Holmes v Spinks II video.

Here is the highly controversial, Holmes-Spinks II, fight. I thought Holmes lost the first fight, no question. I had him winning this fight. I thought his lead during the first 6 rounds was just too much for Spinks to claw back. I do mind Spinks had a decent spell during the middle rounds and won a couple of the late rounds but Holmes got robbed here I think. I do love controversial decisions, even if they aren't great fights. Hagler-Leonard, Chavez-Whitaker, De La Hoya-Whitaker, Hopkins-Taylor I and II, etc.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzyASoN8BEE[/ame]

 

Did you watch it again?

 

Christ.....First viewing since 1986, huh.:good

 

It's amazing how Holmes performed in this fight, compared to the first fight. I was alarmed with the lack of right hands he managed to get off throughout the first fight. He was very sluggish indeed, to put it mildly. Far more authoritative and aggressive with both hands during the rematch.

 

Here is the first fight in full with build-up.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XokRWtl_Rqw&list=UUbqVhaZCNDk97rr-131Z-Pw&index=1&feature=plcp[/ame]

 

Nah....Spinks the first, clearly. Holmes the 2nd, clearly.

 

I thought both fights were 9-6 in rounds to the winner. Spinks the first and Holmes the second.

I've never bought into all that getting the benefit of the doubt and having to beat the champion, clearly. Thats why sometimes challengers win decisions by a single point on a couple of cards or all three cards at times as well. Rounds are scored individually......It's not as if judges say, "well I scored the last couple of rounds to the challenger better give this close round to the champion". It's obviously better when a challenger goes out and impresses when trying to win a title. I've also never bought into the theory that the challenger needs to be aggressive either. Thats complete nonsense. Hagler moaned and cried for years because Leonard never stood and fought him.