BoxRec

GI, I enjoy your posts, but you're just way off here. Your interpretation of Spinks and the Tyson bout is in the minority, and like nothing that was reported in The Ring, Boxing Illustrated (which also covered all the major newspaper accounts and viewpoints from championship fighters), the letters pages, Boxing Monthly, Boxing News, the HBO team calling the fight including Sugar Ray Leonard, and the major Tyson books from Berger, Heller, Torres et al.

Spinks scared, yes, many did they that. Taking a dive/quitting, no, never seen that.

I don't believe he was scared either, as he had the same nervy look about him at the Olympics, coming to fight Mustafa Muhammad and Qawi, Holmes and Cooney, but I can see why people believe that. But taking a dive? Michael Spinks? Ridiculous.

Depends what you mean by dive.

If he’d decided he was going down before the fight then he wouldn’t have been too scared. He’d have known what was coming, resigned himself to it and be looking for a cosy place to fall.

I do think he went into that fight not believing in himself. And sort of just stood square on to wing punches as if to say let’s get it over with.

I still don’t believe he was a fraud. I never gave him a chance of winning. I think Bonecrusher Smith would have beaten Spinks.

loaded_gloves wrote:GI, I enjoy your posts, but you're just way off here. Your interpretation of Spinks and the Tyson bout is in the minority, and like nothing that was reported in The Ring, Boxing Illustrated (which also covered all the major newspaper accounts and viewpoints from championship fighters), the letters pages, Boxing Monthly, Boxing News, the HBO team calling the fight including Sugar Ray Leonard, and the major Tyson books from Berger, Heller, Torres et al.

Spinks scared, yes, many did they that. Taking a dive/quitting, no, never seen that.

I don't believe he was scared either, as he had the same nervy look about him at the Olympics, coming to fight Mustafa Muhammad and Qawi, Holmes and Cooney, but I can see why people believe that. But taking a dive? Michael Spinks? Ridiculous.

If thats so, explain the lucid terror in his eyes after the second knockdown.

You obviously have a lot of respect for Spinks. Is it possible you find the idea he'd lay down offensive?

bollox wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

bollox wrote: Fear, what fear? He didn't know what planet he was on after the right hand. Watched the fight again just earlier and it looked exactly like it did 20+ years ago funnily enough. Get your eyes tested immediately

He took a beating Bruce Seldon or Cliff Etienne would be proud to call their own.

Let me know what strength glasses the doc prescibes

I have a prescription you may be interested in...



How many bottles can I sign you up for? :)

dempseyfire wrote:

mugabi wrote: I think Spinks is an alltime great who did "beat" in an aged 85/86Holmes a fighter who would have wiped the floor with every active heavyweight alive

The 85 Holmes would've "wiped the floor" with every other HW besides Spinks? He'd just needed a judges's gift to beat Truth Williams in the fight preceding Spinks!!

I'm not a huge fan of the Klitschkos, but I do differ with Goodnight on this one. IMO Vitali is clearly the better fighter to his brother. He can look clumsy, but he's an excellent judge of distance, throws lots of punches, has good defensive senses when combined with his height make him hard to tag clean. Most importantly he stays cool under heavy fire and fires right back. The guy has been excelling in combat sports on the world stage for just about 20 years. He knows how to fight.
Wlad was born with the better athletic talent and the bigger punch but his response to getting hit/stunned is so amateurish, I see even a peak Trevor Berbick mowing him down (Berbick was a HELLUVA lot better than frikkin' Chisora, Brewster or Sam Peter).

I'd make Vitali a firm favorite over Spinks and Cooney.

I can't disagree with you in any way on your assesment of Vitali or Wlad pretty spot on.

However I think the fact Holmes struggled with Williams (got a gift decision) and lost to a blown up LH like Spinks....has more to do with his lack of motivation and arrogance he had developed during 85 which showed in his lazy training and dietary habits of the time. I still feel he beat Spinks in the rematch......I think give him a superfight like a mooted one with the Soviet champion in a Klitchko for big bucks with the world captivated, and he would prepare properly and do well. I also feel despite his chin problems Carl Williams was far far more talented than any active heavyweight today even in 1985 when he was slightly raw.
There is no active HW who has Williams athleticism,boxing brain, speed of hand and foot or jab, and I dont see one in the ring today who has Weavers power ration p4p or Tysons speed and power.Sure these days he would be fighting hulking 250-260lbers but I dont feel the brothers aside those fat bums would land with regularity on Carl in a ten round fight.

loaded_gloves wrote:GI, I enjoy your posts, but you're just way off here. Your interpretation of Spinks and the Tyson bout is in the minority, and like nothing that was reported in The Ring, Boxing Illustrated (which also covered all the major newspaper accounts and viewpoints from championship fighters), the letters pages, Boxing Monthly, Boxing News, the HBO team calling the fight including Sugar Ray Leonard, and the major Tyson books from Berger, Heller, Torres et al.

Spinks scared, yes, many did they that. Taking a dive/quitting, no, never seen that.

I don't believe he was scared either, as he had the same nervy look about him at the Olympics, coming to fight Mustafa Muhammad and Qawi, Holmes and Cooney, but I can see why people believe that. But taking a dive? Michael Spinks? Ridiculous.

U have a point on this which i stand corrected on. Someone uploaded (finally) the Steffan Tangstad fight from 86 which was about as easy a defence Spinks could have mustered, and yet at the prefight he does have the same sweaty, glazed look of pure tension in that fight.But once the bell rang he didnt fight intimidated.

The Tyson fight man, he runs and throws pitty patty half hearted shots almost like he's afraid to upset the man. I dont beleive he dived for one second as Spinks was a upstanding a fellow who ever stepped in the ring, but I do beleive despite being unbeaten for over 12 years he practically froze and laid down so as not to be dismembered.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

bollox wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: He took a beating Bruce Seldon or Cliff Etienne would be proud to call their own.

Let me know what strength glasses the doc prescibes

I have a prescription you may be interested in...



How many bottles can I sign you up for? :)

You're bonkers. Bro

I saw Cooney fight Norton and the others. I liked Cooney as a person, but he had a brittle psyche. Wlad would put up a good fight for a few rounds, but Cooney would knock him out. Vitali is another proposition entirely. He's much tougher than his brother, and in his prime would have bullied Cooney and stopped him in 10 or 11, maybe even earlier.

Funny how, over time, people's opinion of certain boxers change. I distinctly remember all the moaning and groaning about how terrible the heavyweights of the 1980s were compared to the super-boxers of the 1960s and 70s.

Cap

mugabi wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

mugabi wrote: I think Spinks is an alltime great who did "beat" in an aged 85/86Holmes a fighter who would have wiped the floor with every active heavyweight alive

The 85 Holmes would've "wiped the floor" with every other HW besides Spinks? He'd just needed a judges's gift to beat Truth Williams in the fight preceding Spinks!!

I'm not a huge fan of the Klitschkos, but I do differ with Goodnight on this one. IMO Vitali is clearly the better fighter to his brother. He can look clumsy, but he's an excellent judge of distance, throws lots of punches, has good defensive senses when combined with his height make him hard to tag clean. Most importantly he stays cool under heavy fire and fires right back. The guy has been excelling in combat sports on the world stage for just about 20 years. He knows how to fight.
Wlad was born with the better athletic talent and the bigger punch but his response to getting hit/stunned is so amateurish, I see even a peak Trevor Berbick mowing him down (Berbick was a HELLUVA lot better than frikkin' Chisora, Brewster or Sam Peter).

I'd make Vitali a firm favorite over Spinks and Cooney.

I can't disagree with you in any way on your assesment of Vitali or Wlad pretty spot on.

However I think the fact Holmes struggled with Williams (got a gift decision) and lost to a blown up LH like Spinks....has more to do with his lack of motivation and arrogance he had developed during 85 which showed in his lazy training and dietary habits of the time. I still feel he beat Spinks in the rematch......I think give him a superfight like a mooted one with the Soviet champion in a Klitchko for big bucks with the world captivated, and he would prepare properly and do well. I also feel despite his chin problems Carl Williams was far far more talented than any active heavyweight today even in 1985 when he was slightly raw.
There is no active HW who has Williams athleticism,boxing brain, speed of hand and foot or jab, and I dont see one in the ring today who has Weavers power ration p4p or Tysons speed and power.Sure these days he would be fighting hulking 250-260lbers but I dont feel the brothers aside those fat bums would land with regularity on Carl in a ten round fight.

I was reading your comment to mean that the 85 Holmes would've beaten any other HW in 1985, not now.
I concur Truth Williams would beat any HW now besides the K brothers, as his glass chin would fail him in that match (the (few) other guys who can punch in the division are too sloppy to land the big one on Williams).
As for 85 Holmes vs the K brothers . . interesting matchups. Holmes didn't have the stamina, movement, or activity at that stage of his career as he had in his youth. At the same time, Holmes's jab would've busted up the brittle faces of the Klitschkos pretty quickly (look at what Kevin Johnson's few jabs landed did to Vitali's face). Pretty even matchup I think.

Why would Carl Williams "glass chin" fail him against the Klitschko brothers?

The K brothers couldn't knock down or out fragile men like Corrie Sanders, Shannon Briggs, and David Haye.

Williams athleticism, speed, variety and incredibly long jab would be a nightmare - particularly given how only a few jabs seem to bust up both their faces. Also, Williams has been hit with huge shots and got up, recovered fast and gone on to win more than once. Some guys get hurt and go down and they are done...

Yesterday I watched Williams V Weaver. It was a long way down to the canvas from 6'5 for Williams

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Loaded

Mike Spinks was never a top heavyweight. He had a great game plan to beat a portly Holmes. A man with a spare tyre around his middle. He then picked Cooney because he hadn’t been in a ring for quiet some time.

It was a great achievement by Spinks. One my faves from the 1980s. But I doubt Spinks would beat David Haye let alone Vitali/Wlad.

Mike was a better fighter, a much better fighter, but not a better heavy.

Either was Vitali Klitschko.

You mean "neither".

bollox wrote:Yesterday I watched Williams V Weaver. It was a long way down to the canvas from 6'5 for Williams

Not sure what your angle is here. Neither Klit brother packs a punch like Mike Weaver, that's for sure. In fact, no one in the heavyweight division seems to be a deadly Weaver-style hitter.

Where did all the big hitters go? All we have is methodical robots. So depressing.

No angle, just a reminder of how big a hitter Weaver was, and Williams susceptibility to big hitters

Vitali at his size you'd think would be a thumper but he's not. Infact his punching technique is a bit average. I reckon HW's in general reached their optimum size at about 6'4 and 230 pounds ahnd that was a while ago. Their abilities seem to have become inversely proportionate to their growing size

Vitali controls the action with a lot of arm punches. Keeping his man at bay. But he throws quite a lot, slowly busting up his opponent. He also has a grade A chin to fall back on.

loaded_gloves wrote:Why would Carl Williams "glass chin" fail him against the Klitschko brothers?

The K brothers couldn't knock down or out fragile men like Corrie Sanders, Shannon Briggs, and David Haye.

Williams athleticism, speed, variety and incredibly long jab would be a nightmare - particularly given how only a few jabs seem to bust up both their faces. Also, Williams has been hit with huge shots and got up, recovered fast and gone on to win more than once. Some guys get hurt and go down and they are done...

Williams "got up and won" vs the likes of Tillis and Ferguson. Sorry the Klitschkos are much more formidable than them. Sanders did end up getting stopped by Vitali, Briggs might as well have been stopped as he received one of the worst beatings I've ever seen. Williams was athletic but I don't see him playing defense for 12 rounds like Haye did. His chin was truly fragile and he's going to take too many right hands from either of them . . even an old Holmes almost knocked him out. Carl's lone chance vs Vitali would be a cut's stoppage. Maybe he could KO Wlad . .that would be a more interesting matchup. But I still see his openness to right hands doing him in before he has time to get anything going.

dempseyfire wrote:Williams "got up and won" vs the likes of Tillis and Ferguson. Sorry the Klitschkos are much more formidable than them.

Yeah, and Wladimir went down and lost vs the likes of Sanders (38, fat, semi-retired) and Brewster (loser to Shufford). Williams went down against Tillis and Ferguson, two guys who Tyson has many times attested could really hit, and certainly were not arm punchers like the big musclebound Klitschko brothers. The fact he got up to win tells me he is not going to get knocked down or out by a pair of arm punchers.

Seriously, watch how hard Tillis decks Williams. Wladimir would be looking at an LKO1 or 2 in that state.

Williams was born 20 years too early.

If you really think Wlad Klitschko is an "arm" puncher well I just don't know what else I can say. Wlad's straight right hand and check hook are true knockout punches, although I guess the likes of Mercer must not know anything when he ranked Wladimir as the second hardest hitter he ever faced below Lennox. And to suggest Jesse frikkin' Ferguson had a harder puncher is laughable.
Rare is it that I'm a Klitschko defender, but this idea that they are just mediorce fighters and that a glass-jawed, defensively porous fighter like Williams would beat them is just living in lala land. Williams would go down HARD from the first right hand Wlad lands, and he will land.
Williams didn't use the jab consistently, had poor defense, wasn't a good finisher, not a skilled counter-puncher. He caught a lethargic, old Holmes and lost a poor decision, but the fact that he NEVER beat another top 10 fighter after that counts for something.

This is what I don't get.

Nobody is saying they are the second coming of Joe Louis. But they are good figthers. They haven't ducked anyone. They are dedicated. They are a credit to the sport.

Lose to Larry Holmes? Sure. Fine argument.

Cooney more skillful? Lose to Williams? Bruno? Bey? Snipes?

I just don't see it.

I see Cooney as a player if he were time warped to today's game. However I just dont' seem him as a sure bet win over the K's. I imagine it could be competitive. He just never seemed to get the job done when it mattered. Regardless of the various "reasons" for his coming up short. He seemed to be too comfortabel in the role of "also ran".

Ah come on! It took bangers like Weaver and Tyson to take out The Truth in quick time. Big hitters like Morrison and Bruno couldn't blow out a shopworn, past it Williams, yet the K brothers, who don't lay out anyone, whose opponents routinely go 10, 11, 12 rds on their feet despite being grossly overweight, who can last the course despite being historically fragile like Shannon Briggs and David Haye, are going to "put Williams down HARD from the first punch"?

That simply does not compute.

I'd love to see that Mercer quote btw. Where is it please? Not saying he didn't say it, he was totally shot when the fight took place, but I've seen many Mercer interviews and can happily provide links to him blaming the loss on weight lifting and being underprepared (as opposed to being 42).

Wlad has knocked out 50 opponents. He doesn't get dramatic early KOs b/c of his cautious style, and vs the likes of Ibragimov and Haye he was content to win close rounds via the jab. That doesn't mean he can't punch. I've seen the guy fight live. I've talked to several sparring partners. The guy hits like a mack truck. To deny that is simply that .. living in denial.

Would he stop Williams early? Probably not. I never said that. He would likely GO DOWN early like the normally iron-chinned Chagaev did, and then get stopped later. In any case, Williams NEVER beat a top 10 fighter, he went down vs the likes of Cooper, a past-it Tillis, and Jesse Ferguson. Got annihiliated by Weaver and Bruno. Alex Stewart lasted longer vs Tyson than the Truth did.

The Klitschkos are beatable but Williams doesn't have the style or durability to do it.

dempseyfire wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Why would Carl Williams "glass chin" fail him against the Klitschko brothers?

The K brothers couldn't knock down or out fragile men like Corrie Sanders, Shannon Briggs, and David Haye.

Williams athleticism, speed, variety and incredibly long jab would be a nightmare - particularly given how only a few jabs seem to bust up both their faces. Also, Williams has been hit with huge shots and got up, recovered fast and gone on to win more than once. Some guys get hurt and go down and they are done...

Williams "got up and won" vs the likes of Tillis and Ferguson. Sorry the Klitschkos are much more formidable than them. Sanders did end up getting stopped by Vitali, Briggs might as well have been stopped as he received one of the worst beatings I've ever seen. Williams was athletic but I don't see him playing defense for 12 rounds like Haye did. His chin was truly fragile and he's going to take too many right hands from either of them . . even an old Holmes almost knocked him out. Carl's lone chance vs Vitali would be a cut's stoppage. Maybe he could KO Wlad . .that would be a more interesting matchup. But I still see his openness to right hands doing him in before he has time to get anything going.

Williams also got floored twice and got up to floor Tommy Morrison in a shoot out, and its my opinion thatTommy Morrison was as formidable and more flamboyant a puncher on his day than either of the Klitckhkos. Otherwise I agree with much of what u say. Haye caused Wlad a lot of problems and it wasnt quite the one sided beatdown are friends in British and Irish, like to make out as most of them lost money betting on the match and are bitter.Williams was far far more talented and quicker than Haye. He would get in and out much better. He perhaps perhaps didnt have the dig that Haye had but overall a far better prospect. I see him outpointing Wladimir and possibly cutting and stopping Vitali.

People here are forgetting that it simply isnt the nature of the brothers Klicthko to force the action they like to cook their meat slow, real slow and only bite into it when it is well tenderised and softened up. Are the brothers anywhere in the league of a Tyson or Weaver as punchers or aggressors?......well despite Wlads record Id have to say no given the era and personnel the record was mustered against.........so its inconceivable to me on thought that they stop Carl with one punch.I can see them flooring Carl but people forget Carl mixed it up well with Tommy Morrison who was a big man and faster than the brothers

Carl also had problems with shorter powerpunchers....in this one the threat is from above or more or less a level plain.....I think on reflection a good chance Carl outboxes both

dempseyfire wrote:Wlad has knocked out 50 opponents. He doesn't get dramatic early KOs b/c of his cautious style, and vs the likes of Ibragimov and Haye he was content to win close rounds via the jab. That doesn't mean he can't punch. I've seen the guy fight live. I've talked to several sparring partners. The guy hits like a mack truck. To deny that is simply that .. living in denial.

Would he stop Williams early? Probably not. I never said that. He would likely GO DOWN early like the normally iron-chinned Chagaev did, and then get stopped later. In any case, Williams NEVER beat a top 10 fighter, he went down vs the likes of Cooper, a past-it Tillis, and Jesse Ferguson. Got annihiliated by Weaver and Bruno. Alex Stewart lasted longer vs Tyson than the Truth did.The Klitschkos are beatable but Williams doesn't have the style or durability to do it.

I think Carl has a style the Klitschkos havent really ever faced and its one that would beat them if the guy conducting it was Larry Holmes or say even the fading Ali of 1976...the Williams of his 1988 pomp doesnt have the greatest chin but it isnt as bad as memory sometimes tells us....Tyson and Weaver were whoah Nellie punchers of their division in the 80s.
Yes Williams went down but he beat Tillis, Cooper and Ferguson....the Williams who lost to Bruno was a shot 33 year old ruined by his war with Tommy Morrison a few months ealier where he got up from two knockdowns to floor heavily Morrison. Stewart may have lasted longer than Williams against Tyson but Stewart was beaten down three times, wheras Williams fell victim to one punch (which he got up from) and one of the most controversial stoppages of the decade.

To conclude Williams did beat Top Ten contenders.....he beat Trevor Berbick in the summer of 1988 and altho he lost the narrowest of split decisions he was the consensus winner against Tim Witherspoon in 1991...the Cooper win was over a guy 16-1 and in the HW top ten of some governing bodies, Ferguson was undefeated, and past it he almost beat a prime Tommy Morrison

Both K bros beat Cooney imo, but I would be more excited about him as an opponent than pretty much any of the others bar Lewis.