Michael Spinks

[KOJOE90]

Hell, Tyson did not have his first amateur bout until 1980, or 1981.

Below is a link to part of Tyson's amateur record. I have his complete amateur record somewhere and he and Spinks never fought as an amateur!


http://www.geocities.com/pedrinet/tyson.html

I agree Spinks vs Tyson with the vests on is just silly talk..

[Ambling Alp]

Michael Spinks seemed to be a nice person.
He was a good fighter also,but I just wouldn't put him up with the greats.
There didn't seem to be a strong Light Heavy Weight division.
He beat an aging Larry Homes and when presented with a solid Heavyweight in Mike Tyson it went pear shaped.
Michael Spinks had an offbeat likeable style,but the Tyson defeat both quelled his legacy and fuelled a serious up an comer.

are you mad? he made 10 defenses in the toughest ever light heavy division (ok, a very very tough one at least). Look at the men he beat: Qawi, Mustafa, Marv Johnson, Yaqui Lopez. Add to that he beat Holmes (one deserved win, one dubious) and thrashed Cooney. Spinks was a skinny light heavy and skinny light heavies get cut in two by stocky powerful heavyweights (see Bob Foster vs Frazier).

I agree totally with you, Spinks fought in arguably the best era ever for lightheavyweights. As mentioned Qawi, Mustafa, Johnson were all very good, and Lopez was a very tough contender as well. He also beat Murray Sutherland twice.
Someone mentioned that he never fought Galindez, but you have to remember that Galindez was already dead by the time Spinks was at the top! It's imagine him losing to Galindez anyway.
Spinks went undefeated as a lightheavyweight in a very strong era for the division. You can make a very strong case that he is the the #1 lightheavyweight of all time.

As a heavyweight, he is hard to judge. First of all, he only had 5 fights in this weight class. He certainly can't be considered one of the all time great heavyweights. He was destroyed by Tyson. How much credit should he get for beating a fading Holmes twice and destroying Cooney? He seemed to look good but not great against Holmes, though he looked a little better against a rusty Cooney. Spinks was probably one of the top 40 heavyweights ever.

However, as a lightheavyweight, it unbelievable that some people have doubts whether he was alltime great or not. Often people don't list him in their top 5 or even top 10 heavyweights ever. He went undefeated in a tremendous era. What more could he have done?

[barry]

For me, the late 1920s and 1930s light heavyweight division was the best the class has seen as far as multiple talents.

There were guys like Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Slattery, Maxie Rosenbloom, Al Gainer, John Henry Lewis, Billy Conn, George Courtney, Harry Ebbets, Leo Lomski, Billy Jones, Tiger Jack Fox, Tiger Jack Payne, Rosy Rosales, Len Harvey, Tommy Farr, Jock McAvoy, Joe Knight, Fred Lenhart, Bob Olin, Ace Hudkins, Adolf Heuser, Bob Godwin, Tiger Warrington, Mickey Walker and Lou Scozza too name several. Then there were also several very successful heavyweights that could have easily fought at 175 and often did. Young Stribling, Max Schmeling, King Levinsky, Red Burman, Al Ettore, Jim Braddock and several others.

The late 1970s and 1980s was a very solid bunch of really good fighters, but I think the 20s/30s bunch were just as good a bunch, probably better considering that all of the top light heavyweights of that era also fought and beat many of the top heavyweights of they’re era as well as the light heavyweights, which cannot really be said of the 70s/80s bunch other than a couple of the fighters.

[bollox]

M Spinks retired too late. He was never going to win the Tyson fight and even he knew it. Can't blame him for taking the $$ on offer but at the same time by going to HW he took himself out of his prime

[KOJOE90]

Spinks to my mind was one of the greatest Light-Heavyweights ever, he may not have always been very pleasing to the eye with his 'herky-jerky' style but was very effective and dominated his division when it was packed with many tough, skilled fighters.

As a Heavyweight he was far less effective, two 'wins' over a old Larry Holmes, stoppage wins over European level Steffen Tangstad and a ring rusty and drink and drugs ravaged Cooney and then the Tyson loss shows he was competative at the higher weight but in no way a great Heavyweight.

[barry]

Spinks was one of the true great light heavyweights. He handled a number of very, very good light heavyweights pretty easily.

[Ezzard]

Michael Spinks seemed to be a nice person.
He was a good fighter also,but I just wouldn't put him up with the greats.
There didn't seem to be a strong Light Heavy Weight division.
He beat an aging Larry Homes and when presented with a solid Heavyweight in Mike Tyson it went pear shaped.
Michael Spinks had an offbeat likeable style,but the Tyson defeat both quelled his legacy and fuelled a serious up an comer.

are you mad? he made 10 defenses in the toughest ever light heavy division (ok, a very very tough one at least). Look at the men he beat: Qawi, Mustafa, Marv Johnson, Yaqui Lopez. Add to that he beat Holmes (one deserved win, one dubious) and thrashed Cooney. Spinks was a skinny light heavy and skinny light heavies get cut in two by stocky powerful heavyweights (see Bob Foster vs Frazier).

I agree totally with you, Spinks fought in arguably the best era ever for lightheavyweights. As mentioned Qawi, Mustafa, Johnson were all very good, and Lopez was a very tough contender as well. He also beat Murray Sutherland twice.
Someone mentioned that he never fought Galindez, but you have to remember that Galindez was already dead by the time Spinks was at the top! It's imagine him losing to Galindez anyway.
Spinks went undefeated as a lightheavyweight in a very strong era for the division. You can make a very strong case that he is the the #1 lightheavyweight of all time.

As a heavyweight, he is hard to judge. First of all, he only had 5 fights in this weight class. He certainly can't be considered one of the all time great heavyweights. He was destroyed by Tyson. How much credit should he get for beating a fading Holmes twice and destroying Cooney? He seemed to look good but not great against Holmes, though he looked a little better against a rusty Cooney. Spinks was probably one of the top 40 heavyweights ever.

However, as a lightheavyweight, it unbelievable that some people have doubts whether he was alltime great or not. Often people don't list him in their top 5 or even top 10 heavyweights ever. He went undefeated in a tremendous era. What more could he have done?

I agree that Spinks was a great fighter. He is one of the greatest ever LHs. He is top 5 for me. In terms of his career at HW it was a great achievement to beat even an old Holmes. He was never really in with a shout against Tyson.

[wouter]

That was part of their fight's promo I still remember it...When the ref lift Spinks hand...And in the fight they were talking that Spinks won fights with one hand and that he would won just using his jab...I still remember that fight when Tyson was a killing machine...

Gino may be talking about the Carl Williams v. Tyson sparring session

[dr_devious]

I think Michael Spinks was a great Light Heavy, but not a great Heavyweight. A fight with Holyfield would have been interesting though. I think the big heavyweights were too big for him, as Tyson proved, if hed carried on into the 90s guys like Bowe and Lewis would have knocked him out

[Ezzard]

Spinks at HW relied on his mobility. he was able to beat an old Holmes becasue he could move so much quicker than Larry. Against Tyson he was facing a much bigger man who was also extremely mobile. Once Spinks' knee went he was never going to be able to do too much at HW.

[KOJOE90]

That was part of their fight's promo I still remember it...When the ref lift Spinks hand...And in the fight they were talking that Spinks won fights with one hand and that he would won just using his jab...I still remember that fight when Tyson was a killing machine...

Gino may be talking about the Carl Williams v. Tyson sparring session

You may well be right there Wouter.