I like Wallcott's more authoritative punching to win him a decision, I think. Though if they fought say 5 times, Spinks would surely pick up at least one.....and Wallcott would get his KO at least once or twice.
Walcott quite handily. I do not rate Spinks at Heavy at all (and either did his handlers). To me I only wonder the margin of victory. A younger Holmes would have punched holes in Spinks.
Spinks never fought a heavyweight under 214 and there wasn't a viable contender his handlers might have matched him with as small as Wallcott since they were all fighting at cruiserweight. That matters here.
Well to be clear - my pick is Wallcott to win 4/5. But if he's to win he has to play to his strengths and use his length, jab and legs & make Joe lead.
Spinks would definitely trouble Walcott, and let's not pretend Walcott was some true heavyweight beast... he was a cruiserweight... He was really not significantly larger than Spinks... Walcott was a counterpuncher all the way and he would be made uncomfortable by Michael's unorthodox but effective boxing... I see this as a pick-em really
One thing Walcott could do Holmes could not is really hurt Spinks with single punches. He was also a far more difficult to hit consistently than an old, fat Holmes.
true, but conversely, Spinks would have an easier time HURTING Walcott, getting his respect than he did the much bigger and stronger Holmes
I do agree Walcott is less durable than Holmes (one reason I pick Dempsey to put him away) but I dont know that hed be vulnerable in a fight-changing way to Spinks?
Spinks was a murderous hitter at 175... I figure he'd still pack a pretty viscious wallop at say 190 or so... a good weight for him to fight the similiarly sized Walcott
I think Wallcott was bigger/stronger than Spinks by a fair bit. (I don't think he was very much smaller than Holmes actually.) Again, he trained down in weight, he was pretty big framed and gristly.
Well he was a lot bigger than Ezzard, as well... I don't think it matters as much, given his style... Walcott was a pure counterpuncher, very defensive minded... He wasn't going to go in there and try to outmuscle anyone
Thats clearly evident. Holmes was a little flabby at even 210lbs, whereas Walcott was carrying no fat at 200lbs or thereabouts. Any gap in height or reach is additionally negligable. Theyre the same size, Walcotts just far tougher to hit (than 85-86 Holmes, who was unable to maintain even a decent shape by that time).
Agree it doesn't matter as much, but it still matters. Holmes didn''t impose his size style wise at all, but it still let him hang on even terms with Spinks who was by that point a much superior fighter in every other way. And if Wallcott had been 20 natural lb lighter he probably wouldn't have beaten Charles in 10 fights. Still important what we think Wallcott and Spinks' natural sizes were.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqr-wMprjEk Never seen this before. Ezzard Charles was a bad, bad, bad man. I wish more footage existed of him before he went way downhill. The difference in his co-ordination and balance from there to the majority of what's available is as big as say prime Roy to watching him in the Tarver rubber match (even though you can clearly see how exhausted he is in the final round). The alert, reactive defensive style actually kinda reminds me of Benitez (the hairdo contributes in fairness :) which is definitely never something that had come to mind watching his past prime footage. The counter left hook at 6:14 is fucking badass.
I never understood why Walcott is lauded by so many but no one really rates Charles at Heavy. It doesnt add up, and Im not just looking at the head-to-head (which clearly favours Charles) when I say that. It even applied to how the men were received in their own day, and appears to still do today.
Yeah mate, fair question. The footage which exists of both men is definitely more flattering to Joe. It seemed like TV only took an interest once Charles started on his rapid slide. It's also a bit easier to imagine Wallcott having success through the coming few decades being quite a bit bigger. But really Charles probably got at least as much done at heavyweight. Anyway, I consider Charles the greatest fighter of all time.:bow:
Charles is indisputably top 5 p4p all-time... I don't know that I'd say #1, but he he's got to be top 5... phenomenal fighter, phenomenal resume
look at those primitive cavemen... with all of their clever feints, differing lengths of power punches, relaxed footwork, use of body angles and the way they react to offense as if it weren't a hand grenade... primitive cavemen, I tell you... everybody who knows Bauxin' knows that the best offense is to throw a wild haymaker followed by a hug and the best defense is to jump back, alarmed, at the slightest hint of assertiveness from an opponent
