The more accomplished fighter: Michael Spinks or Carlos Monzon?

[KOTF]

Just a random comparison I thought up of. Who takes it?

[ThinBlack]

I think Monzon, I love Spinks but he only had like 31 or 32 fights, if there was one negative to hold against Michael, this would be it.

[teeto]

I'm taking Spinks, only because the best men he beat at light heavy were mainly better solid light heavies than (respectively) Monzon'z best middleweight scalps were middles. Not man for man though, the likes of Valdez and Benvenuti (despite likely being a better 154 man) are top 160 pound scalps. But there's just likely a bit more effective meat in Spinks' 175 pound resume. And then there's his heavyweight foray, for what it's worth.

Close in terms of greatness, very.

[he grant]

I like Monzon pound for pound but Spinks definately fought a better, more devisified crop of fighters. I have not seen Carlos fight one great, prime american boxer. The closest he came was the small, old Emile and had his hands full each time. I never saw Carlos fight a strong, well conditioned, fast boxer puncher his own size.

[Flea Man]

I like Monzon pound for pound but Spinks definately fought a better, more devisified crop of fighters. I have not seen Carlos fight one great, prime american boxer. The closest he came was the small, old Emile and had his hands full each time. I never saw Carlos fight a strong, well conditioned, fast boxer puncher his own size.


why does this matter???:huh

[Xplosive]

Monzon is a tad overrated. Most with disagree but I truly think Spinks was better.

[punk]

More accomplished fighter - Monzon
More accomplished boxer - Spinks

[Sweet Pea]

Spinks had 32 fights in all. Monzon went undefeated for the last 80 fights of his career, defending his MW title 12 times in the process and cleaning out the division. The names on Spinks's resume are superior, but at the time they were fought they weren't as far ahead of Monzon's opponents as is being made out. Valdez was just as good a MW as any of the LHW's Spinks beat IMO, and even an aging Emile Griffith was on par with most of them. The way I see it, both really only beat one prime A level fighter in their divisions (Spinks with Qawi and Monzon with Valdez). I give the edge to Monzon based on his longevity. Spinks was dominant, but Monzon proved it more often and more conclusively, IMO.

[MrMarvel]

I like Monzon pound for pound but Spinks definately fought a better, more devisified crop of fighters. I have not seen Carlos fight one great, prime american boxer. The closest he came was the small, old Emile and had his hands full each time. I never saw Carlos fight a strong, well conditioned, fast boxer puncher his own size.

His hands were full with Briscoe, too.

[MrMarvel]

Spinks had 32 fights in all. Monzon went undefeated for the last 80 fights of his career, defending his MW title 12 times in the process and cleaning out the division. The names on Spinks's resume are superior, but at the time they were fought they weren't as far ahead of Monzon's opponents as is being made out. Valdez was just as good a MW as any of the LHW's Spinks beat IMO, and even an aging Emile Griffith was on par with most of them. The way I see it, both really only beat one prime A level fighter in their divisions (Spinks with Qawi and Monzon with Valdez). I give the edge to Monzon based on his longevity. Spinks was dominant, but Monzon proved it more often and more conclusively, IMO.

He defended his title 14 times.

[teeto]

He defended his title 14 times.
Yeah it was Hagler with 12 i think.

[My2Sense]

I'd have to go with Spinks. He cleaned out LHW about as thoroughly Monzon and against at least as good competition IMO, but the upset of Holmes at HW definitely puts him over the top in my view.

[cotto20]

Monzon was the better fighter, but Spinks achieved more.

[Sweet Pea]

Yeah it was Hagler with 12 i think.Yep, I must've confused the two. Either way my point is only strengthened by that addition.

[Flea Man]

Surprised to see Spinks getting the nod. Would people put him above Monzon in a top 100?

[Popkins]

Monzon went on an 80-fight undefeated streak and established himself as perhaps the greatest fighter ever captured on film in one of the traditionally strongest weight classes. He proved his greatness more thoroughly than Spinks did IMO.

Maybe if I valued Spinks's wins over Holmes more I would think differently, but I find those performances problematic, kind of in the same way that I find Leonard's win over Hagler or Mayweather's win over De La Hoya or Taylor's wins over Hopkins difficult to value very highly (or even to decide if I value them highly or not) because of the nature of the performance. I will probably catch some heat for mentioning this, but to me executing a calculated gameplan and nicking a decision is not the same as 'beating' your opponent in the truest sense of the word.

[MURK20]

I think Monzon, I love Spinks but he only had like 31 or 32 fights, if there was one negative to hold against Michael, this would be it.
Yea dat.

[Mantequilla]

Monzon went on an 80-fight undefeated streak and established himself as perhaps the greatest fighter ever captured on film in one of the traditionally strongest weight classes. He proved his greatness more thoroughly than Spinks did IMO.

Maybe if I valued Spinks's wins over Holmes more I would think differently, but I find those performances problematic, kind of in the same way that I find Leonard's win over Hagler or Mayweather's win over De La Hoya or Taylor's wins over Hopkins difficult to value very highly (or even to decide if I value them highly or not) because of the nature of the performance. I will probably catch some heat for mentioning this, but to me executing a calculated gameplan and nicking a decision is not the same as 'beating' your opponent in the truest sense of the word.


Agree.And the fact Spinks got a gift decision in the rematch tends to make me think it's a slight black spot on holmes as much as it is a boost for Michael.