Robinson wrote:Ray
Yes those were the residual of the late 1960s and through
to the mid 70s.
I think Galt asked you what contenders were under 200lbs
in 1978 ?
Mike Weaver ... 200lbs ?
Earnie Shavers...210lbs...
I can not think of to many that were 190-200lbs
at an upper level at that time.
Yeah, I'm aware of the question Robinson. Thanks for jumping into the fray. Galt's question was a red herring to steer us away from the issue. The issues were whether Leon had potential and whether his upset of Ali was a big, surprising, shocking and embarrassing upset.
The issue isn't that Spinks was "small." He was. The issue is whether those in the game thought he was too small to have potential as a heavyweight. We - at least those of us I knew in those days - didn't. Partly based on the fact that Quarry, Ellis, et al weren't "too small," and those guys were active just a few years before Spinks came on the scene. Also, if you look at the top heavyweight in the late 70s, I think you'll find the average weight for those fellows was about 215. Spinks hit the scales at around 200. Is a 15 pound weight difference too much to overcome? Those contenders ranged in height from about 6' (Shavers) to 6'3" (Norton, Lyle) Leon was 6'1" - was 2 inches too much height to overcome?
Didn't Holyfeld, for example, overcome greater weight and height differences?
The point is: (a) we thought Spinks was small but not "too small." (b) we thought Spinks had potential. (c) We thought it was a mistake to match Spinks with Ali given his limited experience, and his lack of seasoning as shown in the LeDoux and Righetti. But, although most expected Ali to win, nobody was completely surprised when Spinks won given the decline in Ali's skills since at least the "Thrilla in Manila."
Leon's post-Ali career showed he was limited for a variety of reasons. But that doesn't mean that folks in 1977-1978 didn't think he had real potential. Hindsight is always 20/20.
P.S. Mike Weaver wasn't a contender in 1978.
