BoxRec

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 13:43**

Simple enough question really. Spinks was a 7 fight novice beating 6 and drawing the other fight. Only had 32 rounds under his belt but gave The Greatest a great deal of trouble and took his title away. Spinks really hadnt even fought anyone to note in those 7 fights but secured a world title fight and stole the title.

So how did this novice pull it off?

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 14:13**

1) Ali was more "washed up" than we imagined. Ali was a Great Fighter; arguably "The Greatest," but he was never a good old fighter such as Archie Moore or George Foreman. Many great fighters such as Joe Louis were not so great by their mid 30s. Ali was one of those.

2) Spinks was a fairly decent fighter. He, of course, won Olympic Gold as a LH and was a good prospect early on. I'm obviously not breaking any new ground here, but the combination of being overly rushed into a title fight and consistent substance abuse were the reasons he had a very short career as a good fighter.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 17:16**

Tony1244 wrote:1) Ali was more "washed up" than we imagined. Ali was a Great Fighter; arguably "The Greatest," but he was never a good old fighter such as Archie Moore or George Foreman. Many great fighters such as Joe Louis were not so great by their mid 30s. Ali was one of those.

2) Spinks was a fairly decent fighter. He, of course, won Olympic Gold as a LH and was a good prospect early on. I'm obviously not breaking any new ground here, but the combination of being overly rushed into a title fight and consistent substance abuse were the reasons he had a very short career as a good fighter.

Does anyone know Leon Spink's total amateur record?

I imagine he had a lot of amateur bouts.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 17:27**

Tony1244 hits the nail on the head. In addition, Spinks followed a good fight plan mapped out by George Benton and Sam Solomon.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 17:31**

Cutman Scabbers wrote:
Does anyone know Leon Spink's total amateur record?

I imagine he had a lot of amateur bouts.

Amateur Record: 178-7 with 133 knockouts

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 17:38**

mimmy123 wrote:Simple enough question really. Spinks was a 7 fight novice beating 6 and drawing the other fight. Only had 32 rounds under his belt but gave The Greatest a great deal of trouble and took his title away. Spinks really hadnt even fought anyone to note in those 7 fights but secured a world title fight and stole the title.

So how did this novice pull it off?

Because Ali was the most overrated boxer in Fistic History... Ali lacked a body attack... He lacked an inside game... Ali was a flagrant clincher and holder.. Ali pulled straight back from Spinks's punches and got nailed smack in the puss.. Ali was a sitting duck.. and those are just a few of the reasons Ali lost to cherry-picked Leon Spinks... The best Heavyweight in the world at the time was Larry Holmes -- and he would have beaten the living crap out of Ali... Therefore Ali fought Leon Spinks twice and retired, ignoring that fact that Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes won it by beating Norton... Ali never even acknowledged Holmes was Heavyweight Champion until he wanted to fight him.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 18:00**

Blah blah blah Ali overrated blah blah no body arrack blah

Change the record kal and come up with something new

Kalan wrote:
mimmy123 wrote:Simple enough question really. Spinks was a 7 fight novice beating 6 and drawing the other fight. Only had 32 rounds under his belt but gave The Greatest a great deal of trouble and took his title away. Spinks really hadnt even fought anyone to note in those 7 fights but secured a world title fight and stole the title.

So how did this novice pull it off?
Because Ali was the most overrated boxer in Fistic History... Ali lacked a body attack... He lacked an inside game... Ali was a flagrant clincher and holder.. Ali pulled straight back from Spinks's punches and got nailed smack in the puss.. Ali was a sitting duck.. and those are just a few of the reasons Ali lost to cherry-picked Leon Spinks... The best Heavyweight in the world at the time was Larry Holmes -- and he would have beaten the living crap out of Ali... Therefore Ali fought Leon Spinks twice and retired, ignoring that fact that Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes won it by beating Norton... Ali never even acknowledged Holmes was Heavyweight Champion until he wanted to fight him.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 18:00**

cfang wrote:Blah blah blah Ali overrated blah blah no body arrack blah

Change the record kal and come up with something new

Kalan wrote:
mimmy123 wrote:Simple enough question really. Spinks was a 7 fight novice beating 6 and drawing the other fight. Only had 32 rounds under his belt but gave The Greatest a great deal of trouble and took his title away. Spinks really hadnt even fought anyone to note in those 7 fights but secured a world title fight and stole the title.

So how did this novice pull it off?
Because Ali was the most overrated boxer in Fistic History... Ali lacked a body attack... He lacked an inside game... Ali was a flagrant clincher and holder.. Ali pulled straight back from Spinks's punches and got nailed smack in the puss.. Ali was a sitting duck.. and those are just a few of the reasons Ali lost to cherry-picked Leon Spinks... The best Heavyweight in the world at the time was Larry Holmes -- and he would have beaten the living crap out of Ali... Therefore Ali fought Leon Spinks twice and retired, ignoring that fact that Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes won it by beating Norton... Ali never even acknowledged Holmes was Heavyweight Champion until he wanted to fight him.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 19:12**

ken norton was in line for another shot at ali. by losing to spinks there would be a rematch. ali tried to win this time so he beat spinks and then retired.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 19:38**

An old nearly washed up Ali underestimated a still pretty good young Spinks.......and then he took him seriously and beat an even better Spinks. Spinks second fight with Ali was his best effort.

But by this time...Ali was long in the tooth. So it's an interesting discussion for the back porch, but it doesn't add or subtract much from the fact that Ali was a much better fighter than Kalan would like you to believe.....and maybe not quite as good as the most zealot supporters of his would have you believe.

The wars with Frazier and the boutique skills of Norton, and the Foreman affair did sap a bit from this very good, but aging out fighter.

The Spinks, Holmes and Berbick fights are just some asterisks to his genuinely remarkable legacy.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 22:32**

Respectfully, I disagree with you about the second Ali-Spinks fight. There is no doubt that Ali trained harder for the second match, but I think he actually performed better in the first fight. While I find Butch Lewis to be generally repulsive, he said it best: In the rematch, Ali was shot, but Spinks went against him with nothing at all.

From what I've read and what I remember, Spinks partied hard before the first fight, but he worked hard too. Before the second one, he upped the partying and didn't bother much with the training.

Posted: **02 Sep 2016, 23:04**

Well I had the pleasure of rubbing shoulders now and then with the Spinks Bros.....And from my observation, Leon had the focus of a Dog surrounded by Squirrels.

And we do agree....Ali was pretty much past it with both fights.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 00:14**

bwu wrote:Respectfully, I disagree with you about the second Ali-Spinks fight. There is no doubt that Ali trained harder for the second match, but I think he actually performed better in the first fight. While I find Butch Lewis to be generally repulsive, he said it best: In the rematch, Ali was shot, but Spinks went against him with nothing at all.

From what I've read and what I remember, Spinks partied hard before the first fight, but he worked hard too. Before the second one, he upped the partying and didn't bother much with the training.

Spot on my friend.
What little remained of Ali after Manila, Jimmy Young, Norton & Shavers were through with him, was on display in a very gritty, gutsy last gasp against Spinks in the first fight. Even though Ali lost it, he still had one last great fight.
In the rematch, Ali physically looked a lot better & his performance in the ring was much easier on the eye than the first fight's brutal, messy affair. Although Ali was a much prettier fighter in Spinks II, he was also physically weaker, lacked any zip on his punches at all & even looked a bit fragile at times.
Not that Spinks ever came close to landing a damaging punch in the return fight. Which definitely wouldn't have happened had he trained properly for the fight & not spent the previous seven months with his time split between being in traffic/divorce/criminal court or at yet another seemingly endless, non-stop, drug-fueled party.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 05:54**

Kalan wrote:Ali fought Leon Spinks twice and retired, ignoring that fact that Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes won it by beating Norton... Ali never even acknowledged Holmes was Heavyweight Champion until he wanted to fight him.

You must know that Spinks was only stripped of the WBC belt - he remained the WBA and, more importantly, Lineal champion.
Ali had underestimated Spinks in their first encounter and hadn't trained properly either. Leon fought the fight of his life and came away with a split decision win.
Ali trained harder for the rematch, gave young Leon a boxing lesson and became the only 3 time Lineal heavyweight champion of the world.
Ali's former sparring partner, Holmes, was not THE champion he was just a contender.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 10:05**

Controversial wrote:
Cutman Scabbers wrote:
Does anyone know Leon Spink's total amateur record?

I imagine he had a lot of amateur bouts.
Amateur Record: 178-7 with 133 knockouts

Thank you!

Who beat him?

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 10:55**

golden oldie wrote:I think it is fair to say Spinks would have been totally humiliated by the pre exile version of Ali. For some reason or other his critics always use the post exile version of the man to decry him.

Post exile version would have humilated Spinks without breaking sweat too.

By 1978, Ali had neurological damage & that must have affected the way he performed.

Ferdie Pacheco left Team Ali in 1977 citing that the Champ had neurological damage & should not be fighting.

By '78, Ali needed to train like never before just to beat an novice like Spinks, whereas just 4 years earlier, he would have had no trouble with Leon even without training properly.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 11:26**

I don't know. Frazier was pretty well suited as a nemesis for either version. Norton more so just for the post exile version.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 12:58**

Muhammad Ali had just come off one of the most brutal fights of his career(against Earnie Shavers)
and was looking for an easy title defense,hardly trained and wasnt focused at all.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 14:19**

When you lay on the ropes and do very little in the way of counter punching, you can lose to a guy as overmatched as Leon Spinks.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 14:42**

Cutman Scabbers wrote:
Controversial wrote:
Cutman Scabbers wrote:
Does anyone know Leon Spink's total amateur record?

I imagine he had a lot of amateur bouts.
Amateur Record: 178-7 with 133 knockouts

Thank you!

Who beat him?

Not sure, Orestes Pedroza was one (controversial decision by all accounts), maybe others know some of the others

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 14:46**

golden oldie wrote:I think it is fair to say Spinks would have been totally humiliated by the pre exile version of Ali. For some reason or other his critics always use the post exile version of the man to decry him.

Louis was out 4 years for WW2 and came back with no tune-ups ... Vitali Klitschko was out 4 years to rehab his legs and fought Peter with no tune-ups ... Tyson was out 4 years for a bogus rape conviction ... Dempsey took 3 years off to party and tour and then fought Tunney with no tune-ups ... Jeffries was out for 6 years and fought Johnson with no tune-ups ... George Foreman was idle for 10 years ... Holmes was out 5 years ... David Haye took over 3 years off rehabbing his shoulder... But people only seem to bring out the crying towels for Ali, when other Heavyweight Champions were out a lot longer.

Ali was 28 when he came back and was better than ever versus Quarry.. He looked trimmer and sharper in that fight than the Frazier fight.. Haye will be 36 next month and he's bigger and better than ever. He just needs tougher fights and a lot more of them.. Klitschko was better and smarter than ever when he came back at 37... Foreman got smarter. He learned about pace, patience, and business during his years off. He made 10 times as much money as an old timer than he made as a youngster.

Guys like Dempsey, Tyson, and Louis suffered more from taking years off... Their dominating speed and power games were greatly diminished... Fighters who rely more on craft and guile were actually better in many aspects when they came back... Hopkins is 4 years older than Roy Jones but he was a shoo-in to win their rematch.. They both accumulated a lot of craft over the years -- but B-Hop is more of a technician and strategist who observes every move you make and uses the information better.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 15:07**

Im gonna watch both fights next week,ive never seen them and TBH im not exactly looking forward to them as ive read enough about them and they werent classics by all accounts

Still as a boxing enthusiast i think i should

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 16:09**

If you're a boxing enthusiast, watch the Golovkin-Brook fight nx wk, because you'll see very high level skills, speed, and power displayed by 2 undefeated World Champions... Watching the drab Ali-Spinks youtube fights you won't... With Ali-Spinks 1 you'll see a lack of 5 things: defense, conditioning, strength, power, and skill... With Ali-Spinks II you'll see a massive lack of effort.. stalling around.. faking their way through a dreary 15 rounds.

Here's Kell Brook, 36-0, talking about Gennady Golovkin, 35-0... http://www.skysports.com/golovkin-vs-br ... 10558400/1

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 16:28**

Kalan wrote:If you're a boxing enthusiast, watch the Golovkin-Brook fight nx wk, because you'll see very high level skills, speed, and power displayed by 2 undefeated World Champions... Watching the drab Ali-Spinks youtube fights you won't... With Ali-Spinks 1 you'll see a lack of 5 things: defense, conditioning, strength, power, and skill... With Ali-Spinks II you'll see a massive lack of effort.. stalling around.. faking their way through a dreary 15 rounds.

Here's Kell Brook, 36-0, talking about Gennady Golovkin, 35-0... http://www.skysports.com/golovkin-vs-br ... 10558400/1

If you're a boxing enthusiast also watch Ali-Liston 1, Ali-Frazier, especially 1 and 3. Ali looked pretty good for a losing effort on 3/8/71. Spinks looked great as an amateur. Unfortunately Leon's pro career was derailed by unlimited partying and Ali was a shell of himself by 1978 when he fought Spinks. So next time you can use a fair example.

Of course boxing enthusiasts are looking forward to GGG-Brook. I know I am.

Posted: **03 Sep 2016, 17:18**

Kalan wrote:If you're a boxing enthusiast, watch the Golovkin-Brook fight nx wk, because you'll see very high level skills, speed, and power displayed by 2 undefeated World Champions... Watching the drab Ali-Spinks youtube fights you won't... With Ali-Spinks 1 you'll see a lack of 5 things: defense, conditioning, strength, power, and skill... With Ali-Spinks II you'll see a massive lack of effort.. stalling around.. faking their way through a dreary 15 rounds.

Here's Kell Brook, 36-0, talking about Gennady Golovkin, 35-0... http://www.skysports.com/golovkin-vs-br ... 10558400/1

As BoxBuzz, Tony1244 and others have mentioned, Ali was clearly gone in both fights. He compounded the problem with a lack of serious training for the first one. Spinks trained more seriously, but still partied too much and was vastly inexperienced. For all that, the two of them showed a lot of determination in the 15th round of the February fight. They were exhausted and limited, but they fought like hell at the end.

You don't like the fight and that's fine; a lot of this is subjective. Some of us, though, see one guy who had nothing left but heart and another who had nothing much more than heart. They did the best with what they had at the time and for some of us, that's enough.

Golovkin and Brook are two damn fine professionals. I hope you're right about next week.

BoxRec

So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?

Re: So how did a 7 fight novice beat The Greatest?