Who do you rank higher, Michael Spinks or Evander Holyfield?

me wonns summa dat sweet smellon gonejew u b token mon:rasta

 

I'd have to do background career checks on both thoroughly. Spinks is one of my all time favorites.

 

Again, Spinks fought in the best LHW era ever and dominated. If you lived through it you would remember how Spinks was regarded at the time. That's the reason he stepped up to HW. He was that dominant. And he didn't step up to John Ruiz.

 

Couple of things:

1) That was not the best Lt. Heavyweight era ever. That distinction belongs to the 40's.

2) After that comes the 70's, of which Spinks was quite fortunate to have come along during the latter portion when most of the decade's best fighters were on their way out, giving way to the less talented (but still very good) 80's crop. Some of his better names, particularly Lopez and Johnson, were still game but clearly on the slide when he got to them, and he was too late to have faced the rest of the cream of the 70's crop, such as Franklin, Conteh, Galindez, etc.

 

37 year old past his best Holyfield gave Lennox two hard fights and had him wobbling all over the place in the second fight.

Do you really think he would have problems against a couple of robots who fight in straight lines?

Of course you are one of those Klit hugging morons who think the Klits are just too big for Holyfield who is bigger than Byrd and almost the same size as Brewster but much better technically.

Dont be a ***** all your life the K Brothers would not have beaten a prime Holyfield as they had no real advantages over him in the ring.

 

The second best LHW era ever? My bad.
Spinks was one of the great LHWs in history. Holyfield is (or was) a great fighter, but he wasn't on that level. ymmv

 

Although I agree with all of this, I'd probably still favour Spinks to beat the likes of Saad, Conteh, and Galindez. This obviously counts for nothing. Just sayin'.

 

Lewis TKO6 Vitali

 

deal

 

zfc, your obsession with the Klitschkos is pathetic. Shape up.

 

Holyfield has a very deep resume, but I rank Spinks higher. Prime for prime, Spinks was a better fighter. Spinks also has much more definitive prestige in his prime weight class.

What I mean is that Holyfield's status as the Cruiserweight GOAT is not up for debate. Due to the newness of the class, however, and how useless it is to make a top 5 list of Cruiserweights in contrast to the history rich Light Heavyweight division, it is hard to really assess the greatness of Holyfield's CW status in relative terms. In the current, a lot of people laud Adamek, Cunningham, and Haye as contenders for top 5 Cruiserweight status based on the lack of history. Thus, a top 5 LHW of all time rating carries much more weight than a top 5 (or even the #1) CW rating in the current.

Furthermore, Spinks' best win is better than Holyfield's best win. Moving up to meet Holmes was epic, in spite of questionable judging in the second match. The loss to Tyson, I am unresolved if I am able to forgive altogether or have it stain Spinks' legacy or not. Mainly since I'd feel that I'd need to make it a very big detriment to Spinks' legacy if I were to factor it in. I can provide my rationale for this if desired.

 

Holyfield was the best Cruiser ever, but there was no other great fighter in that division when he dominated. The Qawi fight was a good win, but he was still past his prime. Spinks beat prime Qawi and his resume at light heavy is better than Holy's at Crusier. Holy's resume at heavy is what may be able to put him over Spinks. But I actually feel his win against past prime Tyson is just about as equal to Holmes win against only slightly past his prime Holmes. And yeah he beat Bowe, but Bowe still won the series 2-1. I rate Spinks higher ATG.

 

:goodThis is a great post:good

 

Based on what we know, I'd agree with you. You know I have a hard-on for Conteh, though. But it would be unfair to favour him over Spinks.

 

Very tough call.