BoxRec

Not on the same night, of course.

What happens in these two match ups?

15 rounds, everyone at their best.

Too much Smoke for either Spinks ... although Michael's awkwardness probably means he'd survive a little longer than Neon Leon.
Joe KOs Leon in 3 and Mike in 7.

writehooks wrote:Too much Smoke for either Spinks ... although Michael's awkwardness probably means he'd survive a little longer than Neon Leon.
Joe KOs Leon in 3 and Mike in 7.

That's about right.

Agreed...although Michael clearly a colossal talent in his own right and may well have given a good account of himself.

I've always been a bit fed-up that Michael is the guy even fairly knowledgable sports fan just label/remember as the guy Tyson flattened; folk get a bit surprised when you tell them Mike Larry Holmes twice and was one of the best light heavyweights of all-time.

yancey wrote:Not on the same night, of course.

What happens in these two match ups?

15 rounds, everyone at their best.

Just had a orrible image in my head!

Frazier would be 2 strong for both Spink's brother's He would have KO'D Leon in 3 brutal round's and walk down little brother Michael
and stop him in 2 one-sided round's

As good as Michael was, Joe would have him out of there in 3 rounds, too much for Michael to overcome. Leon is a warrior, Joe would find that out real quick, and this fight wound last longer than expected. Joe would drop Leon late, stop him in 12 to 13 rounds.

Nile4000 wrote:As good as Michael was, Joe would have him out of there in 3 rounds, too much for Michael to overcome. Leon is a warrior, Joe would find that out real quick, and this fight wound last longer than expected. Joe would drop Leon late, stop him in 12 to 13 rounds.

Why would Joe have a harder time with Leon in your estimation? I'm not sure I understand your take on this.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:As good as Michael was, Joe would have him out of there in 3 rounds, too much for Michael to overcome. Leon is a warrior, Joe would find that out real quick, and this fight wound last longer than expected. Joe would drop Leon late, stop him in 12 to 13 rounds.

Why would Joe have a harder time with Leon in your estimation? I'm not sure I understand your take on this.

I think Leon would be amped up for this fight. He had a brand of physicality that Michael lacks. If he approaches this like Ali I, Joe going to have hell in his hand, and then some.

Leon would get outpointed by Frazier over 15 rounds.. I'm talking about the Leon who beat Ali.. LS was fast, but too available to be hit and too green.

Michael was too big, tall, strong, with a solid physique -- and too good a boxer for Smokin' Joe... He beats Frazier up and knocks him out... Michael fought so intelligently and with such a high skill level it's hard to imagine he was related to Leon... Forget the Tyson fight. Michael's knees were history and he cashed out.. Michael came into the ring against Tyson with both knees bundled up tight..

What happens is boxers do squats with a barbell on their shoulders... and they'll skip rope on a wooden floor and do double and triple spins as they jump into the air... and some run on pavement instead of grass, a track, or a cross country running trail.. and they do other things that stress their knees.. You compensate with the other leg and pretty soon your other knee has problems.. When your knees reach a certain point you're done for good.

At their best Joe KOs Leon in 3. Leon's best had to have been the first fight with Ali, and Ali was a shell of himself by then.

Joe vs Michael would have been a good fight. Michael would make him miss some and Joe may get buckled a bit by the Spinks Jinx, but Joe by late round stoppage. I think Joe-Leon is an easy fight for JF and an easy one to predict, Michael is a tougher call.

Kalan wrote:Leon would get outpointed by Frazier over 15 rounds.. I'm talking about the Leon who beat Ali.. LS was fast, but too available to be hit and too green.

Michael was too big, tall, strong, with a solid physique -- and too good a boxer for Smokin' Joe... He beats Frazier up and knocks him out... Michael fought so intelligently and with such a high skill level it's hard to imagine he was related to Leon... Forget the Tyson fight. Michael's knees were history and he cashed out.. Michael came into the ring against Tyson with both knees bundled up tight..

What happens is boxers do squats with a barbell on their shoulders... and they'll skip rope on a wooden floor and do double and triple spins as they jump into the air... and some run on pavement instead of grass, a track, or a cross country running trail.. and they do other things that stress their knees.. You compensate with the other leg and pretty soon your other knee has problems.. When your knees reach a certain point you're done for good.

Really?

Tomasino wrote:

Kalan wrote:Leon would get outpointed by Frazier over 15 rounds.. I'm talking about the Leon who beat Ali.. LS was fast, but too available to be hit and too green.

Michael was too big, tall, strong, with a solid physique -- and too good a boxer for Smokin' Joe... He beats Frazier up and knocks him out... Michael fought so intelligently and with such a high skill level it's hard to imagine he was related to Leon... Forget the Tyson fight. Michael's knees were history and he cashed out.. Michael came into the ring against Tyson with both knees bundled up tight..

What happens is boxers do squats with a barbell on their shoulders... and they'll skip rope on a wooden floor and do double and triple spins as they jump into the air... and some run on pavement instead of grass, a track, or a cross country running trail.. and they do other things that stress their knees.. You compensate with the other leg and pretty soon your other knee has problems.. When your knees reach a certain point you're done for good.

Really?

The discrepancy between Joe's performance in real time over Bob Foster, and his hypothetical likely loss to Spinks (in Kalan's estimation,) is something people should keep in mind when assessing Kalan's yardstick for measurement in these cases.

I find it to be interesting, as it is unintuitive, and random. I find myself in agreement with Kalan about 40% of the time....and I have yet to figure out what his common denominator method of assessment really is.

Although he does give high points for height.....and weight...... but not in all cases. He often times values good footwork, and in ALL cases he likes the "undefeated" boxer. Except with Marciano.
I have to imagine he might have favored Lamar Clark going in against Ali in the day.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Kalan wrote:Leon would get outpointed by Frazier over 15 rounds.. I'm talking about the Leon who beat Ali.. LS was fast, but too available to be hit and too green.

Michael was too big, tall, strong, with a solid physique -- and too good a boxer for Smokin' Joe... He beats Frazier up and knocks him out... Michael fought so intelligently and with such a high skill level it's hard to imagine he was related to Leon... Forget the Tyson fight. Michael's knees were history and he cashed out.. Michael came into the ring against Tyson with both knees bundled up tight..

What happens is boxers do squats with a barbell on their shoulders... and they'll skip rope on a wooden floor and do double and triple spins as they jump into the air... and some run on pavement instead of grass, a track, or a cross country running trail.. and they do other things that stress their knees.. You compensate with the other leg and pretty soon your other knee has problems.. When your knees reach a certain point you're done for good.

Really?

The discrepancy between Joe's performance in real time over Bob Foster, and his hypothetical likely loss to Spinks (in Kalan's estimation,) is something people should keep in mind when assessing Kalan's yardstick for measurement in these cases.

I find it to be interesting, as it is unintuitive, and random. I find myself in agreement with Kalan about 40% of the time....and I have yet to figure out what his common denominator method of assessment really is.

Although he does give high points for height.....and weight...... but not in all cases. He often times values good footwork, and in ALL cases he likes the "undefeated" boxer. Except with Marciano.
I have to imagine he might have favored Lamar Clark going in against Ali in the day.

Kalan is an interesting case. He knows his history and comes up with excellent analysis quite often but then ruins it with bizarre opinions on Too Tall Jones, Ali, and Wilt.

Frazier beats both these guys. Can't see them going 15 rounds but for Michael it'd depend how much he was on his bike whether he got stopped or went the distance

Kalan wrote:Leon would get outpointed by Frazier over 15 rounds.. I'm talking about the Leon who beat Ali.. LS was fast, but too available to be hit and too green.

Michael was too big, tall, strong, with a solid physique -- and too good a boxer for Smokin' Joe... He beats Frazier up and knocks him out... Michael fought so intelligently and with such a high skill level it's hard to imagine he was related to Leon... Forget the Tyson fight. Michael's knees were history and he cashed out.. Michael came into the ring against Tyson with both knees bundled up tight..

What happens is boxers do squats with a barbell on their shoulders... and they'll skip rope on a wooden floor and do double and triple spins as they jump into the air... and some run on pavement instead of grass, a track, or a cross country running trail.. and they do other things that stress their knees.. You compensate with the other leg and pretty soon your other knee has problems.. When your knees reach a certain point you're done for good.

Kalan is obviously a student of the game and knows a lot, but when it comes to giving his opinion on these matters he has an ingrained weakness... to go against the grain

Most people say Frazier... kalan goes spinks

Most people say Hearns... kalan goes Mayweather

I see this trait in some people, it's a way of sounding even more knowledgable than you actually are, like "how can these guys miss these points" then will go controversial but to his credit be quite detailed on why he's made his pick.

Frazier is the obvious pick here. The guy was a beast around the time he beat Ali. A wrecking ball

Then the Hearns thread. Hearns beating Mayweather is just about the best stylistic matchup you can get in mythical historical boxing matches, but guess who our guy kalan picks

He is not really a student of the game at all.
He is just someone that likes to irk people. This Forum is about Boxing History. Obviously people here are interested in the history of the sport. If you go back and read his threads you will see that he always says the more modern fighter is better. He always picks the more modern fighter in a fantasy fight.

He cherry picks things like weight, (which usually favors more modern heavyweights), and win/loss records (which almost always favor top modern fighters because they aren't tested nearly as much as fighters previous eras were).

Just about all of the "information" that he brings is simply in the Boxrec records. Occasionally he will throw in a made up quote.

He knows less about the history of the sport than just about anyone on here.

As for this thread, I go with Frazier against both Spinks brothers. I think Michael would have been more competitive.

The only way that I see either Spinks beating Frazier is if Leon had met Frazier in late 1981 during Joe's abbreviated comeback in which he fought to a draw with Jumbo Cummings. At that time I could see Leon winning a decision or via TKO later on in the fight.
At their very bests Joe meets Leon head on & gets him out of there in five to seven rounds tops.
As for the Michael that beat Holmes & Cooney vs prime Frazier, I see it being similar to Frazier's stoppage of Jimmy Ellis.

15 rounds, everyone at their best were the guidelines set by yancey.

In that case

Joe Frazier stops Leon somewhere between Round 6 and Round 10.

Joe Frazier stops Michael somewhere between Round 4 and Round 7.

Ambling Alp II wrote:He is not really a student of the game at all.
He is just someone that likes to irk people. This Forum is about Boxing History. Obviously people here are interested in the history of the sport. If you go back and read his threads you will see that he always says the more modern fighter is better. He always picks the more modern fighter in a fantasy fight.

He cherry picks things like weight, (which usually favors more modern heavyweights), and win/loss records (which almost always favor top modern fighters because they aren't tested nearly as much as fighters previous eras were).

Just about all of the "information" that he brings is simply in the Boxrec records. Occasionally he will throw in a made up quote.

He knows less about the history of the sport than just about anyone on here.

As for this thread, I go with Frazier against both Spinks brothers. I think Michael would have been more competitive.

Agree, the poster aka Kalan is a moron. He just tries to act like he's not. The made up quotes are hilarious but for the wrong reasons.

I didnt' give my opinion on this thread up to this moment. But I think it's time I did.

I'm going to say it clearly, and my opinion is not stated to shock or provoke anyone....and I'm not being humorous, I'm completely and literally very serious.

Both Spinks brothers would defeat Joe. 10 out of 10 times. I believe it wholeheartedly and with high confidence.

And I'm surprised that no one else but me has made this call.

So we simply will have to agree to disagree on this one. I also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable.

BoxBuzz wrote:I didnt' give my opinion on this thread up to this moment. But I think it's time I did.

I'm going to say it clearly, and my opinion is not stated to shock or provoke anyone....and I'm not being humorous, I'm completely and literally very serious.

Both Spinks brothers would defeat Joe. 10 out of 10 times. I believe it wholeheartedly and with high confidence.

And I'm surprised that no one else but me has made this call.

So we simply will have to agree to disagree on this one. I also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable.

While I can agree to disagree, I'm not sure if what you say is agreeable. I can agree though that you agreed to be agreeable in your disagreement. Which all things considered I find pretty agreeable...even if I disagree.

that's confusing...

to be clear I'm talking on any given day......

since nights were initially excluded

I see Boxbuzz/kalan is not going away. What a shame for the grand old BOTP forum. It had a good run.

BoxBuzz wrote:I didnt' give my opinion on this thread up to this moment. But I think it's time I did.

I'm going to say it clearly, and my opinion is not stated to shock or provoke anyone....and I'm not being humorous, I'm completely and literally very serious.

Both Spinks brothers would defeat Joe. 10 out of 10 times. I believe it wholeheartedly and with high confidence.

And I'm surprised that no one else but me has made this call.

So we simply will have to agree to disagree on this one. I also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Have you ever watched Leon vs LeDoux, Righetti, and Eddie "The Animal" Lopez? That was his prime. It's not pretty. He wasn't very good. Ali was a sick man by 1978.