BoxRec

No way in hell Spinks beats Evander at HW. Holyfield is way too strong for him. Just watch the way he drives little Iron Mike around the ring like a blocking sled in the 1st fight. Spinks was not that mobile that he could avoid getting hit all night either. Holyfield inside of 5 tops, probably earlier.

Seamus wrote:No way in hell Spinks beats Evander at HW. Holyfield is way too strong for him. Just watch the way he drives little Iron Mike around the ring like a blocking sled in the 1st fight. Spinks was not that mobile that he could avoid getting hit all night either. Holyfield inside of 5 tops, probably earlier.

How about at cruiserweight? An old Qawi pushed the cruiser version of Holyfield around pretty good in their first fight, but a younger Qawi could not get much done against the awkward Spinks at light heavy.

I stand on it FIRM. Spinks was like the chris byrd of the 80's very slick
& was hard to hit & punched from angles. Styles makes fights & he would've
outpointed & frustrated evander to a unaminous decision.

Anybody that doesn't agree 'really' doesn't know boxing. Like the argument
that argument that evander owns mike & would've beaten him in his
prime. Hell no.

Mike only had 3 tuneup fights for Holy coming off a 4yr layoff. Holy was
active the whole time while Mike was locked up & grew as a fighter with
those bowe clashes. Forget about what the sport books said.

There is no way Mike could've defeated Holy coming off a 4yr layoff. Does
anybody understand what I'm saying? Yes mike still hit hard & was
ripped but his killer instinct was left in prison. He was more of a
boxing attraction than a fighter.

Ya'll think Micheal Jordan could comeback & win a championship
inactive for four seasons?? No way!

Holyfield was old, and injured, and managed to win 4 rounds against Chris Byrd... Not sure how Chris' style would bother a 28 year old Holyfield?

Tyson never beat a great fighter anywhere near their prime or natural weight. When ever Tyson lost 2 rounds back-to-back he lost the fight. He is mentally and emotionally brittle, and obviously always was.

damien590 wrote: Anybody that doesn't agree 'really' doesn't know boxing.

Well, sh*t, that makes for a good conversation. "If you don't agree with me, you don't know boxing." Not that I necessarily disagree with anything you said in particular, but to take this type of attitude kills any civilized exchange, in my opinion.

ShoeShine wrote:

npalboxing wrote:Spinks was scared going into the fight. It's common knowledge that if you have even the slightest skill and can stand up to Mike Tyson, you have a chance of beating him.

I have read that Spinks was scared, I find that hard to belive though, Spinks was a true professional, been fighting his whole life fought the best fighters in his era Qawi and Holmes just to name a couple that didnt scare him..I dont get it.

Spinks actually said of the Tyson fight: "Fear was knocking on my door, big time".

Thats why Spinks stood and traded. He WAS scared.

Thats nothing to be ashamed of.

You could say the same about Marciano.

Ezzard wrote:Tyson never beat a great fighter anywhere near their prime or natural weight.

So the issue isn't "people standing up to Tyson" the issue is "fighters with the skills to defeat him."

Name one fighter with the skills to beat Tyson but didn't because he was afraid of Tyson or "didn't stand up to him."

And basically all you're doing is describing why Tyson was great and those fighters you mentioned aren't.

dempseyfire wrote:

Mistachill wrote:It!

Tucker stoop up to him. Thomas stoop up to him. Williams stood up to him. Ruddock stoop up to him. Berbick stood up to him. Bruno stoop up to him. Rabalta (sp?.) stood up to him between the 55 times he got knocked down. And they all lost convincingly or got knocked out.

.

I agree, but those guys didn't have the skills to match their pride. Ruddock didn't throw a jab, all Thomas had WAS the jab, Bruno was slow and had a bad chin, Tucker fought with a broken hand and never showed the will of a true contender . . .Williams was stopped prematurely . . .to a fan of Tyson these seem like excuses but come on we know they are true.

Well, Bonecrusher was definitely doing that.

But just because you're trying to win a decision doesn't mean you're not trying to win. I don't think Buster Douglas entered the ring that night looking for a KO. But when the opportunity presented itself he went for it.

Ruddock definitely wasn't just trying to survive. Tucker was trying to win by decision. Williams wasn't fighting to survive in the 90+ seconds he was upright. Berbick didn't back down trying to go the distance. If Thomas was trying to just survive he definitely had the ability to dance around and avoid getting hit, but the beating he took in that fight showed he was trying to win.

I really think a lot of people used that Spinks fight and applied that circumstance to all of Tyson's other opponents, which isn't accurate.

walshb wrote:Good post Mistachill...I see where you are coming from, but I still think those guys were more concerned with going the distance, than actually beating Mike. Bonecrusher to me didn't really try and when he did, Tyson looked bemused and at times silly. They stood up to him, but did NOT challenge him or stamp their authority on him...they were basically there to survive.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i disagree damien, IMO the joe louis that knocked out max schmelling in there second fight would have knocked out miek tyson. louis was unstoppable that night, he was fighting for his country. he even fractured schmellings back with one punch!!!!

thats a good piont,
lois was incredible in that fight, i dont think schmelling even thew a punch!

Mistachill wrote:You could say the same about Marciano.

Ezzard wrote:Tyson never beat a great fighter anywhere near their prime or natural weight.

Maybe you could but nobody is making grandiose claims for Rocky on this thread, so what is your point?

Before we go proclaiming Michael Spinks to even be a good HW, let's quickly examine his 4-1 (2Ko's) record. First he beats an aging Larry Holmes in a close decision, then in the rematch Old Larry clearly get's robbed of the victory. Next he KO's the less than lethal Steffen Tangstad, and then stops a ring rusty unmotivated Gerry Cooney. In some peoples minds that actually gave Spinks the confidence he'd need to beat Tyson, but realistically speaking the mere fact that Spinks went into the ring looking like a condemned prisoner was a pretty good indication that Spinks new in his heart that those wins were meaningless.

And as for Spinks being hard to hit. Are you really serious ??? Spinks is one of the all time greats at LHW, and he had a great chin at that weight. But guess how we know that ?

And finally please spare me this "If you don't see my point you don't know boxing angle" Guys who have won world titles or trained world title holders disagree all the time.

Holyfield v Spinks at Cruiserweight would have been an interesting fight. Obviously Evander wouldn't have the tremendous strength advantage he'd have at HW, still with the way he dominated the division, I'd pick him by probably 9 rounds to 6.

As for Holyfield's 1st fight with Qawi. I wouldn't say he exactly manhandled Evander. It was Holyfield's 12th fight, and still on my scorecard he was the clear winner. And of course he destroyed Qawi (who I rate highly) in the rematch.

Seamus wrote:Before we go proclaiming Michael Spinks to even be a good HW, let's quickly examine his 4-1 (2Ko's) record. First he beats an aging Larry Holmes in a close decision, then in the rematch Old Larry clearly get's robbed of the victory. Next he KO's the less than lethal Steffen Tangstad, and then stops a ring rusty unmotivated Gerry Cooney. In some peoples minds that actually gave Spinks the confidence he'd need to beat Tyson, but realistically speaking the mere fact that Spinks went into the ring looking like a condemned prisoner was a pretty good indication that Spinks new in his heart that those wins were meaningless.

And as for Spinks being hard to hit. Are you really serious ??? Spinks is one of the all time greats at LHW, and he had a great chin at that weight. But guess how we know that ?

And finally please spare me this "If you don't see my point you don't know boxing angle" Guys who have won world titles or trained world title holders disagree all the time.

Holyfield v Spinks at Cruiserweight would have been an interesting fight. Obviously Evander wouldn't have the tremendous strength advantage he'd have at HW, still with the way he dominated the division, I'd pick him by probably 9 rounds to 6.

As for Holyfield's 1st fight with Qawi. I wouldn't say he exactly manhandled Evander. It was Holyfield's 12th fight, and still on my scorecard he was the clear winner. And of course he destroyed Qawi (who I rate highly) in the rematch.

Totally agree. I consider Spinks the best LH of the past 25 years and top 5 all-time but he never seemed like a HW in any of his fights. He beat Holmes in a great display for such a smaller man, but Larry had lost his mobility. It was a great achievement by Spinks but he was never going to be around at HW for too long.

Tyson got his linear champion approval but I don't think the fight really proved too much.

damien590 wrote:get ready for this ya'll. spinks would've beaten holyfield easily if they
ever met. spinks was a complete well rounded fighter & resembled
a larger version of Mayweather Jr.

He was just scared of Mike that's all. If it wasn't for Tyson he'd rule the
heavyweights back then because of his slick style. Very slick & Holyfield
would've had hell to even land a decent punch on spinks.

I disagree. Holyfield's always been tough as nails. He could box when he really wanted to but seemed to enjoy mixing up up like Gatti does.
He'd beat Michael Spinks every time.

Mistachill wrote:You could say the same about Marciano.

Ezzard wrote:Tyson never beat a great fighter anywhere near their prime or natural weight.

mistichall, marciano beat walcott and moore in there primes. walcott was a top 15 heavy and moore was top 3 light-H of all time. GO AHEAD CHECK THE FACTS, walcott and moore were very much in there primes, despite there ages. and even archie himself said marciano fight was one of his best fights. i could give u a billion facts backing up my statement but ive said enough.

also charles fought one of his best fights at heavy in the first marciano fight. charles was 32, marciano almost 31.

In the first Marciano-Charles fight, Charles was said to have been in the best shape of his career, and fought possibly his best fight as a heavyweight.
Nat Fleischer who sat ringside during the marciano-charles fight, said afterwards "that no fighter in the world could've lasted those 15 rounds against Charles, much less beat him"


-just had to clear that up


- tyson best fighter he beat was spinks. but all the other top contendes and former champs he beat were still in there primes and were good fighters.

I refuse to accept that Walcott was in his prime when Maricano fought him. Because he struggled with Walcott before knocking him out reveals more about Marciano than it validates Walcott being in his prime.

Name one historically significant heavyweight Archie Moore ever defeated.

As far as checking the facts, Charles fought Marciano in 1954. From 1953 - 1955, Charles' record was 13-9. He may have got in the best shape of his life for that fight, but I find it hard to say he was still in his prime. Basically the equivilent to saying Holyfield is still in his prime.

But we've had this debate before.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Mistachill wrote:You could say the same about Marciano.

Ezzard wrote:Tyson never beat a great fighter anywhere near their prime or natural weight.

mistichall, marciano beat walcott and moore in there primes. walcott was a top 15 heavy and moore was top 3 light-H of all time. GO AHEAD CHECK THE FACTS, walcott and moore were very much in there primes, despite there ages. and even archie himself said marciano fight was one of his best fights. i could give u a billion facts backing up my statement but ive said enough.

also charles fought one of his best fights at heavy in the first marciano fight. charles was 32, marciano almost 31.

In the first Marciano-Charles fight, Charles was said to have been in the best shape of his career, and fought possibly his best fight as a heavyweight.
Nat Fleischer who sat ringside during the marciano-charles fight, said afterwards "that no fighter in the world could've lasted those 15 rounds against Charles, much less beat him"


-just had to clear that up


- tyson best fighter he beat was spinks. but all the other top contendes and former champs he beat were still in there primes and were good fighters.

The point is if you really look through the history of heavyweight champs, other than Ali, hardly any of the fighters considered all-time greats have an extensive list of great heavyweights on their resume who they defeated. Just go through the list.

But we play the "who have they defeated" card whenever its convenient (and I include myself in this as well, I'm no different).

And if people want to credit Marciano with defeating a 42 year old great light heavyweight, then it isn't fair to discredit Tyson for defeating an all-time great light heavyweight in his early 30s.

Ezzard wrote:

Mistachill wrote:You could say the same about Marciano.

Ezzard wrote:Tyson never beat a great fighter anywhere near their prime or natural weight.

Maybe you could but nobody is making grandiose claims for Rocky on this thread, so what is your point?

Mistachill wrote:The point is if you really look through the history of heavyweight champs, other than Ali, hardly any of the fighters considered all-time greats have an extensive list of great heavyweights on their resume who they defeated. Just go through the list.

But we play the "who have they defeated" card whenever its convenient (and I include myself in this as well, I'm no different).

And if people want to credit Marciano with defeating a 42 year old great light heavyweight, then it isn't fair to discredit Tyson for defeating an all-time great light heavyweight in his early 30s.

Ezzard wrote:

Mistachill wrote:You could say the same about Marciano.

Maybe you could but nobody is making grandiose claims for Rocky on this thread, so what is your point?

I get your point in terms of the "who have they defeated" card but you brought Rocky up, not me. For a lot of fighters the main problem is that their careers don't overlap with other greats, or if they do the others are not in their prime.

I'm not discrediting Tyson for KOing Spinks but I am saying that it isn't such a significant victory when you consider the size disparity between contemporary HWs and LHs.

let me start by asking was a 36 year old norton in his prime when he fought holmes???? answer: yes

so how come walcott isnt???



Jersey Joe Walcott was a 38 year old veteran who had knocked down Joe Louis three times, beaten the highly regarded Ezzard Charles and was, of course, the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Walcott was not over the hill - infact far from it, he was close to his peak. He had boxed for many years in obscurity, and after getting his shot at Louis, he finally came alive. He was a dangerous boxer who didn't learn new moves - he invented them. Rocky was being outpointed over thirteen rounds, although being blinded for three of those, only to score a devastating and brutal knockout to win the title.



Jersey Joe Walcott, though 38 years old, was in excellent shape and by all accounts of the time was considered a late-bloomer, a fighter with a late prime, such as Lennox Lewis is showing. he was coming off the two best wins of his career with a knockout win and decision over a prime ezzard charles.

"Walcott had the legs of a twenty-year-old," Silverman said. "He was having the best fight of his career."


The Ring issue said, "It wasn't so much old age that beat Jersey Joe. It wasn't a decrepit old man who faced the Brockton Block Buster. Walcott put up one of the best fights of his long career, a most remarkable one."




as for archie moore, only thing i can tell you mistachill is he was a freak of nature. only one man was still in his prime at 40, archie moore.

Archie "The Ol' Mongoose" Moore was one of the best light heavyweights ever, and was beating all the heavyweights around - except Marciano. Moore was a veteran and a great all round fighter, a craftsman who knew all the tricks of the trade. Although old, like Walcott he was still very dangerous and considered near or at his best, some even think his defensive performance against Marciano was his best in history. Coming back from an early flash knockdown, Marciano came back to batter Moore throughout the seventh, eighth and ninth rounds, leaving the courageous "Ancient Archie" literally unable to stand after being counted out. moore was coming off the best wins of his career and had loads of confidence in the marciano bout. afterward, archie said "marciano fight was one of the best fights of my career." moore before facing marciano was 45-1 in his last 46 fights!!!!!!!!! and afterward he went on to dominate light-H for 5 years and still be a top contender at heavyweight.



if u watched moore and walcott, the way they moved and fought in the marciano fight, u would know they both were fighting one the best fights of there careers.



archie moore beat many top good heavyweight contenders, and he knocked out many heavyweights over 6' and over 220lbs.

mistachill wrote

As far as checking the facts, Charles fought Marciano in 1954. From 1953 - 1955, Charles' record was 13-9. He may have got in the best shape of his life for that fight, but I find it hard to say he was still in his prime. Basically the equivilent to saying Holyfield is still in his prime.

charles was not in his prime, but not far from it in that first fight. in that first fight he fought one of his best fights at heavyweight and was still a very dangerous contender. i could flip it the other way around and say charles was 11-2 in his last 13 fights before facing rocky with 5 wins over top contenders. u were simply counting the losses after the rocky fights.


and u have to rememver one thing, after those marciano fights charles was NEVER the same again. marciano completely ruined charles. charles should have retired after those losses. if u look at a history of marcianos opponents u will find fighters after facing rocky were never the same again, besides moore. rockys style broke down opponents mentally and physically.






- mike tyson faced solid ocmpetetion in the 80s. he knocked out a prime spinks, beat top heavyweight contenders and former champions in his prime, how much better can you get???

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:let me start by asking was a 36 year old norton in his prime when he fought holmes???? answer: yes

C'mon BB, do you really think that Norton was "in his prime" at 36? Within 14 months after this fight Norton was blitzed by Shavers in 1 round and then held to a draw by Scott LeDoux!!!! And LeDoux bounced him around in the last round of that fight. Nortonn was still a very good fighter when he fought Holmes, but was clearly on the slide.

u cant critizize tysons competetion in the 80s. i could make a strong case tyson fought as good competetion as holmes in the 80s. tyson fought a lot of former champs, and some guys that gave holmes trouble and tyson dismantled them easily.

how could u critize tysons competetion if 7 of the 9 title fights were against champions?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:u cant critizize tysons competetion in the 80s. i could make a strong case tyson fought as good competetion as holmes in the 80s. tyson fought a lot of former champs, and some guys that gave holmes trouble and tyson dismantled them easily.

how could u critize tysons competetion if 7 of the 9 title fights were against champions?

Correction -- they were "title holders". I don't think any of the guys Tyson beat were really champions. Of course, I agree that he did beat a pretty good group of HW's. What I wouldn't give to have a prime Pinky fighting now...