Spinks v Moore.

Irishlad69 · Post by **Irishlad69** » 29 Oct 2003, 16:36

I saw this one done recently in ring magazine, and it had spinks winning a decision. I personally think archie would be able to win provided he applies enough pressure the sometimes lazy spinks, and his chin survives michael's looping right hand. Spinks was an awkward, strong-willed warrior though, and his jab may be able to keep archie from weaving inside and firing those fabled intricate hooks of his. Spinks also had superior one-punch power, speed, and may have had a better chin than archie, but if moore can keep spinks busy while going downstairs and working the body, i believe he can grind michael down.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Oct 2003, 17:19

Spinks was an excellent champion but Moore was so crafty and powerful I can see him wearing Spinks down like you said. One of Spinks most difficult defences was with Oscar Rivander (I may have spelt the name slightly wrong) who came in and pressured Spinks constantly and shook Spinks a couple of times. Archie would provide intense intelligent pressure against Spinks, and Micheral wouldn't find Archie an easy target either. The Moore I'm thinking of is the early 50s Moore, Id pick Spinks to beat the Moore of the late 50s.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 29 Oct 2003, 17:57

Spinks and Moore were not dissimilar in that they dominated their division for years and never lost their titles in the ring. But Moore fought by far the better opposition and, if he can wear down and kayo a hard-hitting technician like Harold Johnson, then I can see him doing likewise to Michael. It's quite interesting that Silkov mentions Oscar Rivadeneyra, the Peruvian who Spinks stopped in 10 rounds in 1983. Michael admitted afterwards that Oscar had really hurt him to the body and that is certainly an area the cagey Moore would have targetted. Remember, Archie was not only cute, but a phenomenal puncher. A record 145 knockouts speaks for itself.
Spinks could really bang with that right hand himself, and his left uppercut was also a danger shot (think of the punch that finished Marvin Johnson). But Moore, while vulnerable to someone as great as Ezzard Charles, was one of those fighters who found the key to victory in most other fights. He would have done the same against Spinks.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 30 Oct 2003, 07:18

Moore to stop Spinks in rounds 13-15, with Spinks ahead on points, in an interesting if not great fight.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 30 Oct 2003, 12:53

Archie Moore was OLD by the time he fought Marciano & Patterson in '55 & '56. I take Spinks against the OLD Archie (over 40 against Marciano & Patterson). However, the late 1940's/very early 1950's Moore should win...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 30 Oct 2003, 16:23

Harold Johnson would have given Spinks a hell of a fight....he'd probably have beaten Spinks at his (Johnsons) best, on points, .....this is not to put Spinks in a lesser light, but Johnson was a great champion in his own right but happened to come along when Archie was around. In nearly any other era Johnson would have been a dominant champion.
Not only was he a brilliant boxer but he had a good dig on him too.
Unfortunately Johnson is often overlooked these days.