Why doesn't Michael Spinks get more credit for Holmes I

By handily I mean he was able to outjab and out fight Larry.

Decisive victory is not what I said. I had spoon winning a close fight. 7-5 I think I had it.

But he proved himself the superior fighter which is what I was trying to say.

 

When I rewatch it this week ill post my rbr card here.

I don't know how he was viewed, I wasn't born then. I'm making that judgement on a personal level because I had him losing to spoon hence don't see him as a thing but a paper champ from then on. He even ducked page to fight Frazier.

 

I think you're right.

 

I don't think Marvis was that bad actually.

 

It should be a bigger win considering a more declined, retirement version of Holmes was able to shutout Ray Mercer and be competitive with a prime Evander Holyfield.

I guess people today don't see the win as big as say a Duran-Leonard I because it wasn't a scintillating victory?

 

He was certainly no page nor Thomas.

 

I scored:
Holmes 1,2,5,9,14
Spinks 4,6,7,10,11,13,15
Even 3,8,12 (If i ruled out evens I would give Spinks 3 & 12 Holmes 8

 

Just thinking about Holmes vs Mercer there.

Mercer was shite.

 

People can emphasise how declined Holmes was all they want, Spinks had no business beating Holmes like that in his first heavyweight outing. It's unheard of.
Even a sub-par Holmes of 1985 was better than many or most heavyweight champions.

 

I suppose you could say Spinks is a pretty underrated guy himself.Partly due to how the Tyson fight turned out,and partly because he never had the most enthralling style or personality.


I thought Spinks was lucky to pick up the decision in the rematch,but he won the first Holmes fight clear and decisively and it always puzzled me how some actually thought Holmes got jobbed the first time around.

 

He was just a bit better overall than Carl Williams by that point.

 

Any version of Holmes would have had some trouble with Williams, it's styles.
Carl Williams was knocked down by Tillis, knocked down twice by Jesse Ferguson in a war, and KO'd in 2 rounds by Mike Weaver. I think Holmes in 1984 to '86 would have had significantly better results/performances against those same opponents.

Michael Spinks's beating of Larry Holmes was incredible.
Sure, Holmes was there 'to be taken' and everyone knew it, and that's why he was cynically taking a fight with a 'soft touch' little guy like Spinks, in a fight many viewed as an utter mismatch.

 

I don't disagree it's a great win btw.Just not that Holmes was still better than most heavy champions, though i suppose there have been a fair amount of weak champs since then, if you include alphabet champs.

 

Well, imo, he was better than Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Max Baer, Jimmy Braddock, Ingemar Johansson, Leon Spinks, Buster Douglas, Michael Moorer, Hasim Rahman were any time they defended the title.
Possibly better than Floyd Patterson any time he defended the title too. Perhaps even Walcott.
Shannon Briggs, if you count him.
And a lot of the alphabet champions.
So, it's quite a lot, if not most.

 

no way on hell was that version of Holmes better than Baer!

He war barely top 3. He should have lost to spoon and he ducked page and Thomas.

Spinks has a great victory but he wasn't a great heavyweight. This is one of the best victories out there due to status but the reality is that Holmes struggle with Spinks says more about the state of Holmes than anything else.