Heavyweights: Michael Spinks vs. Michael Moorer, Prime For Prime.

Adonis Stevenson would soonly defoot both of them.

 

Spinks was better and he proved it against infinitely better opposition.

Moorer was a dangerous puncher so Spinks would likely fight a more conservative fight at range. Moorer had boxing skills but not on Spinks's level. In fact, you can argue that he improved his boxing skills and was more effective with his jab at HW.

Spinks by clear UD, but I wouldn't be surprised by a stoppage.

Edit: I missed the part about "Heavyweights". I still pick Spinks at HW, but not with nearly as much confidence as I would at 175.

 

Close fight...Moorer on a split decision

 

:hammertime

 

I think Moorer would beat him, he was stronger and more powerful as a heavyweight and equally as skilled. I think he`d win most of the rounds with his good jab and crisp power punching combination and may even be able to take Spinks out in the mid rounds. I think these two would have a much better fight at light heavyweight.

 

A very interesting fight ... I honestly do not know .. the early heavyweight Moore that defeated Cooper and Stewart was a very fast, sharp, strong, hard punching fighter .. far more challenging than anyone Michael ever fought and more dangerous than an old Holmes on shot legs ... a very intriguing fight ..

 

An interesting matchup for sure. A fight I would love to see. Somewhat hard to pick. If I had a gun to my head I would pick Spinks at both Heavy and light heavy. He was the the more skilled man, and defeated far better competition. I don't think Spinks would have had much trouble with any of the big, slow heavyweights Moorer beat. (The Holyfield that showed up against Moorer the first time looked awful, and would lose to prime Spinks as well). The disparity in competition at light heavy is bigger than the grand canyon. Moorer has an edge in power over Spinks, but Moorer's chin wouldn't enjoy Spinks return fire either. Spinks by decision or late stoppage (if over 15)

 

Spinks was the better fighter overall. But Michael Moorer wasn't as close to his expiration date at heavyweight as Spinks was. It could validly be stated that Moorer had a heavyweight prime, where as Spinks really didn't. I still think that a 1985-1986 Michael Spinks would have a chance of taking a decision over the Moorer of 1991-1994, but it would be a tough call. At light heavyweight, Spinks wins all day long.

 

I'm going with Michael












Moorer. He was bigger, and hit harder.

 

Michael Moorer Had superb technique Patient and Poised, but someone with the style of a Frans Botha would Conspire to Make the Mike Moorer perhaps look better than he was, certainly at heavyweight, another way of seeing Patient and poised could be "Öne Paced" its noticeable that Someone like Bert Cooper, throwing Shots wildly and not at a sedate pace..took Moorer to the edge in a thriller, as for Spinks...That Herky-Jerk style would i think throw the Poise of Moorer off Poise can be predictable...and here's the Clincher...for all his Herky-Jerk Mike Spinks had a marvelous co-heison when he let his shots go..fast hard and Accurate... The Patient Poise of Moorer leaves Spinks escape routes early ...Late there will come a time when Spinks will decide he does not want escape...With Moorer long since stuck in a cautious Cruise Control Spinks would Spring the Ambush...Stand and Deliver...The Jinx and accompanying spell-binding Leather does the rest...Circa 9th ....