Michael Spinks: Rank him

[AntonioMartin]

Top 5 ever aat Light Heavyweight...

The people in the ballot for top LH are:
Spinks, Archie Moore, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, Billy Conn and Victor Galindez...I might be forgetting someone....maybe Jose Torres, but then we'd have to throw in Dick Tiger too....

Galindez? Foster is crazy overrated, but a common name. Victor top 5 is something I've never heard.

Galindez is the other way around from Foster.... he is vastly underrated. I've heard many of his fights were controversial but that wasn't his fault really. He fought and beat many top contenders, had two reigns when there were only two belts, and about ten defenses...in his case, the IBHOF got it right!!

[Onetimeonly]

Top 5 ever aat Light Heavyweight...

The people in the ballot for top LH are:
Spinks, Archie Moore, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, Billy Conn and Victor Galindez...I might be forgetting someone....maybe Jose Torres, but then we'd have to throw in Dick Tiger too....

Galindez? Foster is crazy overrated, but a common name. Victor top 5 is something I've never heard.

Galindez is the other way around from Foster.... he is vastly underrated. I've heard many of his fights were controversial but that wasn't his fault really. He fought and beat many top contenders, had two reigns when there were only two belts, and about ten defenses...in his case, the IBHOF got it right!!

Hof and top 5 in one of the deepest divisions are two different things. He could crack the top 40.

Heard? So you haven't seen his fights? Several controversial, couple robberies. Good fighter, way out of place on your list.

[AntonioMartin]

Galindez? Foster is crazy overrated, but a common name. Victor top 5 is something I've never heard.

Galindez is the other way around from Foster.... he is vastly underrated. I've heard many of his fights were controversial but that wasn't his fault really. He fought and beat many top contenders, had two reigns when there were only two belts, and about ten defenses...in his case, the IBHOF got it right!!

Hof and top 5 in one of the deepest divisions are two different things. He could crack the top 40.

Heard? So you haven't seen his fights? Several controversial, couple robberies. Good fighter, way out of place on your list.

Perhaps I should see him fight then..maybe tonight on youtube...

But as far as the record reads, he is one of the top ten Light Heavyweights...also consider this: The IBHOF really isn't kind to many fighters who deserve to be in (read: De Leon, Genaro Hernandez, Marvin Johnson, Watanabe, Laciar, Valdes, Escalera, Ramirez, etc) but was to many who don't deserve (Johannsson, Mancini, perhaps even Donald Curry) so that speaks volumes of something (Im not sure what to be honest, because since non deservers have been inducted that kind of evens out the argument) about Galindez being in!

[Onetimeonly]

Galindez is the other way around from Foster.... he is vastly underrated. I've heard many of his fights were controversial but that wasn't his fault really. He fought and beat many top contenders, had two reigns when there were only two belts, and about ten defenses...in his case, the IBHOF got it right!!

Hof and top 5 in one of the deepest divisions are two different things. He could crack the top 40.

Heard? So you haven't seen his fights? Several controversial, couple robberies. Good fighter, way out of place on your list.

Perhaps I should see him fight then..maybe tonight on youtube...

But as far as the record reads, he is one of the top ten Light Heavyweights...also consider this: The IBHOF really isn't kind to many fighters who deserve to be in (read: De Leon, Genaro Hernandez, Marvin Johnson, Watanabe, Laciar, Valdes, Escalera, Ramirez, etc) but was to many who don't deserve (Johannsson, Mancini, perhaps even Donald Curry) so that speaks volumes of something (Im not sure what to be honest, because since non deservers have been inducted that kind of evens out the argument) about Galindez being in!

You're crazy wrong. Laciar is the only guy that's a glaring omission on your list. Mancini is far more deserving than someone like Deleon. Vitali us easily the most undeserving. Victor isn't near that, but considering him in the running for goat light heavy is right up there with the most ridiculous boxing opinions I've ever read.

Him top 10 is outlandish.

[AntonioMartin]

Hof and top 5 in one of the deepest divisions are two different things. He could crack the top 40.

Heard? So you haven't seen his fights? Several controversial, couple robberies. Good fighter, way out of place on your list.

Perhaps I should see him fight then..maybe tonight on youtube...

But as far as the record reads, he is one of the top ten Light Heavyweights...also consider this: The IBHOF really isn't kind to many fighters who deserve to be in (read: De Leon, Genaro Hernandez, Marvin Johnson, Watanabe, Laciar, Valdes, Escalera, Ramirez, etc) but was to many who don't deserve (Johannsson, Mancini, perhaps even Donald Curry) so that speaks volumes of something (Im not sure what to be honest, because since non deservers have been inducted that kind of evens out the argument) about Galindez being in!

You're crazy wrong. Laciar is the only guy that's a glaring omission on your list. Mancini is far more deserving than someone like Deleon. Vitali us easily the most undeserving. Victor isn't near that, but considering him in the running for goat light heavy is right up there with the most ridiculous boxing opinions I've ever read.

Him top 10 is outlandish.

Carlos De Leon is a 4 time world champion, Escalera, Alexis Arguello himself vouched for him to be inducted, Ramirez beat a Hall of Famer in Rosario, arguably beat another one and got robbed in Arguello and has a win, wrong as the scoring was, against another one in Pernell Whitaker, Rodrigo Valdes was a two time world Middleweight champion who came within inches of beating Carlos Monzon in their rematch,, Marvin Johnson was a three time world champion, and Genaro Hernandez was a two time world champion who beat Azumah Nelson and whose record of 38-2-1 only includes fights against hall of famers Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather in the L column. There are lots of less deserving fighters in the Hall of Fame than those mentioned.

Also, the hall of fame keeps ignoring Betulio Gonzalez, Wilfredo Vazquez Sr., Samuel Serrano and a couple others, for reasons that should not be considered. So a few of them didnt fight often in the US...well, boxing is an international sport. I didn't see Michael Spinks fight in the UK but he fought in the US..thats US centric and the fact is..well take Carlos Monzon, he only fought once in the US! People say a lot of times "but he (she) never fought outside X country!" well, then they would have to say the same about Oscar De La Hoya, M. Spinks, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and a whole bunch others because, how many times did they fight outside their home country? None, zero.

Escalera, Gonzalez, Serrano and Vazquez were world travelers who defended their titles everywhere, against everyone put against them and won very often. They were great world champions in the truest sense of the phrase.

Another thing is: he (she) should not be in because he fought so many inferior fighters, or so many of his (her) fights were controversial ...well, he/she beat those inferior fighters, which show that he/she was in a superior class then, and it's not his/her fault who he/she is put in front of, because he/she can only fight who is put in front of him/her or who dares to take the fight versus him/her. And when you win by controversy, that's not your fault either. Aaron Pryor, Julio Cesar Chavez (who had many controversial fights late in his career) Pernell Whitaker had a couple of controversial wins that made up for his controversial losses, Joe Louis had a controversial win, Wilfredo Gomez's win over Carlos Zarate was kind of controversial...we dont see people hating on those guys that much......controversial wins are usually not the fighter's fault, why would the IBHOF penalize them for it?

Ok but the class he/she dominated was an untalented division...again not the champion's fault. It was said Larry Holmes dominated a very untalented Heavyweight division in the 80s but I don't see many complaining about him being in these days. (Don't get me wrong, if he wasn't in, the credibility I give the IBHOF would be zero) See my point...the hall of fame is for greatness, but it's also a place where membership is given by human beings, so membership there is subjective. Like scoring in a boxing fight and in a Miss contest. It depends on what you define as superior-ness or, in this case, greatness. But in these guys' cases, if two or more world championship reigns, multiple defenses everywhere around the world and great win-loss records do not define greatness, then I don't know what does.

How many others defended the title as many times as Galindez did or won it that many times? Galindez is top ten all times in the LH division, at least.

[Onetimeonly]

Perhaps I should see him fight then..maybe tonight on youtube...

But as far as the record reads, he is one of the top ten Light Heavyweights...also consider this: The IBHOF really isn't kind to many fighters who deserve to be in (read: De Leon, Genaro Hernandez, Marvin Johnson, Watanabe, Laciar, Valdes, Escalera, Ramirez, etc) but was to many who don't deserve (Johannsson, Mancini, perhaps even Donald Curry) so that speaks volumes of something (Im not sure what to be honest, because since non deservers have been inducted that kind of evens out the argument) about Galindez being in!

You're crazy wrong. Laciar is the only guy that's a glaring omission on your list. Mancini is far more deserving than someone like Deleon. Vitali us easily the most undeserving. Victor isn't near that, but considering him in the running for goat light heavy is right up there with the most ridiculous boxing opinions I've ever read.

Him top 10 is outlandish.

Carlos De Leon is a 4 time world champion, Escalera, Alexis Arguello himself vouched for him to be inducted, Ramirez beat a Hall of Famer in Rosario, arguably beat another one and got robbed in Arguello and has a win, wrong as the scoring was, against another one in Pernell Whitaker, Rodrigo Valdes was a two time world Middleweight champion who came within inches of beating Carlos Monzon in their rematch,, Marvin Johnson was a three time world champion, and Genaro Hernandez was a two time world champion who beat Azumah Nelson and whose record of 38-2-1 only includes fights against hall of famers Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather in the L column. There are lots of less deserving fighters in the Hall of Fame than those mentioned.

Also, the hall of fame keeps ignoring Betulio Gonzalez, Wilfredo Vazquez Sr., Samuel Serrano and a couple others, for reasons that should not be considered. So a few of them didnt fight often in the US...well, boxing is an international sport. I didn't see Michael Spinks fight in the UK but he fought in the US..thats US centric and the fact is..well take Carlos Monzon, he only fought once in the US! People say a lot of times "but he (she) never fought outside X country!" well, then they would have to say the same about Oscar De La Hoya, M. Spinks, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and a whole bunch others because, how many times did they fight outside their home country? None, zero.

Escalera, Gonzalez, Serrano and Vazquez were world travelers who defended their titles everywhere, against everyone put against them and won very often. They were great world champions in the truest sense of the phrase.

Another thing is: he (she) should not be in because he fought so many inferior fighters, or so many of his (her) fights were controversial ...well, he/she beat those inferior fighters, which show that he/she was in a superior class then, and it's not his/her fault who he/she is put in front of, because he/she can only fight who is put in front of him/her or who dares to take the fight versus him/her. And when you win by controversy, that's not your fault either. Aaron Pryor, Julio Cesar Chavez (who had many controversial fights late in his career) Pernell Whitaker had a couple of controversial wins that made up for his controversial losses, Joe Louis had a controversial win, Wilfredo Gomez's win over Carlos Zarate was kind of controversial...we dont see people hating on those guys that much......controversial wins are usually not the fighter's fault, why would the IBHOF penalize them for it?

Ok but the class he/she dominated was an untalented division...again not the champion's fault. It was said Larry Holmes dominated a very untalented Heavyweight division in the 80s but I don't see many complaining about him being in these days. (Don't get me wrong, if he wasn't in, the credibility I give the IBHOF would be zero) See my point...the hall of fame is for greatness, but it's also a place where membership is given by human beings, so membership there is subjective. Like scoring in a boxing fight and in a Miss contest. It depends on what you define as superior-ness or, in this case, greatness. But in these guys' cases, if two or more world championship reigns, multiple defenses everywhere around the world and great win-loss records do not define greatness, then I don't know what does.

How many others defended the title as many times as Galindez did or won it that many times? Galindez is top ten all times in the LH division, at least.

Ever see Mancini vs Ramirez? Brutal ass whipping.

If you think galindez is in the running for a top 25 light heavy, I just can't help you.

[AntonioMartin]

You're crazy wrong. Laciar is the only guy that's a glaring omission on your list. Mancini is far more deserving than someone like Deleon. Vitali us easily the most undeserving. Victor isn't near that, but considering him in the running for goat light heavy is right up there with the most ridiculous boxing opinions I've ever read.

Him top 10 is outlandish.

Carlos De Leon is a 4 time world champion, Escalera, Alexis Arguello himself vouched for him to be inducted, Ramirez beat a Hall of Famer in Rosario, arguably beat another one and got robbed in Arguello and has a win, wrong as the scoring was, against another one in Pernell Whitaker, Rodrigo Valdes was a two time world Middleweight champion who came within inches of beating Carlos Monzon in their rematch,, Marvin Johnson was a three time world champion, and Genaro Hernandez was a two time world champion who beat Azumah Nelson and whose record of 38-2-1 only includes fights against hall of famers Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather in the L column. There are lots of less deserving fighters in the Hall of Fame than those mentioned.

Also, the hall of fame keeps ignoring Betulio Gonzalez, Wilfredo Vazquez Sr., Samuel Serrano and a couple others, for reasons that should not be considered. So a few of them didnt fight often in the US...well, boxing is an international sport. I didn't see Michael Spinks fight in the UK but he fought in the US..thats US centric and the fact is..well take Carlos Monzon, he only fought once in the US! People say a lot of times "but he (she) never fought outside X country!" well, then they would have to say the same about Oscar De La Hoya, M. Spinks, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and a whole bunch others because, how many times did they fight outside their home country? None, zero.

Escalera, Gonzalez, Serrano and Vazquez were world travelers who defended their titles everywhere, against everyone put against them and won very often. They were great world champions in the truest sense of the phrase.

Another thing is: he (she) should not be in because he fought so many inferior fighters, or so many of his (her) fights were controversial ...well, he/she beat those inferior fighters, which show that he/she was in a superior class then, and it's not his/her fault who he/she is put in front of, because he/she can only fight who is put in front of him/her or who dares to take the fight versus him/her. And when you win by controversy, that's not your fault either. Aaron Pryor, Julio Cesar Chavez (who had many controversial fights late in his career) Pernell Whitaker had a couple of controversial wins that made up for his controversial losses, Joe Louis had a controversial win, Wilfredo Gomez's win over Carlos Zarate was kind of controversial...we dont see people hating on those guys that much......controversial wins are usually not the fighter's fault, why would the IBHOF penalize them for it?

Ok but the class he/she dominated was an untalented division...again not the champion's fault. It was said Larry Holmes dominated a very untalented Heavyweight division in the 80s but I don't see many complaining about him being in these days. (Don't get me wrong, if he wasn't in, the credibility I give the IBHOF would be zero) See my point...the hall of fame is for greatness, but it's also a place where membership is given by human beings, so membership there is subjective. Like scoring in a boxing fight and in a Miss contest. It depends on what you define as superior-ness or, in this case, greatness. But in these guys' cases, if two or more world championship reigns, multiple defenses everywhere around the world and great win-loss records do not define greatness, then I don't know what does.

How many others defended the title as many times as Galindez did or won it that many times? Galindez is top ten all times in the LH division, at least.

Ever see Mancini vs Ramirez? Brutal ass whipping.

If you think galindez is in the running for a top 25 light heavy, I just can't help you.

One particular loss in a 102 fight career means Ramirez shouldn't be in? Ever seen Mancini-Chacon? Douglas-Tyson? Liston-Petterson 1 and 2? Foreman-Norton? those were total whippings except for round eight of Douglas-Tyson,and the recipients are all in the hall of fame...

Fact check, buddy...

As far as for Galindez, I guess your hate for the guy is blinding you since now you just dont call him top ten but not even top 25? Please, give me a break.

[Onetimeonly]

Carlos De Leon is a 4 time world champion, Escalera, Alexis Arguello himself vouched for him to be inducted, Ramirez beat a Hall of Famer in Rosario, arguably beat another one and got robbed in Arguello and has a win, wrong as the scoring was, against another one in Pernell Whitaker, Rodrigo Valdes was a two time world Middleweight champion who came within inches of beating Carlos Monzon in their rematch,, Marvin Johnson was a three time world champion, and Genaro Hernandez was a two time world champion who beat Azumah Nelson and whose record of 38-2-1 only includes fights against hall of famers Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather in the L column. There are lots of less deserving fighters in the Hall of Fame than those mentioned.

Also, the hall of fame keeps ignoring Betulio Gonzalez, Wilfredo Vazquez Sr., Samuel Serrano and a couple others, for reasons that should not be considered. So a few of them didnt fight often in the US...well, boxing is an international sport. I didn't see Michael Spinks fight in the UK but he fought in the US..thats US centric and the fact is..well take Carlos Monzon, he only fought once in the US! People say a lot of times "but he (she) never fought outside X country!" well, then they would have to say the same about Oscar De La Hoya, M. Spinks, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and a whole bunch others because, how many times did they fight outside their home country? None, zero.

Escalera, Gonzalez, Serrano and Vazquez were world travelers who defended their titles everywhere, against everyone put against them and won very often. They were great world champions in the truest sense of the phrase.

Another thing is: he (she) should not be in because he fought so many inferior fighters, or so many of his (her) fights were controversial ...well, he/she beat those inferior fighters, which show that he/she was in a superior class then, and it's not his/her fault who he/she is put in front of, because he/she can only fight who is put in front of him/her or who dares to take the fight versus him/her. And when you win by controversy, that's not your fault either. Aaron Pryor, Julio Cesar Chavez (who had many controversial fights late in his career) Pernell Whitaker had a couple of controversial wins that made up for his controversial losses, Joe Louis had a controversial win, Wilfredo Gomez's win over Carlos Zarate was kind of controversial...we dont see people hating on those guys that much......controversial wins are usually not the fighter's fault, why would the IBHOF penalize them for it?

Ok but the class he/she dominated was an untalented division...again not the champion's fault. It was said Larry Holmes dominated a very untalented Heavyweight division in the 80s but I don't see many complaining about him being in these days. (Don't get me wrong, if he wasn't in, the credibility I give the IBHOF would be zero) See my point...the hall of fame is for greatness, but it's also a place where membership is given by human beings, so membership there is subjective. Like scoring in a boxing fight and in a Miss contest. It depends on what you define as superior-ness or, in this case, greatness. But in these guys' cases, if two or more world championship reigns, multiple defenses everywhere around the world and great win-loss records do not define greatness, then I don't know what does.

How many others defended the title as many times as Galindez did or won it that many times? Galindez is top ten all times in the LH division, at least.

Ever see Mancini vs Ramirez? Brutal ass whipping.

If you think galindez is in the running for a top 25 light heavy, I just can't help you.

One particular loss in a 102 fight career means Ramirez shouldn't be in? Ever seen Mancini-Chacon? Douglas-Tyson? Liston-Petterson 1 and 2? Foreman-Norton? those were total whippings except for round eight of Douglas-Tyson,and the recipients are all in the hall of fame...

Fact check, buddy...

As far as for Galindez, I guess your hate for the guy is blinding you since now you just dont call him top ten but not even top 25? Please, give me a break.

What in the world are you talking about? Hate? You're the only human being on earth that thinks galindez could be the greatest Lt heavy of all time. As for Ramirez, I never said whether he belonged or not, he just couldn't win a round against Mancini who you questioned his place. No worries, you're obviously very biased and misinformed. Have a nice night imbecile.

[AntonioMartin]

Ever see Mancini vs Ramirez? Brutal ass whipping.

If you think galindez is in the running for a top 25 light heavy, I just can't help you.

One particular loss in a 102 fight career means Ramirez shouldn't be in? Ever seen Mancini-Chacon? Douglas-Tyson? Liston-Petterson 1 and 2? Foreman-Norton? those were total whippings except for round eight of Douglas-Tyson,and the recipients are all in the hall of fame...

Fact check, buddy...

As far as for Galindez, I guess your hate for the guy is blinding you since now you just dont call him top ten but not even top 25? Please, give me a break.

What in the world are you talking about? Hate? You're the only human being on earth that thinks galindez could be the greatest Lt heavy of all time. As for Ramirez, I never said whether he belonged or not, he just couldn't win a round against Mancini who you questioned his place. No worries, you're obviously very biased and misinformed. Have a nice night imbecile.

I got you angry....you must really feel your opinion is inferior if you have to turn to insults to defend it. I guess you cannot defend it with any more reasonable argument and you know it.

I never said I think Galindez is the greatest Light Heavyweight..I said he is on the running, but so was Donald Trump and he didn't win. Saying they are on the running is different from saying they won.

So Ramirez couldnt win a round against Mancini....does that make any difference about their career as far as being hall of fame worthy? You must think because Rubyn Carter trounced Emile Griffith, Griffith should be out!

Rest my case...

[Onetimeonly]

Angry? Not at all, I just mistook you for someone who had a clue. Carry on.

[AntonioMartin]

Angry? Not at all, I just mistook you for someone who had a clue. Carry on.

Sure..it shows when you are insulting me that you are not angry...

And, for having a clue I mention many more fights and champions than you do.

Like I said, people only turn to insults when they know they can't correctly defend their point of view any longer. So, just waive the white flag will ya?

[AntonioMartin]

A couple I forgot who should also be in my ballot, perhaps even top 5 one of them, Roy Jones Jr and Bernard Hopkins!

[Bujia]

Not sure what you are getting at; Spinks won the hw title as well.
Anyway, I rank Spinks as the best light heavyweight of all time. Really, what more could he have done? He beat the best of the division when the division was very strong.

Charles and Moore, maybe a could of other guys are close and it's certainly debatable.

Charles beat the best of the division when it was at arguably the strongest point in its history. Spinks beat a few leftovers from the previous era (probably the second strongest) early in his career and then reigned over a decidedly weaker incoming crop.

Don’t get me wrong. I do think he was superior to the top guys from that era. I also think he was fortunate not to have come around 5 years earlier.

[oogiebe]

Not sure what you are getting at; Spinks won the hw title as well.
Anyway, I rank Spinks as the best light heavyweight of all time. Really, what more could he have done? He beat the best of the division when the division was very strong.

Charles and Moore, maybe a could of other guys are close and it's certainly debatable.

Charles beat the best of the division when it was at arguably the strongest point in its history. Spinks beat a few leftovers from the previous era (probably the second strongest) early in his career and then reigned over a decidedly weaker incoming crop.

Don’t get me wrong. I do think he was superior to the top guys from that era. I also think he was fortunate not to have come around 5 years earlier.

Yeah, Spinks was no doubt a great fighter, but at LHW, he had maybe three wins vs very good fighters not past their primes. He gets more credit as a LHW champ for becoming HW champ IMHO.

[Tuan_Jim]

Not sure what you are getting at; Spinks won the hw title as well.
Anyway, I rank Spinks as the best light heavyweight of all time. Really, what more could he have done? He beat the best of the division when the division was very strong.

Charles and Moore, maybe a could of other guys are close and it's certainly debatable.

Charles beat the best of the division when it was at arguably the strongest point in its history. Spinks beat a few leftovers from the previous era (probably the second strongest) early in his career and then reigned over a decidedly weaker incoming crop.

Don’t get me wrong. I do think he was superior to the top guys from that era. I also think he was fortunate not to have come around 5 years earlier.

How were Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Dwight Muhammad Qawi leftovers?

[Wee Tommy]

A couple I forgot who should also be in my ballot, perhaps even top 5 one of them, Roy Jones Jr and Bernard Hopkins!

No.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not sure what you are getting at; Spinks won the hw title as well.
Anyway, I rank Spinks as the best light heavyweight of all time. Really, what more could he have done? He beat the best of the division when the division was very strong.

Charles and Moore, maybe a could of other guys are close and it's certainly debatable.

Charles beat the best of the division when it was at arguably the strongest point in its history. Spinks beat a few leftovers from the previous era (probably the second strongest) early in his career and then reigned over a decidedly weaker incoming crop.

Don’t get me wrong. I do think he was superior to the top guys from that era. I also think he was fortunate not to have come around 5 years earlier.

How were Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Dwight Muhammad Qawi leftovers?

I don't know where the comment that "he was fortunate not to have come around five years earlier" is coming from. huh?

Mustafa Muhammad and Qawi were great fighters and Spinks beat them both. Both were in their prime. they weren't "leftovers from a previous era".

Spinks also beat Marvin Johnson who was very good/borderline great. Spinks also beat very good light heavyweights Murray Sutherland (2x) and Yaqui Lopez.
It was the 2nd best era for light heavyweights and Spinks dominated it.

[Bujia]

Charles beat the best of the division when it was at arguably the strongest point in its history. Spinks beat a few leftovers from the previous era (probably the second strongest) early in his career and then reigned over a decidedly weaker incoming crop.

Don’t get me wrong. I do think he was superior to the top guys from that era. I also think he was fortunate not to have come around 5 years earlier.

How were Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Dwight Muhammad Qawi leftovers?

I don't know where the comment that "he was fortunate not to have come around five years earlier" is coming from. huh?

Mustafa Muhammad and Qawi were great fighters and Spinks beat them both. Both were in their prime. they weren't "leftovers from a previous era".

Spinks also beat Marvin Johnson who was very good/borderline great. Spinks also beat very good light heavyweights Murray Sutherland (2x) and Yaqui Lopez.
It was the 2nd best era for light heavyweights and Spinks dominated it.

There’s the second golden age of Lt. Heavies (Mustafa, Saad, Galindez, Conteh, Johnson, Lopez, etc.) and afterwards there was the Spinks era (Spinks, Qawi).

The golden age were all on their way down or out when Spinks was coming up. Qawi shared the same fortune as Spinks. I’d consider him the other great Lt. Heavy of Spinks’ era, and he didn’t even last long at the weight.

Mustafa was kind of in between the two eras.
He had 2 more Lt. Heavyweight fights in his career after Spinks. Only one of them was a solid win over Mwale. Otherwise he couldn’t make the weight. In fact the very fight before Spinks was a Heavyweight bout against Renaldo Snipes where he weighed in at over 200 pounds. He had to lose 26 pounds over the course of the next two months to make weight for Spinks.

That highly publicized struggle to make weight was the primary catalyst for the sport of boxing as a whole to begin making the gradual shift from same day weigh-ins to 24 hour. That’s how badly weight drained he was.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are really splitting hairs here.
I remember these fighters well I always thought of it as the same era. Obviously you can call something anything that you want, but Spinks was a contemporary of these guys.

Marvin Johnson was just 27 years old when Spinks beat him.
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad was just 29. Yes you can use the old weight drain excuse; I just don't buy it.
Qawi was 30 and didn't have a lot of fights.

There was little sign of any them slowing up. Mustapha and Qawi still held major titles when Spinks beat them. Nobody was saying that they were past it going into the their fights with Spinks.

Galindez was older than these guys but not by much. He had won the title in 1974 and still had it 1978 when Spinks was becoming a contender. He fought Johnson and Mustapha. It's not a stretch to say he was not a contemporary of Spinks.

Fighter's careers can overlap. There is sometimes periods of time where the younger guy has about reached his prime and the older guys is till pretty close to it. The bottom line is that Mustapha, Qawi, and Johnson were not considered past it at all going into the fight and Spinks beat them.

[BoxBuzz]

And don't forget the man that beat Archie 3 times. Ezzard Charles.

No...I have government clearance to eliminate him from the discussion, since he vied for and attained the HW title.

Now...to be fair, in a world where there are less rules and regulations, we could have that argument. However under the guidelines of a more "hands on" type of governmental control....we must follow the rules. mask on, six feet back, No Ezzard Charles LHW discussions.

You can't fight city hall!

Well....at LHW we could sanction Archie or Michael for a City Hall fight....but not Ezz. One must stay in their lane.

Michael Spinks vied for and attained the Heavyweight Title.

So I guess he's eliminated too huh?

Well I knew that. But I didnt' think you or Alp did. So I tried to slip one past you. Besides, we can always use one more arbitrary rule or regulation right? So just go along with me on this one, and I'll return the favor sometime in the future.

[chrisjs1985]

Very possibly in the top 5. I think Charles, Moore, Tunney, and Greb would likely be my top four, and then he may be the best of the rest.

[Crease]

For me, I have Mike in my top five Light Heavyweights.

When I think of the very best of that weight class... The top table always includes (in no order); Gene Tunney, Floyd Patterson, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Mike himself.

(I know people see Floyd as a HW, but i suspect that his best weight may well have been Light Heavy. I think he boxes the head's off most)

Then just below that the second table of five is the likes of Harry Greb, Bob Foster, Billy Conn - maybe Sam Lanford, depending on what weight you've got him at...

[Wee Tommy]

Charles
Moore
Tunney
Greb
Spinks

[Ambling Alp II]

Those 5 are good picks. Wish we had more evidence to which of Langford's fights he was a light heavyweight.
Interestingly enough, only two of the 6 were ever the light heavyweight champion of the world.
Bob Foster is often called overrated now. I don't get it it. His competition wasn't awesome but it was awful either. He has to be pretty close.

[Wee Tommy]

Those 5 are good picks. Wish we had more evidence to which of Langford's fights he was a light heavyweight.
Interestingly enough, only two of the 6 were ever the light heavyweight champion of the world.
Bob Foster is often called overrated now. I don't get it it. His competition wasn't awesome but it was awful either. He has to be pretty close.

The best of the rest are all incredible fighters. Lt Heavy is a killer division. Langford is difficult to rate to a division.