Tyson-Spinks was a great performance by any HW champ

[Raggamuffin]

It was an annihilation.
The first down with the tremendous bodyshot. Every time i see it it makes me wince. Then Spinks try's to do something smart and throws a haymaker and POW !!. Spinks on his back looking at the bright lights in the sky. Awesome display by Tyson.

[fists of fury]

Yeah, but Spinks was an over-the-hill 32, had a bum knee, was scared to death, was rusty...you know...the usual excuses.

[ozziebattler]

Tyson should of become the greatest of all time..

The biggest underachiever in sporting history..FOR HIS ABILITY..

[Shake]

No, not really. He was an ATG, and fearsome in his prime, but people tend to overrate his potential because he either finished his man early or in spectacular fashion. Put a prime Mike against a great strong man who will not back up, say, George Foreman or Sonny Liston and I predict a completely different kind of test.

He never had a shot of becoming the best heavyweight ever seen. His style would deteriorate with age and he didn't have the ring intellect to compensate.

[bb251]

it was a great show for iron mike, but he still wasn't mentally what he needed to be to be the best ever...

[Unforgiven]

Well, you cant fault his performance. It took him half a round to beat the champion.
Spinks was disappointing though.

Tyson achieved what he achieved. All this "could have" and "wasted potential" stuff is BULLSHIT. He had boxing's powerbrokers on his side, the WBC even tried to reverse Buster Douglas' victory. Tyson had no bad breaks from boxing, it all fell into place for him. His ability and potential was maximized.

He was only ever a fraction as good as the hype surrounding him, and some people still cant accept that.

[FlatNose]

Spinks was made to order for Tyson, because Spinks' weaknesses played right into Tysons' strengths.Spinks was a notoriously slow starter.I remember seeing him lose the first round to guys like Yaqui Lopez, Marvin Johnson, and Jim Mcdonald at light heavyweight, he started slow against Holmes in both fights, and even a mediocre Steffan Tangstad.Tyson , on the other hand was at his best early on in a fight. Compounding Spinks' problems that night in Atlantic City were the ever deteriorating knees, that had reached a point of regression to hamper any movement that may have helped him avoid Tysons opening onslaught.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Very good showing. The best of the decade (heavyweight) no doubts.

[barneyrub]

Put it this way, other than Holmes, what heavyweight champ wouldnt beat spinks?

[JohnThomas1]

Very good showing. The best of the decade (heavyweight) no doubts.

That's a fair call. If there were any better it'd be another of Tyson's.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Put it this way, other than Holmes, what heavyweight champ wouldnt beat spinks?


Spinks was no bum. Granted, some of the real big hitters would likely have got him out of there fairly quickly but his awkward style would have been difficult for many of the more skilled practitioners, e.g. Ali, Walcott, Charles, Tunney, Super Greg. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

That's a fair call. If there were any better it'd be another of Tyson's.


Tyson-Larry impressed me actually.

[JohnThomas1]

Spinks was no bum. Granted, some of the real big hitters would likely have got him out of there fairly quickly but his awkward style would have been difficult for many of the more skilled practitioners, e.g. Ali, Walcott, Charles, Tunney, Super Greg. :good

Tho to be honest he sparred Super Greg in deciding his potential Heavyweight future and almost stopped right there from all accounts. He was most surprised at Page's speed and ability apparently. Still a decent heavyweight, tho guys like Bowe, Rudduck, Tucker and co would have been hard.

[JohnThomas1]

Tyson-Larry impressed me actually.

Me too. Tyson looked awesome against a still good survivor.

[Unforgiven]

Put it this way, other than Holmes, what heavyweight champ wouldnt beat spinks?

I often wonder about that.
It raises the question HOW GOOD WAS HOLMES ?

[JohnThomas1]

I often wonder about that.
It raises the question HOW GOOD WAS HOLMES ?

To be fair Holmes was way past it, took Spinks for granted and still come back to give Spinks hell in the rematch. Peak Holmes would have flogged Michael, no shame for a 175 pounder.

[mr. magoo]

Spinks didn't show up to take the title from Tyson ( not that he would have even if he did ). Rather he was there to pick up a quick check.

[Unforgiven]

To be fair Holmes was way past it, took Spinks for granted and still come back to give Spinks hell in the rematch. Peak Holmes would have flogged Michael, no shame for a 175 pounder.

Maybe. Maybe not.
Michael Spinks was probably one of the better fighters Holmes faced, despite being inexperienced against heavyweights.
The Holmes of a few years earlier might have had similar difficulties. Still, I think the rematch proves a younger Holmes would certainly have had the beating of Spinks.
I would put it all down to Spinks' 'awkward style' but I'm not sure Holmes "flogged" anyone as good as Spinks ever.

[Unforgiven]

****

[JohnThomas1]

Maybe. Maybe not.
Michael Spinks was probably one of the better fighters Holmes faced, despite being inexperienced against heavyweights.
The Holmes of a few years earlier might have had similar difficulties. Still, I think the rematch proves a younger Holmes would certainly have had the beating of Spinks.
I would put it all down to Spinks' 'awkward style' but I'm not sure Holmes "flogged" anyone as good as Spinks ever.

The rematch, which should have been won by Holmes, showed exactly what Holmes would do to Spinks during his peak. Holmes at his best would be a nightmare for the much smaller man, he was just as fast and if anything faster, Spinks could not hurt him whatsoever, Holmes certainly had the power to knock Spinks stiff, he had fantastic stamina at his best and allied to that he had that brilliant snapping jab that would dominate the smaller man with average power in this one. Holmes jab was a faded memory when they fought and his stamina was well under what it had been, a real key as well when talking peaks.

[Unforgiven]

The rematch, which should have been won by Holmes, showed exactly what Holmes would do to Spinks during his peak. Holmes at his best would be a nightmare for the much smaller man, he was just as fast and if anything faster, Spinks could not hurt him whatsoever, Holmes certainly had the power to knock Spinks stiff, he had fantastic stamina at his best and allied to that he had that brilliant snapping jab that would dominate the smaller man with average power in this one. Holmes jab was a faded memory when they fought and his stamina was well under what it had been, a real key as well when talking peaks.

You're probably right.
I think Holmes mentioned he thought Spinks' style would have always given him problems, in hindsight of course.

When was Holmes' peak ?

[mr. magoo]

When was Holmes' peak ?

Holmes looked real good between 1978, and maybe 1982. The Cooney fight was probably the last of his better performances.

[JohnThomas1]

You're probably right.
I think Holmes mentioned he thought Spinks' style would have always given him problems, in hindsight of course.

When was Holmes' peak ?

Spinks would always be awkward yes, but i think Holmes would overpower him after taking 4 or 5 to work him out. I think 78-79 is pretty good Holmes. Struggled with Norton and Weaver but i believe he had a habit of fighting down to his opponents and being a bit slug happy at times. One can definitely look at him from both sides of the fence depending on personal opinion.

[Stewbear]

yeah beating a light heavyweight im not saying it isnt impressive, but when you think its Tyson's best....
And the KO was pretty shitty hit him on the forehead

[ironchamp]

Spinks was made to order for Tyson, because Spinks' weaknesses played right into Tysons' strengths.Spinks was a notoriously slow starter.

I don't see why one should undermine Tyson's victory. Because if that is the case then:

Frazier was made to order Foreman so lets undermine Foreman's victory.

Patterson was made to order for Liston so then lets also undermine Sonny's win.

[ironchamp]

yeah beating a light heavyweight im not saying it isnt impressive, but when you think its Tyson's best....
And the KO was pretty shitty hit him on the forehead

Spinks may have been a lightheavyweight, but so was:

1. Billy Conn and if memory serves me well, Joe Louis needed a little bit more than 91 seconds to get the job done.

2. Micheal Moorer who beat Evander Holyfield in thier first meeting.

3. Archie Moore who dropped Rocky Marciano before succumbing to a 9th round KO.

4. Gene Tunney who beat Jack Dempsey twice.

and of course the man in questions Michael Spinks who as a LHW beat Larry Holmes twice.

[Danny]

Tyson should of become the greatest of all time..

The biggest underachiever in sporting history..FOR HIS ABILITY..

Couldn't have put it better myself mate, totally agree with you! Mike Tyson was so gifted, naturally talented as a fighter/boxer, that he should/could have gone on to be the best HW ever.

Not only that, but if he would have taken a different road, then he would have probably been the first billionaire sportperson, had many, many sponsorship deals etc. Tyson's earning potential was uncapped.

[mr. magoo]

Spinks may have been a lightheavyweight, but so was:

1. Billy Conn and if memory serves me well, Joe Louis needed a little bit more than 91 seconds to get the job done.

2. Micheal Moorer who beat Evander Holyfield in thier first meeting.

3. Archie Moore who dropped Rocky Marciano before succumbing to a 9th round KO.

4. Gene Tunney who beat Jack Dempsey twice.

and of course the man in questions Michael Spinks who as a LHW beat Larry Holmes twice.

To ad to that list, Ezzard Charles spent most of his career at middle weight and lightheavyweight. John Henry Lewis was a lightheavyweight champ, and heavyweight champion Jimmy Ellis began his career at middleweight to.

Half of the men Jack Johnson fought could have qualified as either a MW or LHW, including the man he took the belt from.

[Stewbear]

Spinks may have been a lightheavyweight, but so was:

1. Billy Conn and if memory serves me well, Joe Louis needed a little bit more than 91 seconds to get the job done.

2. Micheal Moorer who beat Evander Holyfield in thier first meeting.

3. Archie Moore who dropped Rocky Marciano before succumbing to a 9th round KO.

4. Gene Tunney who beat Jack Dempsey twice.

and of course the man in questions Michael Spinks who as a LHW beat Larry Holmes twice.

and it says a lot about them:patsch

[Dempsey1238]

Well to compare to say Tyson ko 1 Spinks and Johnson, Marciano and others, Tyson was mostly a faster started. He end it in 1 round if he could. Johnson perfer to hold the guy up plus 20 rounds to torture him even more. And Marciano was a slow started once he won the crown, and fought 2 times a year. Also the Rock was slowing down by the Moore fight.

Louis was trying to say below 200 pounds, so when he fought Conn, it would not look as bad. Also Conn was pretty hard to catch with his speed. Louis had fast hands, but his foot speed is pretty slow. Reasons imo on why most of these guys lasted past the first round.

[mr. magoo]

Also the Rock was slowing down by the Moore fight.



Slowing down? Pretty lame excuse if you ask me. He was a 32 year old heavyweight facing a 39 year old lightheavyweight, and he got decked!

[Dempsey1238]

32, with a bad back. You can see the slide in the Cockell fight, fought a few months early. He hand speed in both fights were real slow. compare to his hand speed vs Walcott and Charles.

[mr. magoo]

32, with a bad back. You can see the slide in the Cockell fight, fought a few months early. He hand speed in both fights were real slow. compare to his hand speed vs Walcott and Charles.

He got decked and near beaten half to death by a 37 year old Walcott to. Charles who was a former middleweight and well into his 30's, gave him fits as well.

What's your excuse for them?

[Unforgiven]

All those light-heavyweights were GOOD OPPONENTS at heavyweight. They were damn good heavyweights.

Michael Spinks was actually the heavyweight champion of the world.

It's wrong to build up the likes of Conn & Moore and dismiss Spinks at the same time.
Having said that, it's wrong to assume Tyson could KO1 all of them.

[Unforgiven]

He got decked and near beaten half to death by a 37 year old Walcott to.

I think that's an exaggeration.
The first 12 rounds of Walcott-Marciano dont look anywhere near as one-sided as some people make out.
In fact, I've seen 11 of them, and have Marciano winning 4 or 5.
The judges scorecards had Rocky needing a KO to win, but capable of getting a draw. And I think the fight was arguably closer than the judges had it.
It's a far cry from Marciano taking a one-sided beating, as is often claimed.

[Bigcat]

when the fight ended one line by Spinks summed Mike Spinks state of mind up exactly.. He stated to Ray leonard in the post fight interview..

"Firstly i want to enjoy the fact that the fight is over..."

He must have been dreading it like the plague.. He looked drained as he entered the ring.. the vain in his neck was pumping like a motha..

[Robbi]

Probably the most significant win of Tyson's career, even though Spinks was a natural light-heavyweight.

[hobgoblin]

he didn't have the ring intellect to compensate.

or to make complement his physical talent. THIS was his single greatest problem. if he had the ring intellect of someone like evander holyfield - o man - he'd have been the greatest of all time. but obviously then, that wouldn't BE tyson. with proper ring intellect - his physical abilities had little limitation IMO. yes, i agree with your post overall too. totally different test with someone like foreman.

[Dempsey1238]

He got decked and near beaten half to death by a 37 year old Walcott to. Charles who was a former middleweight and well into his 30's, gave him fits as well.

What's your excuse for them?

No excuse, they were great fighters. Why dont you call out Joe Louis and ask him why he let Billy Conn and Tommy Farr give him hard fights. Or ask Larry Holmes why he had life and death stuggles with 15-0 fighters??

[mr. magoo]

Why dont you call out Joe Louis and ask him why he let Billy Conn and Tommy Farr give him hard fights.

I certainly will.

While I'm at it, I'll also ask him why he gave 54-41-9 Jack Roper a title shot. There are more than enough viable questions to ask Louis. :good

[ironchamp]

All those light-heavyweights were GOOD OPPONENTS at heavyweight. They were damn good heavyweights.

Michael Spinks was actually the heavyweight champion of the world.

It's wrong to build up the likes of Conn & Moore and dismiss Spinks at the same time.
Having said that, it's wrong to assume Tyson could KO1 all of them.

The premise of the post with Conn, Moore, Moorer and Tunney was to dismiss the notion that just because Spinks was a light heavyweight that Mike shoudnt get that much credit for it when in fact Spinks (like Conn, Tunney, Moore and Moorer) was a formidable fighter at HW. Tyson's destruction of Spinks has more to do with Tyson's ability than Spinks's inability.

[Unforgiven]

The premise of the post with Conn, Moore, Moorer and Tunney was to dismiss the notion that just because Spinks was a light heavyweight that Mike shoudnt get that much credit for it when in fact Spinks (like Conn, Tunney, Moore and Moorer) was a formidable fighter at HW. Tyson's destruction of Spinks has more to do with Tyson's ability than Spinks's inability.

I agree with that. :good

[Zhaakal]

Man Spinks did it only for the money... He knew he had no chanche.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson's destruction of Spinks has more to do with Tyson's ability than Spinks's inability.


I think it was a combination of elements. I won't take any credit away from Tyson for his performance. He was in the peak of his prime, and a well developed champion worthy of all time great status. His performance that evening was remarkable. We have to consider however, that Spinks had only fought maybe one time within a two year period, or fairly close ( 21 months ). His most recent outing was a year earlier against a more or less shot Cooney. His lack of interest in the heavyweight title became evident in 1987, when he backed out of the IBF heavyweight elimination tournament for the bigger pay day with Gerry.

In the months leading up to the fight, he showed little or no enthusiasm during the press conferences or intereviews. I read an article in sport illustrated magazine in the spring of 1988, that featured a piece on Spinks and his preparation for Tyson. He illuded to the fact that his young daughter was scared to see her father enter the ring with Tyson. Come fight night, when the opening bell rang, we saw little or nothing from Spinks that resembled the kind of aggressive attack, or tenacity that was seen in the Holmes, Qawi, and Johnson fights of years earlier.

I don't believe that Spinks was petrafied of Tyson as most so often claim. Rather, I think he was a smart champion who saw the writing on the wall, and new his days were at an end. What's more, he realized that Evander Holyfield would be entering the division in the coming months, as well as a fresh crop of young olympians from the class of 88' looking to prove themselves. The heavyweight picture no longer had a place for the Jinx. It was a good time to get out. I make no claims about Spinks having much of a chance against Mike even if he had shown up ready to take on the world. I do feel strongly however, that had he wanted to prove himself to all of us, the way he did against Qawi and Holmes, there's no way in hell that fight was going to be over in 91 seconds....


.......The End......

[Muchmoore]

No, not really. He was an ATG, and fearsome in his prime, but people tend to overrate his potential because he either finished his man early or in spectacular fashion. Put a prime Mike against a great strong man who will not back up, say, George Foreman or Sonny Liston and I predict a completely different kind of test.

He never had a shot of becoming the best heavyweight ever seen. His style would deteriorate with age and he didn't have the ring intellect to compensate.

And who did Liston beat that was so good? He gets over rated more than Tyson because of the way he beat his oppontants. Tyson has a much better resume than Liston.