BoxRec

Who wins, and how ?

Spinks, late KO.

Your fantasy no one elses.

I don't understand why Ward gets a debatable decision and suddenly we're talking about him against LH greats and even can he now win the HW title.

GPTM1403 wrote:I don't understand why Ward gets a debatable decision and suddenly we're talking about him against LH greats and even can he now win the HW title.

maybe because he just defeated a LHW great? I just want to see Krusher v Ward II.

On subject though, I would favor Spinks but Ward's inside game could be the ingredient of Michael's demise.

GPTM1403 wrote:I don't understand why Ward gets a debatable decision and suddenly we're talking about him against LH greats and even can he now win the HW title.

Thirty years ago, Spinks was something like present day Ward - gold medalist, very skillful LHW. He tried to get title at HW, and defeated Holmes (twice, majority considered the both victories very questionable). His last match is well known among boxing fans, Tyson destroyed him, quickly and brutally. It would be interesting to see Joshua, Ortiz or Haye instead of Tyson.........gold, skills, judges, desire to become HW champion....
If I have to bet, I would put my money on Ward.

The 1983 version of Michael Spinks had to endure same-day weigh-in’s and his official weight was only 173lbs. Around the same time, there was even talk of a Hagler-Spinks bout, so he couldn't have been that big in 1983.

This means that Andre Ward would probably possess a 15lb rehydration weight advantage if he faced the 1983 version of Michael Spinks, which I feel is too much of a size discrepancy to overcome.

I also believe that the S.O.G. is a much better boxer than the Jinx.

I think it was simply a different era, because Spinks’ workrate in 1983 appears lackadaisical in comparison to modern day 175lb-ers.

Ward would probably outwork Spinks en-route to scoring lop-sided decision victory.

Enlightened-One wrote:The 1983 version of Michael Spinks had to endure same-day weigh-in’s and his official weight was only 173lbs. Around the same time, there was even talk of a Hagler-Spinks bout, so he couldn't have been that big in 1983.

This means that Andre Ward would probably possess a 15lb rehydration weight advantage if he faced the 1983 version of Michael Spinks, which I feel is too much of a size discrepancy to overcome.

I also believe that the S.O.G. is a much better boxer than the Jinx.

I think it was simply a different era, because Spinks’ workrate in 1983 appears lackadaisical in comparison to modern day 175lb-ers.

Ward would probably outwork Spinks en-route to scoring lop-sided decision victory.

Do you think the same if you neglect weigh issue ? Unfortunately, I've remembered only his match against Tyson and a little bit Montreal Olympics (I was child, I am not sure, but think that Michael got the gold medal at MW, and his brother Leon achieved the same at LHW). Last year, I rewatched his battles with Holmes, and considered the both fights as pretty boring, and very, very close.

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:The 1983 version of Michael Spinks had to endure same-day weigh-in’s and his official weight was only 173lbs. Around the same time, there was even talk of a Hagler-Spinks bout, so he couldn't have been that big in 1983.

This means that Andre Ward would probably possess a 15lb rehydration weight advantage if he faced the 1983 version of Michael Spinks, which I feel is too much of a size discrepancy to overcome.

I also believe that the S.O.G. is a much better boxer than the Jinx.

I think it was simply a different era, because Spinks’ workrate in 1983 appears lackadaisical in comparison to modern day 175lb-ers.

Ward would probably outwork Spinks en-route to scoring lop-sided decision victory.

Do you think the same if you neglect weigh issue ? Unfortunately, I've remembered only his match against Tyson and a little bit Montreal Olympics (I was child, I am not sure, but think that Michael got the gold medal at MW, and his brother Leon achieved the same at LHW). Last year, I rewatched his battles with Holmes, and considered the both fights as pretty boring, and very, very close.

I’m not sure how to answer that one, because Ward currently seems to be a tad slower than his 168lb heyday, which was five years ago… and I’m not sure if that is due to him being heavier, his style organically changing over time, his age, strategy, inactivity etc.

That being said, I do believe that the circa 2011 168lb version of Andre Ward defeats a 1983 172lb version of Michael Spinks.

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:The 1983 version of Michael Spinks had to endure same-day weigh-in’s and his official weight was only 173lbs. Around the same time, there was even talk of a Hagler-Spinks bout, so he couldn't have been that big in 1983.

This means that Andre Ward would probably possess a 15lb rehydration weight advantage if he faced the 1983 version of Michael Spinks, which I feel is too much of a size discrepancy to overcome.

I also believe that the S.O.G. is a much better boxer than the Jinx.

I think it was simply a different era, because Spinks’ workrate in 1983 appears lackadaisical in comparison to modern day 175lb-ers.

Ward would probably outwork Spinks en-route to scoring lop-sided decision victory.

Do you think the same if you neglect weigh issue ? Unfortunately, I've remembered only his match against Tyson and a little bit Montreal Olympics (I was child, I am not sure, but think that Michael got the gold medal at MW, and his brother Leon achieved the same at LHW). Last year, I rewatched his battles with Holmes, and considered the both fights as pretty boring, and very, very close.

I’m not sure how to answer that one, because Ward currently seems to be a tad slower than his 168lb heyday, which was five years ago… and I’m not sure if that is due to him being heavier, his style organically changing over time, his age, strategy, inactivity etc.

That being said, I do believe that the circa 2011 168lb version of Andre Ward defeats a 1983 172lb version of Michael Spinks.

Agree...

Spinks by close un

I think there is some serious underestimating of what Spinks was as a Lt Heavyweight.

ldlamb wrote:I think there is some serious underestimating of what Spinks was as a Lt Heavyweight.

Almost every boxing fan remembered him destroyed by Tyson. There was a very strong hype (before the internet) and so many fans (hard-core and casual) expected the great and competitive match. So, the majority of fans have forget his achievements. His only loss spoiled his career. Sad, but true.

Around 2000, The Ring magazine came out with a list that had him as the 3rd best light heavy of the 20th century.

From 80 to 85 he dominated the division, knocking out many of his opponents.
The only fight that was truly close was the unification with Qawi.

As far as him being slower than Ward.....maybe, but he was more active and definitely hit harder, and was about 3 inches taller.

ValMar wrote:

GPTM1403 wrote:I don't understand why Ward gets a debatable decision and suddenly we're talking about him against LH greats and even can he now win the HW title.

Thirty years ago, Spinks was something like present day Ward - gold medalist, very skillful LHW. He tried to get title at HW, and defeated Holmes (twice, majority considered the both victories very questionable). His last match is well known among boxing fans, Tyson destroyed him, quickly and brutally. It would be interesting to see Joshua, Ortiz or Haye instead of Tyson.........gold, skills, judges, desire to become HW champion....
If I have to bet, I would put my money on Ward.

Spinks achieved across a long period, with constant fights at title level, Ward had a brief burst, disappeared and has got one debatable decision of note in several years, hardly proof he'd beat one of the best LHW's ever. And the Spinks was shot and after a payday when he fought Tyson, same as Holmes, they were the last remnants of the previous band and both were past it when Tyson got hold of them. All of which is irrelevant as to whether or not Ward beats Spinks, one result at LHW doesn't make him on a par with the greats, if he beats Kovalev, properly not contentiously, then he's got a shout but not on the back of what happened last weekend or on the back of a brief period of dominance at SMW several years back. I just feel generally people are far too quick to praise current fighters and dismiss someone like Spinks (and I wasn't even a fan of his).

GPTM1403 wrote:

ValMar wrote:

GPTM1403 wrote:I don't understand why Ward gets a debatable decision and suddenly we're talking about him against LH greats and even can he now win the HW title.

Thirty years ago, Spinks was something like present day Ward - gold medalist, very skillful LHW. He tried to get title at HW, and defeated Holmes (twice, majority considered the both victories very questionable). His last match is well known among boxing fans, Tyson destroyed him, quickly and brutally. It would be interesting to see Joshua, Ortiz or Haye instead of Tyson.........gold, skills, judges, desire to become HW champion....
If I have to bet, I would put my money on Ward.

Spinks achieved across a long period, with constant fights at title level, Ward had a brief burst, disappeared and has got one debatable decision of note in several years, hardly proof he'd beat one of the best LHW's ever. And the Spinks was shot and after a payday when he fought Tyson, same as Holmes, they were the last remnants of the previous band and both were past it when Tyson got hold of them. All of which is irrelevant as to whether or not Ward beats Spinks, one result at LHW doesn't make him on a par with the greats, if he beats Kovalev, properly not contentiously, then he's got a shout but not on the back of what happened last weekend or on the back of a brief period of dominance at SMW several years back. I just feel generally people are far too quick to praise current fighters and dismiss someone like Spinks (and I wasn't even a fan of his).

Unfortunately, I can not remember, it was long ago, but I feel that competition at LHW (when Spinks was champion) was pretty weak. I apologize if I am wrong, simply whenever anyone mentions Michael Spinks I think about his disaster against Tyson.

ValMar wrote:

GPTM1403 wrote:I don't understand why Ward gets a debatable decision and suddenly we're talking about him against LH greats and even can he now win the HW title.

Thirty years ago, Spinks was something like present day Ward - gold medalist, very skillful LHW. He tried to get title at HW, and defeated Holmes (twice, majority considered the both victories very questionable). His last match is well known among boxing fans, Tyson destroyed him, quickly and brutally. It would be interesting to see Joshua, Ortiz or Haye instead of Tyson.........gold, skills, judges, desire to become HW champion....
If I have to bet, I would put my money on Ward.

Nothing debatable about spinks/Holmes 1.

ValMar wrote:

GPTM1403 wrote:

ValMar wrote: Thirty years ago, Spinks was something like present day Ward - gold medalist, very skillful LHW. He tried to get title at HW, and defeated Holmes (twice, majority considered the both victories very questionable). His last match is well known among boxing fans, Tyson destroyed him, quickly and brutally. It would be interesting to see Joshua, Ortiz or Haye instead of Tyson.........gold, skills, judges, desire to become HW champion....
If I have to bet, I would put my money on Ward.

Spinks achieved across a long period, with constant fights at title level, Ward had a brief burst, disappeared and has got one debatable decision of note in several years, hardly proof he'd beat one of the best LHW's ever. And the Spinks was shot and after a payday when he fought Tyson, same as Holmes, they were the last remnants of the previous band and both were past it when Tyson got hold of them. All of which is irrelevant as to whether or not Ward beats Spinks, one result at LHW doesn't make him on a par with the greats, if he beats Kovalev, properly not contentiously, then he's got a shout but not on the back of what happened last weekend or on the back of a brief period of dominance at SMW several years back. I just feel generally people are far too quick to praise current fighters and dismiss someone like Spinks (and I wasn't even a fan of his).

Unfortunately, I can not remember, it was long ago, but I feel that competition at LHW (when Spinks was champion) was pretty weak. I apologize if I am wrong, simply whenever anyone mentions Michael Spinks I think about his disaster against Tyson.

Spinks fought during one of histories best times at 175.

Dwight Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammed
Marvin Johnson
Yaqui Lopez

All guys that are likely belt holders today

ldlamb wrote:Dwight Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammed
Marvin Johnson
Yaqui Lopez

All guys that are likely belt holders today

Anyway, Michael Spinks' case had proved that weight divisions ought to be respected. There is an interesting question - if Spinks had moved up at CW, and fought young Holyfield, what would have happened ? I know it is off topic...

ValMar wrote:

ldlamb wrote:Dwight Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammed
Marvin Johnson
Yaqui Lopez

All guys that are likely belt holders today

Anyway, Michael Spinks' case had proved that weight divisions ought to be respected. There is an interesting question - if Spinks had moved up at CW, and fought young Holyfield, what would have happened ? I know it is off topic...

I think their times didn't cross over enough for it to be a prime Spinks so I guess the question is would a worn Spinks have been better than a novice Holyfield. Considering the weight Spinks was at for Holmes and considering Cruiser in those days still including the 195 weight I don't see that being an issue. I think in those circumstances Spinks wins on points if they fight early on, if they fight any point after 88 Holyfield wins (possibly by late stoppage but probably points) the 2-3 years in between I'd call a toss up.

Spinks had to avoid HW. The same thing could be considered for Ward. Holyfield was a natural CW, too, but if he had stayed at CW, we (boxing fans) wouldn't have seen many epic battles.

Spinks by decision after scoring 1-2 knockdowns in the fight. Michael was a HUGE puncher for a light heavyweight and also had very onorthodox style. Plus he would have had big height advantage against Ward.

Spinks would have been a fearsome cruiserweight for sure. He had power, speed, was awkward as hell.

He was unfortunate to have to fight Tyson, by god, I don't think I've ever seen a world title challenger ever look as nervous as spinks did, his mouth was as dry as a nun's poontang.

He clearly went in there to lose, he wasn't even in shape.

ValMar wrote:Spinks had to avoid HW. The same thing could be considered for Ward. Holyfield was a natural CW, too, but if he had stayed at CW, we (boxing fans) wouldn't have seen many epic battles.

He did batter cooney and beat Holmes twice, hardly a poor run at heavyweight.