BoxRec

Opinions?

he was a top ten, no doubt. he was the dominant champ in the toughest ever erea of light heavyweight boxing. sometimnes he could look devastating, other times he could look like a rank amateur, but he beat superb men like Yaqui Lopez and Marvin Johnson even before he was champ. He beat Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, the outstanding DM Qawi in a unification, although I think he got gifted against Eddie Davis

My top 3 have always been:

1. Archie Moore
2. Billy Conn
3. Michael Spinks

I don't usually rank Ezzard Charles or guys like Sam Langford...but if I did Spinks would probably drop down to 5.

Not only an all-time great but easily a top five lightheavy of all time.

iceman21287 wrote:My top 3 have always been:

1. Archie Moore
2. Billy Conn
3. Michael Spinks

I don't usually rank Ezzard Charles or guys like Sam Langford...but if I did Spinks would probably drop down to 5.

You don't rank Ezzard Charles?? Wtf??

Definately an all-time great light heavyweight...top ten easily:


1. Sam Langford
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Gene Tunney
5. Archie Moore
6. Bob Foster
7. Michael Spinks

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:

iceman21287 wrote:My top 3 have always been:

1. Archie Moore
2. Billy Conn
3. Michael Spinks

I don't usually rank Ezzard Charles or guys like Sam Langford...but if I did Spinks would probably drop down to 5.

You don't rank Ezzard Charles?? Wtf??

I don't rank him because he spent a very good portion of his career at heavyweight...it's nothing against him i just don't like to rank guys in more than one division and i choose to rank Ezzard as a heavy...it one of my weird quirks...if i did he would be in the top 3 though.

My top lightheavy's

1.Spinks
2.Foster
3.Tunney
4.Moore
5.Charles

I think you can make an argument for Spinks being top 5 definately and despite the depth of talent that actually has populated this division I'd give Mike a chance against any 175... he had a great punch, skills, was awkward to fight and also very clever and could adapt himself to his opponents...

1. ezzard charles
2. sam langford
3. archie moore
4. michael spinx
5. gene tunney

Grimm wrote:My top lightheavy's

1.Spinks
2.Foster
3.Tunney
4.Moore
5.Charles

who did bob foster ever beat to deserve a # 2 ranking??

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Grimm wrote:My top lightheavy's

1.Spinks
2.Foster
3.Tunney
4.Moore
5.Charles

who did bob foster ever beat to deserve a # 2 ranking??

Look at his record!... for someone who admires Marciano who benifited greatly from weak opposition, I find it rather amusing that you are always knocking Fosters opposition...

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Grimm wrote:My top lightheavy's

1.Spinks
2.Foster
3.Tunney
4.Moore
5.Charles

who did bob foster ever beat to deserve a # 2 ranking??

Look at his record!... for someone who admires Marciano who benifited greatly from weak opposition, I find it rather amusing that you are always knocking Fosters opposition...

im pretty sure marciano had charles, walcott, and moore on his resume.


foster had no one besides dick tiger who fought a lot better as a middleweight in the early 60s.

fact is foster did not beat 1 top 20 light-H of all time



amazing how u call marcianos opposition weak..then what was larry holmes opposition??? holmes best fighter he beat was ken norton. u seem to think the early 80s was stacked with competiton when in fact the only great heavyweight the early 80s had was larry holmes.


theres 2 ways to view good competition


A. great fighters they beat


B. solid depth of good fighters


marciano's career is more of an A while holmes career is more of a B.



foster was a greta light-H no doubt, but he lacked the competiton or a great light-H on his resume to be a top 5 light_h of all time. plus foster did not have a historical signfigance on the sport or have a huge accomplishment.


i penalize marciano for not beating great depth, i rate marciano 5th all time.

there is no doubt he was a great all time light-H, but other light-H accomplished more than foster, and its clear putting foster at # 2 is too high. Foster did clean out the divisision and dominated but other light-H did more. I rate foster 6th greatest light-H

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
who did bob foster ever beat to deserve a # 2 ranking??

Look at his record!... for someone who admires Marciano who benifited greatly from weak opposition, I find it rather amusing that you are always knocking Fosters opposition...

im pretty sure marciano had charles, walcott, and moore on his resume.


foster had no one besides dick tiger who fought a lot better as a middleweight in the early 60s.

fact is foster did not beat 1 top 20 light-H of all time



amazing how u call marcianos opposition weak..then what was larry holmes opposition??? holmes best fighter he beat was ken norton. u seem to think the early 80s was stacked with competiton when in fact the only great heavyweight the early 80s had was larry holmes.


theres 2 ways to view good competition


A. great fighters they beat


B. solid depth of good fighters


marciano's career is more of an A while holmes career is more of a B.



foster was a greta light-H no doubt, but he lacked the competiton or a great light-H on his resume to be a top 5 light_h of all time. plus foster did not have a historical signfigance on the sport or have a huge accomplishment.


i penalize marciano for not beating great depth, i rate marciano 5th all time.

I know all about how you rate Marciano, but you need to study other fighters and their opponents indepth as your veiws on Foster reveal glaring flaws in your knowledge. For one thing, Dick Tiger was no older than Walcott when he lost to Foster and unlike Walcott, Tiger went on to produce a number of good performances after his loss to Foster.
Foster defended his title 14 times to Marcianos 6... and this was when the division had a decent amount of talent...

Dick Tiger was no older than Walcott when he lost to Foster and unlike Walcott, Tiger went on to produce a number of good performances after his loss to Foste

yeah but tiger was a middleweight, not a light-H. walcott was a natural heavyweight. walcott was ruined after that first rocky fight, unless u would like to explain to me what happened to walcott in marciano rematch???

notice how walcott did not retire until that dismall 2nd marciano fight? it took a dismal preformance to make him retire. walcott didnt know he was past his prime till he saw the way he fought in the 2nd marciano fight. thats when he knew it was time to go.

marciano had a history of ruining fighters so im not suprised walcott was never the same.

Foster defended his title 14 times to Marcianos 6... and this was when the division had a decent amount of talent...

i dont penalize marciano for his lack of defenses. marciano was a swarmer and swarmers NEVER LAST AS LONG. frazier, dempsey, marciano were all past there prime by 31. all of them did not last that long. i dont expect a guy who fights with marcianos style to make many defenses or last as long.

I know all about how you rate Marciano, but you need to study other fighters and their opponents indepth as your veiws

I do



actually fosters division did not have much talent. foster was champion during a time of not very good depth or great fighters. in fact foster fought so many nobodies that they stripped his WBA title which he eventually won back. but look at his title defenses, the best guys he beat were probably mike quarry or chris finnegan who were nothing special. the real true talent came when foster had retired........ galindez, conteh, saad muhammad, mustapha muhammad, etc.

Wasn't there a big stink about the second Marciano-Walcott fight? I recall talk that Walcott didn't train and took a dive. Much like Liston in that fight with Ali that Walcott refereed.

Cap wrote:Wasn't there a big stink about the second Marciano-Walcott fight? I recall talk that Walcott didn't train and took a dive. Much like Liston in that fight with Ali that Walcott refereed.

"took a dive"?

How do you define "took a dive"? You mean he agreed before the bout to lose? Or something else?

If you are accusing someone of agreeing to throw a fight, it's usual to quote references.

In the 2nd Ali - Liston fight, it seemed to me that Liston quickly realised he was on for another ass-whipping and decided to bail out. The refereeing was abysmal and clouded the ending somewhat. You watch that fight and you'll see Ali landing some solid punches on the slow old-looking Liston. Sure, the last punch wasn't the hardest shot you've seen Ali land but I think Liston had decided he was going down at the first convenient opportunity. Walcott and that old nutcase Fleischer spoilt his surrender.

well all ill tell is this CAP,


in marciano-walcott II, walcott was hit with a HARD punch, a right uppercut.

- walcott was dazed till about 4 when he seemed to regain control. then walcott miscounted the referee and got up too late. walcott said he blacked out from 7-10, other sources say walcott said he was looking at his handler for the sign to get up and his handlers miscalculated the count and told him to get up to late.

but one thing is for certain...... it wasnt a dive because walcott was hit by a legit hard punch, which can be seen if u watch the replay in slow motion. the fact walcott got up right after 10 was what made it suspicious.

In the 2nd Ali - Liston fight, it seemed to me that Liston quickly realised he was on for another ass-whipping and decided to bail out.

couldnt have said it better myself

Spinks is one of the most underrated fighter ever. Just the fact that there is even a discussion if he is one of the top light-heavyweights ever is amazing.
He fought most of his career at light heavy and never lost at this weight. He fought in possibly the the best era ever in the division, and came out as unquestionably the best of the era. I personally rank him as the # 1 light heavy ever.
What I never hear is what is the arguement against him as at least one of the greatest light-heavyweights?

Ambling Alp wrote:Spinks is one of the most underrated fighter ever. Just the fact that there is even a discussion if he is one of the top light-heavyweights ever is amazing.
He fought most of his career at light heavy and never lost at this weight. He fought in possibly the the best era ever in the division, and came out as unquestionably the best of the era. I personally rank him as the # 1 light heavy ever.
What I never hear is what is the arguement against him as at least one of the greatest light-heavyweights?

i rank spinx 3rd, anywhere from 1-5 is appropriate.