BoxRec

I could not find this hypothetical on the search.....and I thought it worthy.

I'd take Terrible Tim....I don't think Spinks could pull the Jinx on him.

What's your take?

Witherspoon was a difficult and awkward fighter to figure out and avoided when possible. Spinks reportedly had difficulty with either Greg Page or Tony Tubbs in sparring at one point, and wasn't terribly well suited for the heavyweight division. Although I would never write it off as a given, I would favor Terrible Tim to batter spinks to a referee stoppage or decision. Of course, if he showed up half motivated, Michael could just as easily eek out a decision himself. But Tim was a good man to keep Michael away from.

Against a world class operator, you need to be at your absolute best to win. Witherspoon was very rarely that. I think Spinks is far too clever to be caught by that wild right Tim used to throw. Spinks by wide points decision.

bump....I'd really like some feedback on this one.

Could not find it ever discussed before in the history of the BOTP.

I picked against one of my personal favorite fighters, and I don't feel good about it.

So..I'm Sort of hopin for someone to give me a good reason to change my mind.

They don't come any more awkward than Spinks, and he definitely operates on a higher level at higher levels, meaning Spinks did better against better opposition than the inconsistent Witherspoon did.

I think Spinks is busier and smarter. He probably wins.

DaveK wrote:They don't come any more awkward than Spinks, and he definitely operates on a higher level at higher levels, meaning Spinks did better against better opposition than the inconsistent Witherspoon did.

At heavyweight? Not really. A fifteen fight Witherspoon did arguably just as good against a younger version of Holmes as Spinks did versus an older one and with far more professional fights behind him. Steffen Tangstad and a faded semi-retired Cooney were certainly not as good as fresh renditions of Tony Tubbs, Greg Page or Frank Bruno. I'm pretty sure Tim Witherspoon is someone who Butch Lewis wanted no part of for his man.....

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

DaveK wrote:They don't come any more awkward than Spinks, and he definitely operates on a higher level at higher levels, meaning Spinks did better against better opposition than the inconsistent Witherspoon did.

At heavyweight? Not really. A fifteen fight Witherspoon did arguably just as good against a younger version of Holmes as Spinks did versus an older one and with far more professional fights behind him. Steffen Tangstad and a faded semi-retired Cooney were certainly not as good as fresh renditions of Tony Tubbs, Greg Page or Frank Bruno. I'm pretty sure Tim Witherspoon is someone who Butch Lewis wanted no part of for his man.....

Rose tinted specs. Michael Spinks beats Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas and Everett Martin.

Spinks only lost to a hall of famer.

Spinks relinquished his IBF title when he was ordered to defend against Tucker. I think it's safe to say that he would have done the same thing if Spoon happened to be No1 contender at the time.
For what it's worth, I think Tim would win this fight, but there are Witherspoon performances that could be used to argue convincingly for Spinks.
Big fan of both guys, fuckk it

witherspoon wrote:Spinks relinquished his IBF title when he was ordered to defend against Tucker. I think it's safe to say that he would have done the same thing if Spoon happened to be No1 contender at the time.
For what it's worth, I think Tim would win this fight, but there are Witherspoon performances that could be used to argue convincingly for Spinks.
Big fan of both guys, fuckk it

Rose tinted specs. Michael Spinks beats Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas and Everett Martin.

How does this refute my response to that other guy's comment about Spinks consistently beating better opposition than Witherspoon? BTW, Did Spinks ever actually fight Thomas, Smith or Martin?

Spinks only lost to a hall of famer.

In 91 seconds. And was gifted a win in the Holmes rematch against a 36 year old man whom Spoon gave just as much hell to when he ( Larry Holmes ) was younger. Spinks was an all time great light heavy and deserves props for moving up in weight to capture the heavyweight crown. But I don't think he was ideally suited for that weight class and was never really forced to prove otherwise. Now, had he beaten Larry Holmes the second time around without the help of the judges and proceded to defend against worthy challengers Like, Tucker, Douglas, Tubbs, etc, THEN I can see a reasonable argument for why he should be heavily favored to beat Witherspoon..

DaveK wrote:They don't come any more awkward than Spinks, and he definitely operates on a higher level at higher levels, meaning Spinks did better against better opposition than the inconsistent Witherspoon did.

I think Spinks is busier and smarter. He probably wins.

Yup agree

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
In 91 seconds. And was gifted a win in the Holmes rematch against a 36 year old man whom Spoon gave just as much hell to when he ( Larry Holmes ) was younger. Spinks was an all time great light heavy and deserves props for moving up in weight to capture the heavyweight crown. But I don't think he was ideally suited for that weight class and was never really forced to prove otherwise. Now, had he beaten Larry Holmes the second time around without the help of the judges and proceded to defend against worthy challengers Like, Tucker, Douglas, Tubbs, etc, THEN I can see a reasonable argument for why he should be heavily favored to beat Witherspoon..

Agree 100%.

Spinks was not going to fight a young, live top 10 opponent at Heavy…and he didn’t.

He was a great fighter and beating even an old Larry was a great win for him but Mike was not a great HW and he knew it. He steered himself towards a cash-out fight…and then cashed out.

Ezzard wrote:Agree 100%.

Spinks was not going to fight a young, live top 10 opponent at Heavy…and he didn’t.

He fought Tyson.

That was the cash-out fight.

He could not risk fighting any of the live contenders. He was an intelligent man and he knew his limits.

Ezzard wrote:That was the cash-out fight.

He could not risk fighting any of the live contenders. He was an intelligent man and he knew his limits.

I agree, but Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then. He was just another fat, unmotivated boxer.

They all were but Spinks still didn’t want to fight them.

He didn’t really want to campaign at Heavy for any length of time. He wanted the biggest pay day he could get and there were many heavies who could have derailed that huge payout.

Ezzard wrote:They all were but Spinks still didn’t want to fight them.

He didn’t really want to campaign at Heavy for any length of time. He wanted the biggest pay day he could get and there were many heavies who could have derailed that huge payout.

I agree, but I don't think Witherspoon would have beaten Spinks.

I agree, but Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then. He was just another fat, unmotivated boxer.

What are you talking about? He was the WBA heavyweight champion for most of 1986 while Spinks was rematching Holmes and fighting Steffen Tangstad.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I agree, but Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then. He was just another fat, unmotivated boxer.

What are you talking about? He was the WBA heavyweight champion for most of 1986 while Spinks was rematching Holmes and fighting Steffen Tangstad.

Before losing in a round to Bonecrusher Smith. I rest my case.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I agree, but Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then. He was just another fat, unmotivated boxer.

What are you talking about? He was the WBA heavyweight champion for most of 1986 while Spinks was rematching Holmes and fighting Steffen Tangstad.

Before losing in a round to Bonecrusher Smith. I rest my case.

The loss to smith at the tail end of 1986, after Spinks had fought Steffen Tangstad instead of a real contender, doesn't explain your comment which was: "Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then." How can a guy being a world champion, not make him a live contender for lineage?

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I agree, but Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then. He was just another fat, unmotivated boxer.

What are you talking about? He was the WBA heavyweight champion for most of 1986 while Spinks was rematching Holmes and fighting Steffen Tangstad.

Before losing in a round to Bonecrusher Smith. I rest my case.

The loss to smith at the tail end of 1986, after Spinks had fought Steffen Tangstad instead of a real contender, doesn't explain your comment which was: "Witherspoon wasn't classed as a live contender back then." How can a guy being a world champion, not make him a live contender for lineage?

It depends which year you look at Witherspoon. Obviously you've chosen before the Smith fight. I was talking about after it.

[/quote]

It depends which year you look at Witherspoon. Obviously you've chosen before the Smith fight. I was talking about after it.[/quote]

Spoon lost to Smith in December of 1986. A few Months later in the spring of 1987, Spinks was stripped of his IBF title for choosing to fight Cooney as an easy payday, rather than fight Tucker. Anyone who knows what was going on could see that he was just staying fresh and unscathed for a meeting with Tyson. But my point is that Witherspoon was probably a top 3 guy in the division for most of the time that Spinks held that title.

Agreed.

Spoon's biggest problem was that he had the skill to win fights even when fat...this didn't help his motivation.

I think there is some truth to that. He had some natural talent, and thought that he usually didn't need to be good shape to win. This one reason why he had so many close fights. He seemed to fight to the level of his competition.

One thing I think worth mentioning about Spinks; a lot of people thought he would lose to Cooney. This was not considered a given going in.

Agree on that. But Cooney was woeful. Nobody was really sure if he was in retirement and he’d fought about 5 rounds in as many years. I’d have backed Cooney of the Holmes fight to beat Spinks.

Still a decent win for Mike.