tyson v spinks myth?

[TIGEREDGE]

watched tyson v spinks again today, from entrances to end. spinks seems very nervous coming into the ring but seemed to relax come fight time. i believe that it was a myth that he shit himself thus creating the early ending

it was a sensational performance by tyson. plain and simple

[TBooze]

With hindsight (I thought at the time Spinks would win:oops: ), Spinks only was there for the money. If he really thought he could win, the least he would of done was sort his bum knee out, and then actually trained. He was so soft going into that fight, that was very little difference weight wise between them.

But credit must be given to Tyson as well, it was arguably the last time he could withstand all his demons and show us his genius in the ring.

[TIGEREDGE]

the whole HBO buildup is on youtube

[Lampley]

Spinks did not come to compete, it's that simple.

But I don't think there are many who would have enjoyed fighting that night's version of Tyson. His final prime appearance, IMO.

[JimboDs]

I wish Michael Spinks wasn't remembered so heavily for that fight. He was really a great fighter.

It didn't seem like he came to win, but either way, Tyson was just too much. Bad physical match-up as well.

[josak]

He was scared, but he had no chance anyway. Mike was a mean mother* that night.

[ironchamp]

Why is Mike Tyson chastisized for his ability to instill fear in his opponents yet Muhammad Ali is praised for waging psychological warfare by getting his opponents psyched out?

From 1985-1988 any time an opponent walked into the ring scared against Mike Tyson it was because of the highlight reels that preceeded the scheduled bout. He didnt go out of his way to scare opponents or come up with any elaborate act to get them pertrified. Yet if he fought someone who was clearly nervous or scared in the fight and he beat them very decisively his win is undermined.

Conversely if Muhammad Ali fights an opponent, he starts out his elaborate scheme that includes a prediction, a nickname for the opponent and all the name calling and what have you all so that he can frustrate or infuriate an opponent. If he puts up a dominating performance he's praised.

What gives?



BTW Spinks was 31 years old, undefeated linear Heavyweight Champ who had previously cleared out the LHW Division and twice beat Larry Holmes. For him to step into the ring "just for the money" is an insult to his integrity. He was in against one of the biggest punchers the sport has ever seen who happened to be at the height of his powers.

[mochabuzz]

Why is Mike Tyson chastisized for his ability to instill fear in his opponents yet Muhammad Ali is praised for waging psychological warfare by getting his opponents psyched out?

From 1985-1988 any time an opponent walked into the ring scared against Mike Tyson it was because of the highlight reels that preceeded the scheduled bout. He didnt go out of his way to scare opponents or come up with any elaborate act to get them pertrified. Yet if he fought someone who was clearly nervous or scared in the fight and he beat them very decisively his win is undermined.

Conversely if Muhammad Ali fights an opponent, he starts out his elaborate scheme that includes a prediction, a nickname for the opponent and all the name calling and what have you all so that he can frustrate or infuriate an opponent. If he puts up a dominating performance he's praised.

What gives?



BTW Spinks was 31 years old, undefeated linear Heavyweight Champ who had previously cleared out the LHW Division and twice beat Larry Holmes. For him to step into the ring "just for the money" is an insult to his integrity. He was in against one of the biggest punchers the sport has ever seen who happened to be at the height of his powers.

Good post...
I agree that many say that Spinks was shot on that night (just like people say Frazier was shot when he fought Foreman in 1973) but we must remember that both of those guys, though not at their peaks, were certainly formidable. Spinks was coming off two relatively unimpressive wins (his 'win':-( against Holmes in their second fight and his KO of a rusty Gerry Cooney). Frazier was coming off of two less than stellar fights against the lightly regarded Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. Despite the aforementioned facts i don't think either of them was 'shot'.

For the record, i feel as though Spinks gave a good effort, but was quickly overwhelmed by Tyson's ferocity (Tyson hit Spinks with a HUGE left elbow to the jaw within the first 45 seconds) and then began landing body shots. Spinks also threw a hard right hand a mili-second before being KO'd by a huge Tyson right hand.

[dalek]

no myth imo.great performance by mike but really it ought to have been.

[Bo Bo Olson]

I knew a man who knew both spinks...I use to make boxing bets with him...he said both were to dammed stupid....and he favored Tyson.....I lost the bet...
But that angry right of Spinks did him in...There was no thought process goin gon inside any mroe than there was with Patterson vs Liston.
Had that right landed, Tyson would definatly have seen s few stars.
Like the guy said, at the time Spinks was the Real champ.
Arthitus of the knee can't be sorted out....

I'll have to watch the fight again..in I'd not noticed him being soft.

[divac]

For me its hard to guage how good a Heavyweight Michael Spinks was.

Imo Spinks was just an average Heavyweight who had the style to trouble an aging fighter in Larry Holmes.......and add that most people I know thought Holmes beat Michael Spinks in their rematch.

In reality Spinks only claim to fame in the Heavyweight division is beating an aging Larry Holmes and a never was in Gerry Cooney.
....thats why I dont understand why such a big deal is made and jaws drop when they talk of Tyson's destruction of Spinks.

Yes, Spinks was the linear champ, but so what? Its not like Spinks had a history and had established himself as a prime Heavyweight.

Personally I would hold the Tyson demolition of Spinks in higher regard had Spinks fought and dominated a string of top Heavyweights as Evander Holyfield had done in his rise to a title shot against Buster Douglas.

.....but Spinks did'nt do that, all we have to guage Spinks as a Heavyweight is two razor close fights against an old Larry Holmes and and never was shot Gerry Cooney!

A great KO for Tyson yes, but to say that that version of Tyson demolishes any heavyweight in history like alot of posters around here like to insinuate.......I'm sorry, but I'm not even close to envisioning that scenario.......not based on beating a fighter who was'nt an established Heavyweight!

[Holmes' Jab]

Why is Mike Tyson chastisized for his ability to instill fear in his opponents yet Muhammad Ali is praised for waging psychological warfare by getting his opponents psyched out?

From 1985-1988 any time an opponent walked into the ring scared against Mike Tyson it was because of the highlight reels that preceeded the scheduled bout. He didnt go out of his way to scare opponents or come up with any elaborate act to get them pertrified. Yet if he fought someone who was clearly nervous or scared in the fight and he beat them very decisively his win is undermined.

Conversely if Muhammad Ali fights an opponent, he starts out his elaborate scheme that includes a prediction, a nickname for the opponent and all the name calling and what have you all so that he can frustrate or infuriate an opponent. If he puts up a dominating performance he's praised.

What gives?



BTW Spinks was 31 years old, undefeated linear Heavyweight Champ who had previously cleared out the LHW Division and twice beat Larry Holmes. For him to step into the ring "just for the money" is an insult to his integrity. He was in against one of the biggest punchers the sport has ever seen who happened to be at the height of his powers.

Great post. :good

[DamonD]

Cuts both ways though.

I know some Tyson critics use it as an excuse, and some Tyson fans get infuriated at the mere mention of Tyson's opponents being scared. People get wound up both ways.

In my eyes, Mike's ability to use his body language, look behaviour, his whole persona to intimidate opponents is a strength, not an excuse for any of his victories. It's an asset. Any boxer craves that image of being an indestructible fighter. It's as valid a part of a fighter's armoury as any jab or big right hand.

A few opponents would always stand up to Mike and not be afraid. But When Douglas took that aura away from him, other opponents took chances that they would've been afraid to do back in Tyson's pomp.

Post-prison it looked like Mike might be able to regain that aura, in fact you could argue the lay-off due to prison kinda helped all that, but Holyfield derailed it.

Spinks was scared, Tyson was highly pissed-off according to rumour as well, and that combined for a quick devastating victory. All utterly legit.

[ChrisPontius]

I knew a man who knew both spinks...I use to make boxing bets with him...he said both were to dammed stupid....and he favored Tyson.....I lost the bet...
But that angry right of Spinks did him in...There was no thought process goin gon inside any mroe than there was with Patterson vs Liston.
Had that right landed, Tyson would definatly have seen s few stars.
Like the guy said, at the time Spinks was the Real champ.
Arthitus of the knee can't be sorted out....

I'll have to watch the fight again..in I'd not noticed him being soft.

You have really been out of luck, predicting Patterson to beat Liston, Frazier to beat Foreman, Spinks to beat Tyson. :D
Very interesting stories though!

[PowerPuncher]

The fact is the only reason Spinks is looked on as scared or as a weak HW Champ is because of the way Tyson destroyed him.

Spinks is an ATG, possibly the greatest LHW ever and had 2 wins over the great Holmes. Perhaps he was a better HW than Charles/Walcott/Tunney/Schmelling. No one here will agree with that but its a possibility he was that great and Tyson was just too sensational for him. Why did Spinks lose? Was he scared, was he just outgunned or was Tyson too good a boxer? Well the majority of fighters may have a slight fear, fear can help you perform. I would say it was a combination of factors and the speed, power, intensity of Tyson got to him. If Spinks wanted to take the money and run he needn't have got up after the first KD. Tyson can finnish the vast majority of fighters in a heart beat if he gets the openings. If he wins he tends to make world class opponents look like bums and no one else manages this like Tyson

[Raggamuffin]

I heard that Butch Lewis(Spinks manager at the time) try'd to get under Tyson's skin and made objections about how Mike's hands were wrapped.
Sufface to say, it backfired

[JohnThomas1]

For me its hard to guage how good a Heavyweight Michael Spinks was.

Imo Spinks was just an average Heavyweight who had the style to trouble an aging fighter in Larry Holmes.......and add that most people I know thought Holmes beat Michael Spinks in their rematch.

In reality Spinks only claim to fame in the Heavyweight division is beating an aging Larry Holmes and a never was in Gerry Cooney.
....thats why I dont understand why such a big deal is made and jaws drop when they talk of Tyson's destruction of Spinks.

Yes, Spinks was the linear champ, but so what? Its not like Spinks had a history and had established himself as a prime Heavyweight.

Personally I would hold the Tyson demolition of Spinks in higher regard had Spinks fought and dominated a string of top Heavyweights as Evander Holyfield had done in his rise to a title shot against Buster Douglas.

.....but Spinks did'nt do that, all we have to guage Spinks as a Heavyweight is two razor close fights against an old Larry Holmes and and never was shot Gerry Cooney!

A great KO for Tyson yes, but to say that that version of Tyson demolishes any heavyweight in history like alot of posters around here like to insinuate.......I'm sorry, but I'm not even close to envisioning that scenario.......not based on beating a fighter who was'nt an established Heavyweight!

I'm totally with you on this one.

[Luigi1985]

The fact is the only reason Spinks is looked on as scared or as a weak HW Champ is because of the way Tyson destroyed him.

Spinks is an ATG, possibly the greatest LHW ever and had 2 wins over the great Holmes. Perhaps he was a better HW than Charles/Walcott/Tunney/Schmelling. No one here will agree with that but its a possibility he was that great and Tyson was just too sensational for him. Why did Spinks lose? Was he scared, was he just outgunned or was Tyson too good a boxer? Well the majority of fighters may have a slight fear, fear can help you perform. I would say it was a combination of factors and the speed, power, intensity of Tyson got to him. If Spinks wanted to take the money and run he needn't have got up after the first KD. Tyson can finnish the vast majority of fighters in a heart beat if he gets the openings. If he wins he tends to make world class opponents look like bums and no one else manages this like Tyson


Ridiculous post. Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, etc. beat much better any way more good HW´s than Spinks (who beat only a not peak Holmes twice, one time viá robbery, Cooney, who fought 2 times in 3 years and was shot, and Eklund, who wasn´t even in Europe one of the best), once again a very bad comparison, but nothing new from you...

[My dinner with Conteh]

I don't think there's ever been a superfight where pre-fight predictions were so one-sided. One or two went for Spinks but it was very much in the "you'll remember me if Spinks wins" vein, like when Mike Katz called Leonard over Hagler. I hoped Spinks would win at the time but always thought he'd get mashed. I think anyone who predicted a Spinks win was letting their heart rule their head.

[mr. magoo]

For me its hard to guage how good a Heavyweight Michael Spinks was.

Imo Spinks was just an average Heavyweight who had the style to trouble an aging fighter in Larry Holmes.......and add that most people I know thought Holmes beat Michael Spinks in their rematch.

In reality Spinks only claim to fame in the Heavyweight division is beating an aging Larry Holmes and a never was in Gerry Cooney.
....thats why I dont understand why such a big deal is made and jaws drop when they talk of Tyson's destruction of Spinks.

Yes, Spinks was the linear champ, but so what? Its not like Spinks had a history and had established himself as a prime Heavyweight.

Personally I would hold the Tyson demolition of Spinks in higher regard had Spinks fought and dominated a string of top Heavyweights as Evander Holyfield had done in his rise to a title shot against Buster Douglas.

.....but Spinks did'nt do that, all we have to guage Spinks as a Heavyweight is two razor close fights against an old Larry Holmes and and never was shot Gerry Cooney!

A great KO for Tyson yes, but to say that that version of Tyson demolishes any heavyweight in history like alot of posters around here like to insinuate.......I'm sorry, but I'm not even close to envisioning that scenario.......not based on beating a fighter who was'nt an established Heavyweight!

Agreed,

I think that a 1971 version of Joe Frazier might have done the same thing to a 1988 Spinks that Tyson did. Michael was not up to the test for Tyson. He had only fought once in two years, and as you say had only fought a total of 4 fights in the division. His wins over Cooney and Tangstad didn't show us much, and the Holmes fights were way too close to decisively claim that Spinks was the lineal champion, especially with multiple fighters running around with alpha fragments at the same time. Spinks desire to prove himself as a true heavyweight champion was questionable, given that he renounced his title in 1987 for failure to face #1 contender Tony Tucker. His signing to fight Tyson was an obvious attempt to get one last bif payday while silencing the critics.

Tyson's win over Spinks was impressive, but not an accurate measure of what he'd do to other all time greats.

[DamonD]

I think we can all agree that it's a shame that Spinks' whole career got totally overshadowed by that Tyson fight, though. Not that he's the only person to suffer from that.

[mr. magoo]

I think we can all agree that it's a shame that Spinks' whole career got totally overshadowed by that Tyson fight, though. Not that he's the only person to suffer from that.

True,

and what's worse is that throughout his career, people were constantly confusing him with his brother Leon.

[Luigi1985]

True,

and what's worse is that throughout his career, people were constantly confusing him with his brother Leon.



That´s not the topic, but I´m just curious, I wanna hear your opinion, where do you see Leon? I think a motivated and well-trained Leon would have been a very good fighter, a shame IMO that after beating Ali he "sank" in his old lifestyle, don´t you think he had also talent? I´m asking because I don´t like it when people say he was a total bum...

[mr. magoo]

That´s not the topic, but I´m just curious, I wanna hear your opinion, where do you see Leon? I think a motivated and well-trained Leon would have been a very good fighter, a shame IMO that after beating Ali he "sank" in his old lifestyle, don´t you think he had also talent? I´m asking because I don´t like it when people say he was a total bum...

Well,

I don't think that he was a total bum, and yes I believe he had potential that went unfulfilled. He had some decent wins, but could never capitalize on some of the bigger opportunities. A lot of people feel that his first meeting with Ali was a fixed fight, and a plan for Ali to win an easy rematch. I don't know if it's true, but I don't think its impossible either. His fight with Coetzee in 1979, made most people give up on him, figuring that his career was a fluke. He later tried to win a title at cruiserweight which turned out to be a flop.

I suppose if Leon was more disciplined and surrounded with better people that he might have flourished enough to be an 80's alpha champion or repeat contender. I personally don't think that he had the talent to be in the same category as Holmes though.

[Luigi1985]

Well,

I don't think that he was a total bum, and yes I believe he had potential that went unfulfilled. He had some decent wins, but could never capitalize on some of the bigger opportunities. A lot of people feel that his first meeting with Ali was a fixed fight, and a plan for Ali to win an easy rematch. I don't know if it's true, but I don't think its impossible either. His fight with Coetzee in 1979, made most people give up on him, figuring that his career was a fluke. He later tried to win a title at cruiserweight which turned out to be a flop.

I suppose if Leon was more disciplined and surrounded with better people that he might have flourished enough to be an 80's alpha champion or repeat contender. I personally don't think that he had the talent to be in the same category as Holmes though.


Agreed. I also don´t think he could have been in Holmes league or so, but he was more talented than the likes of Berbick, Page (who´s getting very overrated today IMO), etc., like I wrote a shame that he didn´t have a real managment who took care of him. With the Ali-fight I don´t believe it was a fix, he really was in good shape, the rematch has shown that this performance was a kind of nine-days wonder. But we don´t know for sure...

[PowerPuncher]

Ridiculous post. Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, etc. beat much better any way more good HW´s than Spinks (who beat only a not peak Holmes twice, one time viá robbery, Cooney, who fought 2 times in 3 years and was shot, and Eklund, who wasn´t even in Europe one of the best), once again a very bad comparison, but nothing new from you...
:| :| :| why doesnt everyone worship Marcianos balls like me:| :| :|

The point is retard that Spinks may have been better than any of them, its called speculation. Tyson may have ko'd Walcott, Schmelling, Charles in 1 round too. And all of them may have lost to Holmes

Holmes is better than anyone Walcott/Charles/Moore beat for example

[Luigi1985]

The point is retard that Spinks may have been better than any of them, its called speculation. Tyson may have ko'd Walcott, Schmelling, Charles in 1 round too. And all of them may have lost to Holmes

Holmes is better than anyone Walcott/Charles/Moore beat for example


But Holmes was shot when Tyson beat him, so it doesn´t count that much. You´re the one who speculates always. Btw, aren´t you a bit too old for such childish "jokes"?

[mr. magoo]

I personally think that a 1985 Holmes who lost to Spinks was still a bit better than the versions of Walcott, Moore and Charles whom Marciano defeated. Holmes was a natural heavyweight by modern standards with exceptional boxing ability, which he acquired from sparring with Muhammad Ali. In addition, he could still take a good punch at age 35 as shown in his fights with Boncrusher Smith and David Bey. His jab was a little tainted by then, but still one of the best in history. What's more, he was still capable of going a full 15 rounds in a fast paced contest. If a 1985 Holmes fought a 1955 Rocky Marciano, Holmes would likely have been the best opponent that Rocky ever faced.

[Luigi1985]

I personally think that a 1985 Holmes who lost to Spinks was still a bit better than the versions of Walcott, Moore and Charles whom Marciano defeated. Holmes was a natural heavyweight by modern standards with exceptional boxing ability, which he acquired from sparring with Muhammad Ali. In addition, he could still take a good punch at age 35 as shown in his fights with Boncrusher Smith and David Bey. His jab was a little tainted by then, but still one of the best in history. What's more, he was still capable of going a full 15 rounds in a fast paced contest. If a 1985 Holmes fought a 1955 Rocky Marciano, Holmes would likely have been the best opponent that Rocky ever faced.


Well, that´s a matter of opinion. Holmes came from 2 losses against a small, average and unproven HW in Spinks, and didn´t fight for 1,5 years. Walcott came from 2 great wins over Charles and was the champion for example, for me this Walcott would beat Holmes comfortably...

[My dinner with Conteh]

I personally think that a 1985 Holmes who lost to Spinks was still a bit better than the versions of Walcott, Moore and Charles whom Marciano defeated.


Not sure about Walcott but I agree on the other two.

[mr. magoo]

Well, that´s a matter of opinion. Holmes came from 2 losses against a small, average and unproven HW in Spinks, and didn´t fight for 1,5 years. Walcott came from 2 great wins over Charles and was the champion for example, for me this Walcott would beat Holmes comfortably...

Indeed,

but don't forget that Walcott was previously beaten twice by the former middleweight Charles, before finally beating him in I believe their 3rd fight? In addition, Walcott had failed on 2 attemps against Joe Louis. Walcott lost in 4 attempts to gain the heavyweight title before finally winning it. In a more modern era, its unlikely that he would have recieved so many chances and so close together. By the time he fought Marciano, he was 37 years old, and had lost 16 times.

Holmes at 35, was barely defeated by a 28 year old undefeated all time great light heavyweight, who some felt was gifted a decision in the rematch. At 28 years old, standing 6'3" and weighing 199 Lbs, I doubt Spinks would have been a nobody in the early to mid 1950's. In fact, he might have been one of the Rock's best opponents.

[Luigi1985]

Indeed,

but don't forget that Walcott was previously beaten twice by the former middleweight Charles, before finally beating him in I believe their 3rd fight? In addition, Walcott had failed on 2 attemps against Joe Louis. Walcott lost in 4 attempts to gain the heavyweight title before finally winning it. In a more modern era, its unlikely that he would have recieved so many chances and so close together. By the time he fought Marciano, he was 37 years old, and had lost 16 times.

Holmes at 35, was barely defeated by a 28 year old undefeated all time great light heavyweight, who some felt was gifted a decision in the rematch. At 28 years old, standing 6'3" and weighing 199 Lbs, I doubt Spinks would have been a nobody in the early to mid 1950's. In fact, he might have been one of the Rock's best opponents.



He was robbed against Louis, and against Charles, who was also at HW great, it´s no shame to lose their first fights IMO. Walcott was a rare fighter, with the age he ripened like a good wine, when he beat Charles twice it were 2 stellar performances. But of course this version of Holmes would be also a tough fight for Marciano (against everyone IMO)...

[mr. magoo]

He was robbed against Louis, and against Charles, who was also at HW great, it´s no shame to lose their first fights IMO. Walcott was a rare fighter, with the age he ripened like a good wine, when he beat Charles twice it were 2 stellar performances. But of course this version of Holmes would be also a tough fight for Marciano (against everyone IMO)...

Agreed...

And good points about Walcott vs Louis. The first fight was clearly a robbery, but Louis won the rematch decisively.

[Luigi1985]

Agreed...

And good points about Walcott vs Louis. The first fight was clearly a robbery, but Louis won the rematch decisively.


:thumbsup


Nice to see I can normally discuss with someone!

[prime]

Why is Mike Tyson chastisized for his ability to instill fear in his opponents yet Muhammad Ali is praised for waging psychological warfare by getting his opponents psyched out?

From 1985-1988 any time an opponent walked into the ring scared against Mike Tyson it was because of the highlight reels that preceeded the scheduled bout. He didnt go out of his way to scare opponents or come up with any elaborate act to get them pertrified. Yet if he fought someone who was clearly nervous or scared in the fight and he beat them very decisively his win is undermined.

Conversely if Muhammad Ali fights an opponent, he starts out his elaborate scheme that includes a prediction, a nickname for the opponent and all the name calling and what have you all so that he can frustrate or infuriate an opponent. If he puts up a dominating performance he's praised.

What gives?



BTW Spinks was 31 years old, undefeated linear Heavyweight Champ who had previously cleared out the LHW Division and twice beat Larry Holmes. For him to step into the ring "just for the money" is an insult to his integrity. He was in against one of the biggest punchers the sport has ever seen who happened to be at the height of his powers.

You've nailed it, Ironchamp.

There has never been anything, ever, like the fear Tyson instilled in his prime. Foreman was fearsome, but he was bigger than his foes. So was Sonny Liston. This short, young kid with a lisp struck terror in the most seasoned professional fighters, who, once in the ring with him, felt a dread akin to having to deal with the darkest, most terrifying elements in nature. And he did it strictly by what he could do in the ring.

[Danny]

Whenever Tyson-Spinks is brought up, people always comment on how scared Spinks seemed, how was only teir for the money etc. Maybe Spinks was scared, but that should diminsh such a great performance by Tyson.

I wonder how many people actually felt the fight would end in first? Hardly anyone in my view. Sure, there were plenty that may have picked Tyson to win by KO, but not as quick as he did.

In my view, it's a testament to Mike's ability as a fighter at tht time, that he was able to do the business in such devestatin fashion, ni such a quick period.

Lastly, it's a shame Spinks is remembered mostly for his losing effort against Tyson. Spinks was one of the best LHW fighters in history & add to this that he moved up to HW & won the title. He was a very high calibre boxer at HW aswell.

[josak]

You've nailed it, Ironchamp.

There has never been anything, ever, like the fear Tyson instilled in his prime. Foreman was fearsome, but he was bigger than his foes. So was Sonny Liston. This short, young kid with a lisp struck terror in the most seasoned professional fighters, who, once in the ring with him, felt a dread akin to having to deal with the darkest, most terrifying elements in nature. And he did it strictly by what he could do in the ring.
well stated :good

[ironchamp]

thanks

[My dinner with Conteh]

Another thing that didn't go in Spinks' favour was that he was often a slow starter. This, combined with being a natural light-heavy and Tyson on fire early on, was always going to result in a blowout. But, hey, he had bad knees that was the main reason. :lol: :dead

[TIGEREDGE]

Why is Mike Tyson chastisized for his ability to instill fear in his opponents yet Muhammad Ali is praised for waging psychological warfare by getting his opponents psyched out?

From 1985-1988 any time an opponent walked into the ring scared against Mike Tyson it was because of the highlight reels that preceeded the scheduled bout. He didnt go out of his way to scare opponents or come up with any elaborate act to get them pertrified. Yet if he fought someone who was clearly nervous or scared in the fight and he beat them very decisively his win is undermined.

Conversely if Muhammad Ali fights an opponent, he starts out his elaborate scheme that includes a prediction, a nickname for the opponent and all the name calling and what have you all so that he can frustrate or infuriate an opponent. If he puts up a dominating performance he's praised.

What gives?



BTW Spinks was 31 years old, undefeated linear Heavyweight Champ who had previously cleared out the LHW Division and twice beat Larry Holmes. For him to step into the ring "just for the money" is an insult to his integrity. He was in against one of the biggest punchers the sport has ever seen who happened to be at the height of his powers.

agreed. tyson never cheated like ali is well. muhammad used to poke fli ck jabs, hold and everything. MT used to destroy opponents with clean perfect punches.

Some guys were scared no doubt but it was more a case of mike ability that put them away

[TIGEREDGE]

You've nailed it, Ironchamp.

There has never been anything, ever, like the fear Tyson instilled in his prime. Foreman was fearsome, but he was bigger than his foes. So was Sonny Liston. This short, young kid with a lisp struck terror in the most seasoned professional fighters, who, once in the ring with him, felt a dread akin to having to deal with the darkest, most terrifying elements in nature. And he did it strictly by what he could do in the ring.

great point. mike was far from the biggest mother fucker around unlike liston and foreman. they were huge for there era. many men had a weight and height advantage over mike. they still got flattened

[TIGEREDGE]

I don't think there's ever been a superfight where pre-fight predictions were so one-sided. One or two went for Spinks but it was very much in the "you'll remember me if Spinks wins" vein, like when Mike Katz called Leonard over Hagler. I hoped Spinks would win at the time but always thought he'd get mashed. I think anyone who predicted a Spinks win was letting their heart rule their head.

many thought that MS would win. very few predicted an early ko for mike

[TIGEREDGE]

Another Point That People Forget Is That Mike Was Having Personal Problems At The Time Of The Sensational Ko

That Says A Lot About How Good He Was

[My dinner with Conteh]

many thought that MS would win. very few predicted an early ko for mike


Many? Like who? About 1 in every 10.

[Drew101]

Ridiculous post. Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, etc. beat much better any way more good HW´s than Spinks (who beat only a not peak Holmes twice, one time viá robbery, Cooney, who fought 2 times in 3 years and was shot, and Eklund, who wasn´t even in Europe one of the best), once again a very bad comparison, but nothing new from you...

Not necessarily. In terms of all-time ratings, he doesn't compare (except with possibly Tunney, who really spent the bulk of his career at, or around LH). In terms of talent, Spinks as a heavyweight...even at that time, was probably at, or near the level of those aforementioned fighters.

[Luigi1985]

Not necessarily. In terms of all-time ratings, he doesn't compare (except with possibly Tunney, who really spent the bulk of his career at, or around LH). In terms of talent, Spinks as a heavyweight...even at that time, was probably at, or near the level of those aforementioned fighters.


You talk about apples, I talked about oranges. He said that Spinks legacy is better, and I said that Spinks did nothing at HW, beside beating twice an older champion in Holmes (one time very controversial), Tangstad, who was not even in Europe one of the best, and Cooney, who had 2 fights in 3 years and was totally shot. Now compare that to Walcott or Schmeling. I didn´t mean that Spinks wins over Holmes weren´t good or so, but not as impressive as Walcott´s career for example...

[brownpimp88]

You talk about apples, I talked about oranges. He said that Spinks legacy is better, and I said that Spinks did nothing at HW, beside beating twice an older champion in Holmes (one time very controversial), Tangstad, who was not even in Europe one of the best, and Cooney, who had 2 fights in 3 years and was totally shot. Now compare that to Walcott or Schmeling. I didn´t mean that Spinks wins over Holmes weren´t good or so, but not as impressive as Walcott´s career for example...
Walcott only beat blown up light heavyweights, he never beat a good heavyweight that is more than 210lbs.

[mr. magoo]

You talk about apples, I talked about oranges. He said that Spinks legacy is better, and I said that Spinks did nothing at HW, beside beating twice an older champion in Holmes (one time very controversial), Tangstad, who was not even in Europe one of the best, and Cooney, who had 2 fights in 3 years and was totally shot. Now compare that to Walcott or Schmeling. I didn´t mean that Spinks wins over Holmes weren´t good or so, but not as impressive as Walcott´s career for example...

You have some valid points Luigi. And in truth I think that because Walcott had a lot more fights in the division than Spinks, that he probably deserves to be rated higher as a heavyweight. Consider however, that his best win was against a past prime ex-middleweight in Ezzard Charles who had previously beaten Walcott on two occasions, and we can't rate Walcott too much higher than Spinks in my opinion.

Also, Spinks won the heavyweight title in only his first attempt- a huge accomplishment for a lightheavyweight in his heavyweight debut. Walcott failed on 4 previous occasions to capture the crown. In a more modern era or one that was just more competitive, its not likely that he would have recieved another opportunity.

[Sonny's jab]

watched tyson v spinks again today, from entrances to end. spinks seems very nervous coming into the ring but seemed to relax come fight time. i believe that it was a myth that he shit himself thus creating the early ending

it was a sensational performance by tyson. plain and simple

Spinks looked anxious, probably was scared. But he looked to be attempting to fight back when he got KO'd.
He didn't take the easy way out. He threw a right hand at Tyson and got taken out by a REAL shot.

Spinks gets a bad rap on this. He was throwing a punch and standing his ground when the end came.
He wasn't hanging off Tyson like Bonecrusher did, or running laps round the ring like Alfonso Ratliff, or going down without being hit like Bruce Seldon.
To be fair, Spinks went out like a fighter. A seriously overr-matched and under-confident fighter perhaps, but a fighter nonetheless.

[TIGEREDGE]

Spinks looked anxious, probably was scared. But he looked to be attempting to fight back when he got KO'd.
He didn't take the easy way out. He threw a right hand at Tyson and got taken out by a REAL shot.

Spinks gets a bad rap on this. He was throwing a punch and standing his ground when the end came.
He wasn't hanging off Tyson like Bonecrusher did, or running laps round the ring like Alfonso Ratliff, or going down without being hit like Bruce Seldon.
To be fair, Spinks went out like a fighter. A seriously overr-matched and under-confident fighter perhaps, but a fighter nonetheless.

Most fighters would of been overmatched against tyson on that ni9ght

[JohnThomas1]

Spinks looked anxious, probably was scared. But he looked to be attempting to fight back when he got KO'd.
He didn't take the easy way out. He threw a right hand at Tyson and got taken out by a REAL shot.

Spinks gets a bad rap on this. He was throwing a punch and standing his ground when the end came.
He wasn't hanging off Tyson like Bonecrusher did, or running laps round the ring like Alfonso Ratliff, or going down without being hit like Bruce Seldon.
To be fair, Spinks went out like a fighter. A seriously overr-matched and under-confident fighter perhaps, but a fighter nonetheless.

Fair call Sonny. Futch actually lamented that Spinks decided to slug it out. Some may laff, but that's roughly what Eddie said, he panicked a bit went away from their gameplan.

[ChrisPontius]

Fair call Sonny. Futch actually lamented that Spinks decided to slug it out. Some may laff, but that's roughly what Eddie said, he panicked a bit went away from their gameplan.

Wasn't that advice of his big brother?