just watched this fight for the first time , (working way through holmes career set) how could the judges give spinks the fight when he ran away for two thirds of the fight?? i had it 9-6 holmes or 144-141 the version i have the the full programme which was broadcast by HBO , my score matched harold ledermans who had it the same a s me after 4 , 8 ,12 and 15 rounds after 4......4-0 holmes after 8......6-2 holmes after 12....8-4 holmes after 15....9-6 homes
90% or more of Classic know Holmes won the fight, the rest nestle very close to a certain part of Holmes anatomy.
This is one of the reasons why lineage isn't as sacred as people make out. Larry clearly won this rematch and no way in hell was spinks the best heavyweight from 86-88. There's quite a valid argument that only tyson and holyfield beat holmes. Boxing is supposed to be subjective and I think taking scorecards as gospel reduces ones input into their own rankings and viewpoints.
spinks won the first fight but Holmes made such an arse of himself in the build up to the rematch the powers that be were done with him and his crap. There really was no milage in holmes being a champion at that age anyway, he was liklty to retire. Its not right but if a tired champion already talking of retirement has a close fight judges often look to the guy of the future. henry cooper v joe bugner is a prime example. Hagler v leonard etc etc.
As a new fan to the sport of boxing. I have a question. Is Michael Spinks overrated as a heavyweight? Or is he unproven due to the fact he only fought 5 times as a heavyweight?
Because most people who 'know boxing' moan about Holmes being shafted, and the casual fancy point to the Tyson fight, IMO Spinks is underrated as a Heavyweight. I thought he won the first Holmes fight, and looked impressive against Cooney, to the point I picked him to beat Tyson... Not my finest moment, but Spinks had proved himself as a Heavyweight pre Tyson, and was comfortable enough not to feel the need to comeback post Tyson. I think it is unfair that most judge 'The Jinx' on the Tyson bout and two close-ish bouts with a Holmes, who went into the series unbeaten and about 40lbs heavier as an opponent than Spinks had ever fought before.
Re: larry holmes vs michael spinks 2 Quote: Originally Posted by Andrew1997 As a new fan to the sport of boxing. I have a question. Is Michael Spinks overrated as a heavyweight? Or is he unproven due to the fact he only fought 5 times as a heavyweight? Because most people who 'know boxing' moan about Holmes being shafted, and the casual fancy point to the Tyson fight, IMO Spinks is underrated as a Heavyweight. I thought he won the first Holmes fight, and looked impressive against Cooney, to the point I picked him to beat Tyson... Not my finest moment, but Spinks had proved himself as a Heavyweight pre Tyson, and was comfortable enough not to feel the need to comeback post Tyson. I think it is unfair that most judge 'The Jinx' on the Tyson bout and two close-ish bouts with a Holmes, who went into the series unbeaten and about 40lbs heavier as an opponent than Spinks had ever fought Why would you pick spinks to beat Tyson? Spinks was 10 years older. And was terrifed of fighting Mike. The only way I could see Spinks winning is if he outboxed Tyson to a decision. Am I right?
Holmes dropped a bogus split decision.... Only judge Joe Cortez got the scoring right with a card of 144 to 141---HOLMES! MR.BILLbbb
I actually think the rest you mentioned believe Holmes won the first fight. Holmes is my favorite fighter, but even I know that Spinks beat him in that first fight. Shoot, Holmes actually fought better in the first 3 1/4 rounds against Tyson, he looked terrible during his championship-losing match (and as Dundee said, ripe for the plucking). I had Spinks 8-6-1. I don't mind backing the majority of folks here up on the second fight, though. I have Larry 9-5-1. It seems to me that three of Larry's losses he lost because he couldn't/wouldn't/who-knows-what-he-was-thinking knock the other guy out. The first Spinks fight...had Holmes even half of the aggression he showed in the second fight he would have retained his title (while still looking pretty bad considering his undefeated record, but by that time Carl Williams had already helped underscore the slowed reflexes and aging punching-snap of the great champion). But I think it's as Clancy put it, Michael looked like a giraffe but Larry looked terrible (and yeah, in the glory days of Tyson Holmes would have fallen anytime after Witherspoon, imo). I'll be more consummate: both Spinks and the Holyfield and McCall fights called for Holmes to start resolutely throwing the right, and a lot, past the tenth round. Those later rounds were some of the most glorious for Larry back in the day, and it was his wont to start really stepping in with his rights and getting more vicious. Instead, he just got,more bizarrely hesitant and indecisive. Holyfield more decisively beat him, but Larry should have tried harder in all of those fights (McCall shouldn't have beat him, period).