with the few exceptions of guys like MSM where he beat the guy who beat the guy — if you want to make a deal out of that, Billy Fox was No. 1 at light heavyweight by Ring Magazine two years running during Ezzard’s time and they didn’t fight. But I wouldn’t hold that against him either.

We just don’t agree on what it means to clean out a division. If I’ve got a room full of stuff and I move everything out of it but there’s still a big trophy in the middle (or a title belt) that I didn’t remove from the room, I did not clean out the room.

If we have a discussion of best light heavyweight champions ever, Ezz is on the outside looking in while Spinks is at the heart of that discussion. As great as Charles’ run at 175 was, it’s missing a key element.

 

Ah, okay. That's fine.

Yeah, sure. I'm not denying it was close. Actually, that's my entire point. Ike judge had it 9-2-1 for Spinks, another had it 11-1. In a fight that close - and like I say, I agree it's close - that's ridiculous. Plus, Davis did win on most people's scorecards.

At light-heavyweight? Nah, he had two. One vs Archie Moore, whom he shut out in the first fight and KOed in the third and who also happens to be one of the three greatest LHWs of all time. The other, vs Joey Maxim, whom he beat another four times. Also, there's very few non-bias cards from the time who scored those for the losers.

As for the off night stuff: Charles fought 40 times in about 2 years against the toughest roster of LHWs anyone ever saw. I'd having two off nights in that situation, vs fighters the calibre of Moore and Maxim, is fine. Especially considering he beat them multiple times outside of those fights, proving he was the better man.

Charles' controversial fights tend to be losses.

I don't have any issue with Spinks' comp. He beat everyone there was to beat. My point is that Charles did the same, and that the guys in front of Ezz were better.

And regarding Fox, Fox was essentially the LHW Chuck Davey. He was a complete mafia hype job. Sure, he had good pop and fought Lesnevich, but he only got the title shot based in match fixing.

I also don't like using this as an argument, because it might not be true, but I've definitely read that those rankings for Fox at number one are also incorrect. Like quite a few of Boxrec's rankings actually. You get the good with the bad in every era, I guess.

Well that's all well and good, if Charles had only beaten Marshall, Bivins, Maxim and Moore once each, he'd still have beaten better fighters than Spinks.