Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 30 Nov 2005, 10:09

Who would win this matchup?

Charles is slick and packs a punch, but so does Spinks.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Nov 2005, 12:09

I truly believe Spinks to be one of the greatest LH's ever. His style, physical attributes and ring intelligence and right hadn make him a formidable opponent for anyone. Charles's speed and pure talent though makes him my favourite against anyone ever in this division. In p4p terms you'll be hard pushed to find anyone with a better record than Charles.

I see Charles winning a decision.

theone · Post by **theone** » 30 Nov 2005, 12:12

Charles to me is without a doubt the greatest lightheavy of all time. Spinks is not that far behind however.
Charles wins by close UD.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 30 Nov 2005, 14:00

Charles by competitive decision. Somewhere between 10-5 and 9-6 for the scoring.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Nov 2005, 14:33

i agree with the above

charles 15 close decision

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 30 Nov 2005, 15:38

I think Spinks sneaks away with this one.

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 30 Nov 2005, 18:46

Originally, I would've said Charles, but the more I think about it, Spinks has a very good chance of winning. I'll take Michael by late stoppage or close decision.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 30 Nov 2005, 19:09

Even at his peak Charles would struggle with Spinks... the way to beat a peak Charles would be to out-box and out manuvre him and I think Mike would be able to do this... he was very intelligent in the ring and would use his movement to keep Charles off balance and his jab would be the main punch in the fight. Spinks would also have the power to keep Charles in check... I think this would be a chessmatch with occasional flurries, close but with Spinks always holding the edge and Spinks would win a close but clear decision....

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Dec 2005, 05:19

I think Charles would struggle for a while but he'd work Spinks out around the midway point. Charles has the reflexes to take something away from Spinks' jab.

These are 2 of my afvopurite all-time fighters but fior me speed wins this one.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 02 Dec 2005, 11:16

Charles was a beautiful boxer and I don't think any of us have even seen him fight in his prime. Obviously, all of his best form was in non title matches at 160-175, but he has beaten so many outstanding men it's unbelievable. Spinks always found a way to win, and he goes down as one of the best ever light heavies for that, but Charles would punish him for the many mistaes he made.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Dec 2005, 11:25

Decagon wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:Charles was a beautiful boxer and I don't think any of us have even seen him fight in his prime. Obviously, all of his best form was in non title matches at 160-175, but he has beaten so many outstanding men it's unbelievable. Spinks always found a way to win, and he goes down as one of the best ever light heavies for that, but Charles would punish him for the many mistaes he made.
I've seen his rematch with Lloyd Marshall.

got a copy?

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 02 Dec 2005, 14:06

Ezzard wrote:
Decagon wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:Charles was a beautiful boxer and I don't think any of us have even seen him fight in his prime. Obviously, all of his best form was in non title matches at 160-175, but he has beaten so many outstanding men it's unbelievable. Spinks always found a way to win, and he goes down as one of the best ever light heavies for that, but Charles would punish him for the many mistaes he made.
I've seen his rematch with Lloyd Marshall.
got a copy?

You can get it from Sweet Fights. That guy has a pretty good Ezzard Charles collection. BoxRec's own Woller probably has the best Charles collection though. If only he would get back to me! Hear me Woller!

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Dec 2005, 14:11

This would be a great matchup; the two best lightheavyweights of all time. Charles may capitlaize on Spinks' mistakes, but Spinks didn't make many. Spinks was also great at captializing on his opponents mistakes. Charles would also have to deal with Spinks unorthodox style. I would go with Spinks in a close decision.

Randineous · Post by **Randineous** » 02 Dec 2005, 14:47

silkov wrote:Even at his peak Charles would struggle with Spinks... the way to beat a peak Charles would be to out-box and out manuvre him and I think Mike would be able to do this... he was very intelligent in the ring and would use his movement to keep Charles off balance and his jab would be the main punch in the fight.

Seeing as how Charles handled Jimmy Bivins in all three of their fights during Ezzard's Light Heavyweight peak (including once by KO), I'm not so sure that would be the best way to beat him. Afterall, Bivins was a great fighter in his own right, who was said to be a very smart outside boxer who used excellant footwork, a very tight defensive style, and what some consider to be one of the very best jabs in boxing during that time ("fast", "accurate" and "hard" are words that have described Bivins' jab).

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 02 Dec 2005, 16:40

Randineous wrote:
silkov wrote:Even at his peak Charles would struggle with Spinks... the way to beat a peak Charles would be to out-box and out manuvre him and I think Mike would be able to do this... he was very intelligent in the ring and would use his movement to keep Charles off balance and his jab would be the main punch in the fight.
Seeing as how Charles handled Jimmy Bivins in all three of their fights during Ezzard's Light Heavyweight peak (including once by KO), I'm not so sure that would be the best way to beat him. Afterall, Bivins was a great fighter in his own right, who was said to be a very smart outside boxer who used excellant footwork, a very tight defensive style, and what some consider to be one of the very best jabs in boxing during that time ("fast", "accurate" and "hard" are words that have described Bivins' jab).

Yes but when Charles and Bivins fought in '43 when Bivins was in his prime, Bivins won on points after flooring Charles 7 times.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 03 Dec 2005, 14:37

Ambling Alp wrote:This would be a great matchup; the two best lightheavyweights of all time. Charles may capitlaize on Spinks' mistakes, but Spinks didn't make many. Spinks was also great at captializing on his opponents mistakes. Charles would also have to deal with Spinks unorthodox style. I would go with Spinks in a close decision.

spinks was of fbalance so much. eddie mustafa was beating him on the counter until that punch in the eye/knockdown. eddie davis was robbed vs spinks, and he did a good, cagey job on him. Charles was a beautiful counter puncher...Spinks also was very tall, but didn't have long arms for his size - he sometimes had trouble finding the right distance. I think Charles would take advantage.

don't get me wrong, spinks is one of the most underrated 175 greats

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Dec 2005, 14:57

viciousmaussa wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:This would be a great matchup; the two best lightheavyweights of all time. Charles may capitlaize on Spinks' mistakes, but Spinks didn't make many. Spinks was also great at captializing on his opponents mistakes. Charles would also have to deal with Spinks unorthodox style. I would go with Spinks in a close decision.
spinks was of fbalance so much. eddie mustafa was beating him on the counter until that punch in the eye/knockdown. eddie davis was robbed vs spinks, and he did a good, cagey job on him. Charles was a beautiful counter puncher...Spinks also was very tall, but didn't have long arms for his size - he sometimes had trouble finding the right distance. I think Charles would take advantage.

don't get me wrong, spinks is one of the most underrated 175 greats

Spinks balance was part of his style though and offset his oppoents more than anything else... I wouldn't say Davis was robbed against Spinks at all. I think times when spinks looked like he was struggling in fights he was often just waiting to drop the right hand in... thats very often what happened...

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 04 Dec 2005, 09:18

sure, the davis fight was close. but i had spinks losing by a point or two. i didn't see spinks winning, even though it was tight. if anyone could take advantage of Spinks' often disorganized style, it's the precise, classical, hard hitting boxer that was Charles.

Giancarlo · Post by **Giancarlo** » 25 Aug 2013, 02:43

Interesting one.

gilgamesh · Post by **gilgamesh** » 25 Aug 2013, 02:44

Ezzard KO late

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 25 Aug 2013, 03:04

Charles by close decision.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 25 Aug 2013, 09:35

Autobarn wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:This would be a great matchup; the two best lightheavyweights of all time. Charles may capitlaize on Spinks' mistakes, but Spinks didn't make many. Spinks was also great at captializing on his opponents mistakes. Charles would also have to deal with Spinks unorthodox style. I would go with Spinks in a close decision.
spinks was of fbalance so much. eddie mustafa was beating him on the counter until that punch in the eye/knockdown. eddie davis was robbed vs spinks, and he did a good, cagey job on him. Charles was a beautiful counter puncher...Spinks also was very tall, but didn't have long arms for his size - he sometimes had trouble finding the right distance. I think Charles would take advantage.
s

This. I would very comfortably pick Ezzard by decision. Frankly Charles beat fighters who were better than Spinks.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2013, 09:43

yep, he beat one that was better than Charles on 3 occasions.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 25 Aug 2013, 14:36

BoxBuzz wrote:yep, he beat one that was better than Charles on 3 occasions.

You mean better than Spinks?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2013, 15:28

lol yep that's what I meant.....however I think that particular fighter was better than Charles as well, but I'm afraid I have no solid proof since said fighter went 0 for 3 against Charles. I think Pep was better than Saddler as well, but the numbers don't back me up.

But we are talking about the 3 best LHW's ever here. Though one has gone thus far un named.

Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Re: Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Re: Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Re: Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Re:

Re: Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Re: Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175

Re: Ezzard Charles vs. Michael Spinks at 175