I compared Spinks-Qawi to Lewis-Holy 1 because it is one of the few major unification matches that I could think of that was just as one-sided. After I posted it, I thought about Johnny Tapia-Danny Romero. Also one-sided, not as high profile.
You accuse me of shading the issue(s), but you are the one who said that Holy-Qawi 1 was an "unfair" comparison because it "was Evander's first title fight". Evander didn't use it as an excuse, why did you? And I never called Spinks-Qawi a great fight. It was too one-sided. It was a great performance.
I said that Holy as a cruiser was not experienced enuff to handle Michael Spinks, and you are still asking me if I honestly think he could win and why? "Honestly"? What, maybe you thought I was lying about my opinion the first time?
Now as far as the comparisons of the careers. First, Leonard and Whitaker. Saying that they both "did a lot" is not the same as saying that they were equals.
Ray Leonard is one of five fighters in boxing history to have won titles in three traditional weight divisions. He scored stoppage wins over two (Hearns and Duran) of the other four fighters that did the same. Whitaker did nothing to match that.
I do not agree that Chavez and DLH are all-time greats. Chavez was not in his prime vs. Whitaker. His prime was at 130/135, the fight was at 147. Chavez was always over-rated as a fighter and as a "great". IMO he was 3-1-1 in traditional weight title fights. He was not an all-timer at lightweight and he is not the greatest ever at 130 or 140. And I say that, 99 per cent of the time, junior/super weight titles are for ordinary fighters.
DLH didn't take on all the top fighters in any of his weight divisions until he was a welter. He won that title from a former lightweight and lost it to one. His biggest fights at 147 all ended in controversial decisions. He still has potential, but I am not convinced yet.
I hope we can agree that Spinks' prime was at 175 and that Holy's was at heavy. Michael was as dominant as any light heavyweight champion ever. Evander was always hot & cold. He won four heavyweight titles because he lost it three times.
Spinks' move from light heavy to the heavy title is one of the greatest achievements in boxing history. Holy's move from cruiser to the big prize doesn't compare. Spinks challenged an all-time great, Holy challenged an also-ran. The first time Holy defended against his number one contender, he lost.
Best Olympic team
THis is getting to be a real task to get on the same line of thought.
First off...Evander did not use it as an excuse?
I was not aware Evander knew you were using his FIRST title fight at cruiserweight as a measuring stick as to how good he was at cruiserweight. Just what the hell are you talking about?
That is what you did you know. You compared Spinks at his best to Evander when he was still budding. ANd with that you tried to say Evander was too green at cruiserweight. That is what I disagree with!
May be in his first Qawi fight, but that was not his prime at cruiserweight. I would assume we were saying if a prime light heavyweight SPinks moved up to meet a prime cruiserweight Holyfield. I have already stated this many times but you purposely are matching a prime light heavyweight Spinks to a still maturing cruiserweight Holyfield. Match him against the prime cruiserweight Holyfield...and spinks gets KOed every time.
THis is not hard to under stand so why do I have to keep repeating my self? If you don't get it then lets just drop it.
I also asked if you thought Spinks would win, AND WHY? You never say your key points, we never get that far. Instead we are still stuck arguing about nothing.
I think De La Hoya and Chavez are all-time greats, and many do. You say Chavez was not in his prime, but he was closer to it than Haglar and Duran were when they fought Leonard.
But I am more interested in this Spinks-Holyfeild talk. You are trying to down talk Holyfield's Heavyweight career. The guy more than proved his worth. Lets not skip over his cruiserweight run either. He was unstoppable, and beat some decent guys there too. I don't know what "Holyfield challenged an also-ran" means but I disagree
.
Some say Spinks lost twice to Holmes remember. Even if you think he won the first, the second fight was highly questionable.
Holyfield may have lost to Bowe in his first title reign, but he beat every meaningful heavyweight of his era except Lewis (who he did not fight until he had already began slipping). Trying to make Evander look bad by saying he lost to the first number one contender he faced is saying only one tenth of the story.
Hey, time to taste some of your own ways of comparing Spinks and Holyfield unfairly.
Spinks in his biggest fight of his career against Mike Tyson. Remember that joke? Spinks was sh!ting himself. He offered nothing and was blown out with minimal resistance. Peter McNeely lasted longer!
Holyfield dominated Tyson both times they fought. How about how easily Holyfield beat Holmes, and how Spinks barely got by Holmes and then had to get help from the judges in the return fight?
How about Spinks going the distance with Qawi, fighting like Chris Byrd. Holyfield destroyed Qawi in their second fight.
Don't bother trying to tell me any of those comparisons are not fair, or anything. I have been trying to tell you WHen comparing a prime light heavyweight Spinks vs. a prime cruiserweight Holyfield using Holyfield in his FIRST fight with Qawi as an example was not fair. That was not a prime cruiserweight Holyfield.
Every time I try to explain that to you, it is lost. I give up! So I am using your logic and comparing Spinks and Holyfield biasedly.
First off...Evander did not use it as an excuse?
I was not aware Evander knew you were using his FIRST title fight at cruiserweight as a measuring stick as to how good he was at cruiserweight. Just what the hell are you talking about?
That is what you did you know. You compared Spinks at his best to Evander when he was still budding. ANd with that you tried to say Evander was too green at cruiserweight. That is what I disagree with!
May be in his first Qawi fight, but that was not his prime at cruiserweight. I would assume we were saying if a prime light heavyweight SPinks moved up to meet a prime cruiserweight Holyfield. I have already stated this many times but you purposely are matching a prime light heavyweight Spinks to a still maturing cruiserweight Holyfield. Match him against the prime cruiserweight Holyfield...and spinks gets KOed every time.
THis is not hard to under stand so why do I have to keep repeating my self? If you don't get it then lets just drop it.
I also asked if you thought Spinks would win, AND WHY? You never say your key points, we never get that far. Instead we are still stuck arguing about nothing.
I think De La Hoya and Chavez are all-time greats, and many do. You say Chavez was not in his prime, but he was closer to it than Haglar and Duran were when they fought Leonard.
But I am more interested in this Spinks-Holyfeild talk. You are trying to down talk Holyfield's Heavyweight career. The guy more than proved his worth. Lets not skip over his cruiserweight run either. He was unstoppable, and beat some decent guys there too. I don't know what "Holyfield challenged an also-ran" means but I disagree
.Some say Spinks lost twice to Holmes remember. Even if you think he won the first, the second fight was highly questionable.
Holyfield may have lost to Bowe in his first title reign, but he beat every meaningful heavyweight of his era except Lewis (who he did not fight until he had already began slipping). Trying to make Evander look bad by saying he lost to the first number one contender he faced is saying only one tenth of the story.
Hey, time to taste some of your own ways of comparing Spinks and Holyfield unfairly.
Spinks in his biggest fight of his career against Mike Tyson. Remember that joke? Spinks was sh!ting himself. He offered nothing and was blown out with minimal resistance. Peter McNeely lasted longer!
Holyfield dominated Tyson both times they fought. How about how easily Holyfield beat Holmes, and how Spinks barely got by Holmes and then had to get help from the judges in the return fight?
How about Spinks going the distance with Qawi, fighting like Chris Byrd. Holyfield destroyed Qawi in their second fight.
Don't bother trying to tell me any of those comparisons are not fair, or anything. I have been trying to tell you WHen comparing a prime light heavyweight Spinks vs. a prime cruiserweight Holyfield using Holyfield in his FIRST fight with Qawi as an example was not fair. That was not a prime cruiserweight Holyfield.
Every time I try to explain that to you, it is lost. I give up! So I am using your logic and comparing Spinks and Holyfield biasedly.
Was I having this discussion with Evander Holyfield? You are the one that is using excuses. You weren't aware that Evander was using his first title fight at cruiserweight as a measuring stick as to how good he was at cruiserweight? Then you say not to skip over his his cruiser reign because he was unstoppable. You are the one talking about what is unfair. If he thought it was so unfair, then maybe he would have waited until he had more experience.6 Pack wrote:This is getting to be a real task to get on the same line of thought.
First off...Evander did not use it as an excuse? I was not aware Evander knew you were using his FIRST title fight at cruiserweight as a measuring stick as to how good he was at cruiserweight. Just what the hell are you talking about?
That is what you did you know. You compared Spinks at his best to Evander when he was still budding. ANd with that you tried to say Evander was too green at cruiserweight. That is what I disagree with!
May be in his first Qawi fight, but that was not his prime at cruiserweight. I would assume we were saying if a prime light heavyweight SPinks moved up to meet a prime cruiserweight Holyfield. I have already stated this many times but you purposely are matching a prime light heavyweight Spinks to a still maturing cruiserweight Holyfield. Match him against the prime cruiserweight Holyfield...and spinks gets KOed every time.
This is not hard to understand so why do I have to keep repeating my self? If you don't get it then, lets just drop it.
I also asked if you thought Spinks would win, AND WHY? You never say your key points, we never get that far. Instead we are still stuck arguing about nothing.
I think De La Hoya and Chavez are all-time greats, and many do. You say Chavez was not in his prime, but he was closer to it than Haglar and Duran were when they fought Leonard.
But I am more interested in this Spinks-Holyfeild talk. You are trying to down talk Holyfield's Heavyweight career. The guy more than proved his worth. Lets not skip over his cruiserweight run either. He was unstoppable, and beat some decent guys there too. I don't know what "Holyfield challenged an also-ran" means, but I disagree.
Some say Spinks lost twice to Holmes remember. Even if you think he won the first, the second fight was highly questionable.
Holyfield may have lost to Bowe in his first title reign, but he beat every meaningful heavyweight of his era except Lewis (who he did not fight until he had already began slipping). Trying to make Evander look bad by saying he lost to the first number one contender he faced is saying only one tenth of the story.
Hey, time to taste some of your own ways of comparing Spinks and Holyfield unfairly.
Spinks in his biggest fight of his career against Mike Tyson. Remember that joke? Spinks was sh!ting himself. He offered nothing and was blown out with minimal resistance. Peter McNeely lasted longer!
Holyfield dominated Tyson both times they fought. How about how easily Holyfield beat Holmes, and how Spinks barely got by Holmes and then had to get help from the judges in the return fight?
How about Spinks going the distance with Qawi, fighting like Chris Byrd. Holyfield destroyed Qawi in their second fight.
Don't bother trying to tell me any of those comparisons are not fair, or anything. I have been trying to tell you WHen comparing a prime light heavyweight Spinks vs. a prime cruiserweight Holyfield using Holyfield in his FIRST fight with Qawi as an example was not fair. That was not a prime cruiserweight Holyfield.
Every time I try to explain that to you, it is lost. I give up! So I am using your logic and comparing Spinks and Holyfield biasedly.
Holy "may have" lost to Bowe? I tried to make Evander look bad by "saying" he lost to the first number one contender he faced? It is not just something I said. It is the truth; a statement of fact. Or is telling the truth about Holy "unfair".
I don't need to make excuses for Spinks. I will simply state that his prime was at 175, not heavyweight.
Spinks went the distance with Qawi? More like the other way around. Fighting like Byrd? You mean fighting like a winner? You wanna talk about primes? What about Braxton's prime? Or did he ever have one?
May be it is just me, but we are getting nowhere.
WHen I said Holy "may have lost to Bowe" it did not mean it in the sense that I don't know if he did or not, it was the beginning of my point that sure he lost to Bowe but he also beat Bowe and many others.
ANd again you bring up Qawi! who cares when his prime was?!!! Sure Evander had not reached his prime yet when he faced Qawi for the title. SO what? what is your point? It was still more than enough to win it. He hit his prime soon after and wiped the rest of the division out. I don't get what you are trying to say?
I am not reading your reply and have no interest in keeping this fiasco going. Lets just agree to diagree. I don't think we were ever agruing the same topic anyways.
WHen I said Holy "may have lost to Bowe" it did not mean it in the sense that I don't know if he did or not, it was the beginning of my point that sure he lost to Bowe but he also beat Bowe and many others.
ANd again you bring up Qawi! who cares when his prime was?!!! Sure Evander had not reached his prime yet when he faced Qawi for the title. SO what? what is your point? It was still more than enough to win it. He hit his prime soon after and wiped the rest of the division out. I don't get what you are trying to say?
I am not reading your reply and have no interest in keeping this fiasco going. Lets just agree to diagree. I don't think we were ever agruing the same topic anyways.
Tantum,
Do you think that a division that has only been around since 1979 is equal to heavyweight and light heavyweight which have been around since the previous turn of the century?
What does it mean to call Holy the number one cruiserweight of all-time? He is the only true world champion in the "history" of the division.
You say 1 or 2? In order to list the all-time cruisers, don't the fighters have to be all-time greats? If he is number two, who is there to be number one?
When I look at the history of this division, I see only one all-time great fighter. In fact when it comes to ALL of the jr/super classes, I can't find enuff all-time great fighters to even rate a top five.
It is my opinion that every all-time rating is equal to the fighter's all-time pound-for-pound rating. Each of my number ones from each of the eight traditional weight divisions is in my personal all-time pound-for-pound top ten.
Are the junior/super divisions equal to the traditional? Is Holyfield one of your top seventeen fights of all-time p4p?
I notice that while you give your rating of Evander in both divisions; you only gave your opinion for Spinks at heavy which was not his prime weight. Why is that?
Do you think that a division that has only been around since 1979 is equal to heavyweight and light heavyweight which have been around since the previous turn of the century?
What does it mean to call Holy the number one cruiserweight of all-time? He is the only true world champion in the "history" of the division.
You say 1 or 2? In order to list the all-time cruisers, don't the fighters have to be all-time greats? If he is number two, who is there to be number one?
When I look at the history of this division, I see only one all-time great fighter. In fact when it comes to ALL of the jr/super classes, I can't find enuff all-time great fighters to even rate a top five.
It is my opinion that every all-time rating is equal to the fighter's all-time pound-for-pound rating. Each of my number ones from each of the eight traditional weight divisions is in my personal all-time pound-for-pound top ten.
Are the junior/super divisions equal to the traditional? Is Holyfield one of your top seventeen fights of all-time p4p?
I notice that while you give your rating of Evander in both divisions; you only gave your opinion for Spinks at heavy which was not his prime weight. Why is that?