Michael Spinks resume?

[Addie]

Holmes x2, Qawi, Mustafa, Lopez, Johnson, Cooney

I think Spinks beat everyone he had to in a very tough and competitive Light Heavyweight division, and even if you gave the second Holmes fight to Larry, I felt Spinks legitimately won their first encounter. Irrespective of whether or not Larry was in his prime, and most agree that he wasn't, Spinks gets credit for the way he fought, and only being a blown up Light Heavyweight himself. One of the more underrated wins of recent times, perhaps. What's the general consensus here? I think Spinks had an excellent resume, his only blemish at the hands of peak Mike Tyson.

Where do you rank Michael Spinks...at Light Heavy and P4P?

[My2Sense]

I think Spinks beat everyone he had to in a very tough and competitive Light Heavyweight division, and even if you gave the second Holmes fight to Larry, I felt Spinks legitimately won their first encounter. Irrespective of whether or not Larry was in his prime, and most agree that he wasn't, Spinks gets credit for the way he fought, and only being a blown up Light Heavyweight himself. One of the more underrated wins of recent times, perhaps. What's the general consensus here? I think Spinks had an excellent resume, his only blemish at the hands of peak Mike Tyson.

Basically agreed with everything you say here.

Spinks gets a lot of flack for getting crushed so badly by Tyson, but those people forget that Spinks wasn't supposed to have any major success at HW in the first place (and was generally not expected to beat Tyson either). I wonder how many people who criticize him for getting blown out by Tyson actually picked him to beat Holmes the first time? :think


Where do you rank Michael Spinks...at Light Heavy and P4P?

At LHW he's definitely in my top 5, and could conceivably be ranked anywhere there (including #1). I usually have him rated #4 behind Tunney, Charles, and Moore, but I think a case could be argued he was as good as any of them.

[WhataRock]

Spinks had a very solid resume...It was stacked well with names and impressive performances.

Id have him in my top 5 at lightheavy..To tell you the truth I think he could very well beat anyone at the weight on his day.

Pretty sure I have him around 35-40..I have him above Roy Jones and I feel he would beat him for reference.

[Addie]

Spinks had a very solid resume...It was stacked well with names and impressive performances.

Id have him in my top 5 at lightheavy..To tell you the truth I think he could very well beat anyone at the weight on his day.

Pretty sure I have him around 35-40..I have him above Roy Jones and I feel he would beat him for reference.

I think 35-40 sounds about right. I really honestly believe the first Holmes win remains an underrated victory in recent boxing history. What's not impressive about a blown up Light Heavyweight, fighting for the first time at the weight, beating the most dominant Heavyweight since Joe Louis, who was undefeated at the time - closing in on Rocky's record. Come on, Larry was not prime, but that's counteracted by Spinks not being prime either, and severely undersized.

Like My2sense says, Michael Spinks wasn't expected to beat Larry Holmes, much less Mike Tyson. Spinks could have conceivably retired undefeated.

[Jaws]

I think 35-40 sounds about right. I really honestly believe the first Holmes win remains an underrated victory in recent boxing history. What's not impressive about a blown up Light Heavyweight, fighting for the first time at the weight, beating the most dominant Heavyweight since Joe Louis, who was undefeated at the time - closing in on Rocky's record. Come on, Larry was not prime, but that's counteracted by Spinks not being prime either, and severely undersized.

Like My2sense says, Michael Spinks wasn't expected to beat Larry Holmes, much less Mike Tyson. Spinks could have conceivably retired undefeated.

Larry might not have been "prime", but you know he wanted Marciano's record badly. I think that says a lot about Spinks beating him.

[Addie]

Larry might not have been "prime", but you know he wanted Marciano's record badly. I think that says a lot about Spinks beating him.

Absolutely. It was the manner in which he won too. It was a close fight, but Spinks really took it to Holmes. Firing off left hooks overload, and throwing flurries like nobodies business in the first five rounds. Great performance.

[My2Sense]

Gene Tunney should not be ranked in the top 5 light heavies...I will keep saying this until people get it straight. Tunney faced sooooo fucken many bums it's not even fucken funny. He is now where close to top 5 light heavies what the fuck are u thinking?

What kind of argument is that?? What fighter hasn't faced a ton of "bums" in his career?

I'll bet you don't even know anything about most of those fighters anyway other than what you've seen on the sketchy/incomplete records gotten off of boxrec.

[WhataRock]

Stick to general Riko you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Clinton]

Gene Tunney should not be ranked in the top 5 light heavies...I will keep saying this until people get it straight. Tunney faced sooooo fucken many bums it's not even fucken funny. He is now where close to top 5 light heavies what the fuck are u thinking?
Riko,didn't Tunney beat Harry Greb badly in their rematch?

[Addie]

Lets stay on topic? Why the hell would anyone come in here and say some flimsy shit about Tunney? SPINKS SPINKS SKINKS!

[Sister Sledge]

Spinks is a Top 3 LH. He's up with Foster, Moore, John Henry Lewis, Charles and Tunney.

[elmaldito]

spinks is the best light heavy of alltime.

[mcvey]

Holmes x2, Qawi, Mustafa, Lopez, Johnson, Cooney

I think Spinks beat everyone he had to in a very tough and competitive Light Heavyweight division, and even if you gave the second Holmes fight to Larry, I felt Spinks legitimately won their first encounter. Irrespective of whether or not Larry was in his prime, and most agree that he wasn't, Spinks gets credit for the way he fought, and only being a blown up Light Heavyweight himself. One of the more underrated wins of recent times, perhaps. What's the general consensus here? I think Spinks had an excellent resume, his only blemish at the hands of peak Mike Tyson.

Where do you rank Michael Spinks...at Light Heavy and P4P?
Just rating the Champions at 175, Spinks must be in the top 5 imo.He beat a lot of good lightheavies,and ducked no one.

[sugarsean]

His resume at lightheavy is ridiculously great, he's a lock for top 5 greatest lightheavys of all time, to be honest he's probably should be a lock for anywhere from 1 to 3 his record at lightheavy is that good, I also have to agree that his first win over Larry Holmes is one of the most underated wins in boxing history,

[TBooze]

He showed himself the best 175lber in probably the strongest era of the division. This without doubt makes him a top 5 all-time 175lber.

[Rubber Warrior]

I have Michael Spinks no lower than #6 and generally in my top three. Arguments, any number of them, can be made, either way.

He has a terrific resume at light heavy. He did all that was asked of him, leaving no doubts. He could have, IMO, reigned another five years, maybe more, at light heavy if he truly liked what he was doing, was able to make weight, was able to keep focused.

He took a chance moving up. He put his chips on the table and did better than many predicted.

Make no mistake. He didn't love boxing. He was happy to walk away when he did.

[Addie]

I have Michael Spinks no lower than #6 and generally in my top three. Arguments, any number of them, can be made, either way.

He has a terrific resume at light heavy. He did all that was asked of him, leaving no doubts. He could have, IMO, reigned another five years, maybe more, at light heavy if he truly liked what he was doing, was able to make weight, was able to keep focused.

He took a chance moving up. He put his chips on the table and did better than many predicted.

Make no mistake. He didn't love boxing. He was happy to walk away when he did.

I just don't like how people phrase the "did better than expected". He beat one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time who was undefeated in his first outing at Heavy. It was a great win, and it significantly improved upon his already stellar resume and legacy in my judgment. People like to mention Jones Jr moving up to Heavy and making history, but it had already been done, and John Ruiz would have been comprehensively beaten, possibly stopped, by the same Holmes Spinks fought. Let's be real. Larry would go to beat prime Mercer 6-7 years later. He was not done. If he had never fought again, I probably wouldn't give Spinks as much credit as I do...but about 9/10 Boxing experts predicted a Larry victory that night.

[Rubber Warrior]

I just don't like how people phrase the "did better than expected". He beat one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time who was undefeated in his first outing at Heavy. It was a great win, and it significantly improved upon his already stellar resume and legacy in my judgment. People like to mention Jones Jr moving up to Heavy and making history, but it had already been done, and John Ruiz would have been comprehensively beaten, possibly stopped, by the same Holmes Spinks fought. Let's be real. Larry would go to beat prime Mercer 6-7 years later. He was not done. If he had never fought again, I probably wouldn't give Spinks as much credit as I do...but about 9/10 Boxing experts predicted a Larry victory that night.


The reality is that he did do better than expected. He beat, IMO, a flat, overconfident variant of an aging Larry Holmes.....but even that took something. In the rematch, Holmes was not flat and was far more focused...and Spinks weathered that storm very well. In no way do I believe that the Ray Mercer of 1992 compares to the Spinks of the Holmes debacles. I believe that Spinks was far and away a superior fighter to Mercer.

Spinks himself was doubtfully optimistic about his chances against Holmes....by his own admission. Don't get too down on the general perception of that period. One guy that predicted a Spinks win given his keen understanding of both men and where they were skill-wise in mid-1985 was none other than Eddie Futch. He called Spinks risky for Holmes, warning Holmes that he possessed remarkable "sting" and surprising reflexes.

[Addie]

The reality is that he did do better than expected. He beat, IMO, a flat, overconfident variant of an aging Larry Holmes.....but even that took something. In the rematch, Holmes was not flat and was far more focused...and Spinks weathered that storm very well. In no way do I believe that the Ray Mercer of 1992 compares to the Spinks of the Holmes debacles. I believe that Spinks was far and away a superior fighter to Mercer.

Spinks himself was doubtfully optimistic about his chances against Holmes....by his own admission. Don't get too down on the general perception of that period. One guy that predicted a Spinks win given his keen understanding of both men and where they were skill-wise in mid-1985 was none other than Eddie Futch. He called Spinks risky for Holmes, warning Holmes that he possessed remarkable "sting" and surprising reflexes.

I'm not upset about the whole thing, I just think a few of us need to readjust our perception on the victory. It wasn't a good victory, it was a great one. Arguably the best of Michael Spinks' career, and the reason he should not just be considered a great Light Heavyweight, but one of the best fighters of the last 30 years. Holmes was undeniably flat, but I think the awkwardness of Spinks was causing him a lot of problems. I've seldom seen a fighter throw more unpredictable flurries/combination's that Spinks. He comes from every angle, to the side, straight through, and up through the middle with his left uppercuts. It destroyed Cooney, perhaps another underrated victory on the part of Spinks. Cooney looked like a mountain next to him, and he was chopped down accordingly.

[Duodenum]

He could have, IMO, reigned another five years, maybe more, at light heavy if he truly liked what he was doingAs you have pointed out yourself, he was always pretty open about the fact that he had no great enthusiasm for professional boxing, and was really approaching it as just that, a profession that he took very responsibly,was able to make weightComing in at 170 pounds for David Sears shows that this would never have been any kind of problem for him. In retirement, he looks to have remained fairly lean, and seems a naturally skinny guy., was able to keep focused.At the time he challenged Holmes, Mike had reached a position where he could have dominated the light heavyweights as long as he cared to. But there were only a couple potential threats to his LHW crown remaining after he consolidated the light heavyweight title (specifically, in rematching Mustafa Muhammad after Eddie blasted Mwale, and having another go with Qawi), so lack of quality challengers was certainly going to hinder his focus and dull his competitive edge until he retired undefeated or lost by default in a major upset.He took a chance moving up. He put his chips on the table and did better than many predicted.There certainly was an element of risk involved, as somebody's unblemished record was guaranteed to be tarnished, but the larger chance was taken by Holmes, as Mike would remain the undisputed LHW king no matter the outcome. Being one of the most brilliant businessmen of any boxer from his era, he went the only place where a truly big payoff was sure to await him, and achieved what some were beginning to think of as boxing's equivalent of the three minute mile. (That he was able to do what he did while the reigning champion at 175 psychologically sets him apart from Root, O'Brien, Carpentier, Loughran, Henry Lewis, Conn, Maxim, Moore and Foster. As far as I'm concerned, Mike's the number one light heavyweight of all time, by being the first to follow that by winning the big prize, proving to any successors that it could indeed be done.)Make no mistake. He didn't love boxing. He was happy to walk away when he did.When he was 37, there was fleeting talk that he was considering a comeback. Al Bernstein discussed this on ESPN, felt it would be a very bad idea for him to try returning as a heavyweight, but that he might still find considerable success at his former weight. He was certainly physically intact, but had nothing left to prove. I don't know that he could have synthesized the renewed internal drive necessary to merely revisit past glories. Even a completely successful return to boxing at 175 was not going to enhance his historical standing in my estimation. ("Been there, done that.")

To me, what happened with Tyson does nothing to diminish his standing. Tyson starched plenty of world class heavyweights with the same dispatch (Frazier, Williams, Tillman, Stewart, Seldon, Savarese, Etienne), and Spinks was a well known slow starter. But Cooney was also supposed to break him in half with sheer size, power and fast starting ability. For me, Spinks/Cooney remains an amazing upset. The Jinx had thus already proved himself as a heavyweight by the time Tyson came along, and smartly obtained a quick easy payday by losing in 90 seconds. (I don't think Mike has the same vanity about his career as many ATGs. Given the choice between retiring undefeated after Cooney or taking the money and quick knockout loss from Tyson, I suspect he'd make the same business decision Holmes did when Don King gave Larry three million to get flattened three times.)

[GDG]

How would Spinks Vs Holyfield at CW in 1987 have gone down??

Would have been a great fight!!!

[Flea Man]

On his day Spinks beats any light heavy IMO. Technically good but seriously akward with a good array of shots and power in both hands (he was not always reliant on the vaunted Spiks Jinx) I have him at no4 behind Charles, Foster and Moore

[MrMarvel]

spinks is the best light heavy of alltime.

I agree.

[My2Sense]

Gene Tunney is a fucken bum, he has some great wins, but he faced like 80% bums..it's fucken ridiculous.

What the hell are even rambling on about??

Gene Tunney is a "bum" now?? So I guess that means Jack Dempsey, Harry Greb, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jeff Smith, Jimmy Delaney, Georges Carpentier, and Battling Levinsky were all SUPERBUMS then, huh? :roll:

[Shake]

Gene Tunney is a fucken bum, he has some great wins, but he faced like 80% bums..it's fucken ridiculous.

I think I want you to expand on this statement. If you're gonna throw out stuff like this, at least make a case.

[TBooze]

The Jack Dempsey and Harry Greb wins are very good. Gene Tunney isn't a bum he's more like a journeyman. I just can't get past the fact that he's faced sooooo much fucken bums in his career, it's unbelievable how people sometimes rate him as number 1 lightheavy. In Gene Tunney's prime he would face fighters with a resume of 5 wins and 12 losses....it's just fucken pathetic.


LOL, the sport was different in them days.

Tunney once fought Greb, Gibbons and Smith in a six month period with the three having a combined record over two hundred wins with seventeen defeats. Name a world class fighter who now a days who A) fights three fights in six months and B) Does so against fighters with at least 50 wins to their names...

Henry Armstrong used fight more times in a year, than some top pros do in a career now a days.

[Thread Stealer]

The Jack Dempsey and Harry Greb wins are very good. Gene Tunney isn't a bum he's more like a journeyman. I just can't get past the fact that he's faced sooooo much fucken bums in his career, it's unbelievable how people sometimes rate him as number 1 lightheavy. In Gene Tunney's prime he would face fighters with a resume of 5 wins and 12 losses....it's just fucken pathetic.



As for Michael Spinks yes he's easily top 3 light heavy. But man I think Holyfield would beat Spinks at Light Heavy.

Interesting, considering the fact that Holyfield never even made the 175 lb. limit as a professional.

Heavyweight is a better matchup between the two since we've actually seen them fight there as pros.

[TBooze]

Interesting, considering the fact that Holyfield never even made the 175 lb. limit as a professional.

Heavyweight is a better matchup between the two since we've actually seen them fight there as pros.

Holyfield was considered a 175lber after the 84 Olympics, and probably could of made 175lbs for the first year as a pro, if needed.

[My2Sense]

The Jack Dempsey and Harry Greb wins are very good. Gene Tunney isn't a bum he's more like a journeyman.

And how many fights did Tunney lose to earn the status of a "journeyman"?

And since when "journeyman" beat the likes of both Greb and Dempsey??

In Gene Tunney's prime he would face fighters with a resume of 5 wins and 12 losses....it's just fucken pathetic.


Do you have actual proof of that? Or are you just making assumption's off boxrec's incomplete records.

[Drew101]

Top 5 for Spinks as a LH, and that ranking would hold true even if he had never one a single fight at heavyweight.

[Titan1]

Michael is definitely in the top 5, probably top 3 of all-time light heavyweights, though unfortunately, that brief stretch where he was looking after Leon and having that knee injury probably cost him a couple of matches against some other notable light heavys.As far as pound per pound, defintely top 50.