Originally Posted by MMJoe
Holmes was good with his money and a big time real estate tycoon by that point in his career, he could have stopped at any time. I don't fault holmes for fighting Spinks in hopes of matching marcianos' 49-0 tho. He seemed the sure bet to beat Spinks at the time.
Unfortunately for Holmes, no one remembered to tell Michael this.
The last part of your quote was a good one and overall I definitely agree with you that Holmes picking Michael Spinks as the guy to reach 50-0 against basically and mainly from an economic standpoint was also a good reason to pick him over the guy that at the time was actually being groomed as Holmes' heir apparent/biggest threat to the Heavyweight throne, that being Holmes' unbeaten WBC counterpart Pinklon "Pinky" Thomas. Spinks was the undefeated/undisputed Lightheavyweight Champion at the time and as most may recall no lightheavy up to that point in the fall of '85 had ever beaten a heavyweight, championship or no championship. Between Spinks and Thomas I believe that Spinks was more marketable, had a little more charisma and of course was more well known to the public because of his '76 olympic gold medal accomplishment. And to answer the articles question had Larry "The Easton Assasin" Holmes gotten the win over Spinks in '85 and reached the 50-0 mark in all honesty the backlash of negativety and discredibility, truly unfair at best and especially from the white community following his masterful performance/victory over Gerry Cooney, toward Holmes would have been at its worst for him and a vast majority of the viewing public who hated Larry at best would still find a way not to recognize his feat had it been accomplished.