How would M. Spinks have done against Dempsey's and Marciano's Challengers ?

I dont think that any fighter his weight in the history of the sport, could have beaten all those men.

That is simply not realistic.

 

Given the recent post concerning Tyson and Wlad,by Dead Wass
Is this an attempt at irony?

 

I love Michael SPinks but his foray in heavyweight boxing was intended to be a one fight deal/retirement plan. He never intended to be a heavyweight. Once he was there he had to deal with it, but it was about the money. He already paid his dues in another weight class. The whole thing was a bonus to him.

Strapped knees, etc. Holmes was a faded champion and he constructed a great strategic plan to beat just Larry. Michael wanted no part of an up and coming current heavyweight. He knew his limits.

 

Without analyzing them , off the cuff I say Spinks would beat Lastarza ,that version of Moore,****ell,Carpentier.

 

Spinks looked good against Holmes because Larry was not a powerful guy and he gave Larry angles and was just as experienced as Larry despite having never fought as a heavyweight. Cooney was frail and past his best and an easy target. Those were Mikes best wins but I do not rate him as a strong Heavyweight, I think Charles and Walcott of Marciano 1 beat all 3 Holmes,Spinks, Cooney

Moore beats him, and even the guys he may be able to beat he may have trouble on his hands, even Don OOCKLE may be a rugged fight (Don had heart) but just because he was a bouncing ball for Marciano does not mean he would be against Spinks

 

Charles & Walcott 1 beat prime Holmes, really Bummy?

 

its possible. The Holmes of 1985 wasn't nearly as mobile anymore. Carl "The Truth" Williams may very well have deserved the decision in the fight right before Spinks. Walcott, though 37 when he fought Marciano was still sharp and had good boxing ability as did Ezzard Charles. And Larry didn't have the style, power or finishing ability to stop them as Marciano did. He could have easily dropped decisions to those two.

 

Gibbons would have a chance to win, and I def like Walcott and Charles.

 

Sure, but I thought you were referring to prime Holmes, not '85.

 

Brennan was a rough handful.The raw Firpo was tougher than Cooney. Carpentier, Gibbons, Lastarza and ****ell were all better than Steffen Tangstad. Miske was a great fighter on the the slide when he fought for the title and already ill apparently. I honestly think Holmes was a bit shop worn for the kind of pace a fast boxer like Spinks set and therefore was an easier proposition for Spinks than either Charles, Moore and Walcott would have been. Those three guys were recently beating rated heavyweights and recording quality wins at the time Marciano fought them. Spinks beat Holmes with pace. That was the edge he had because he already matched Larry for seasoning. Most of these guys could all match Spinks for pace. Even Lastarza, Brennan, Gibbons and ****ell. Although a lot of these fighters were closer in size to Spinks does not necessarily mean he can blow them away. I think he beats Miske easy. I think he outpoints ****ell, Firpo and Lastarza. Everyone else is 50-50 apart from Walcott Moore and Charles who beat Spinks.

 

****ell could not stop Spinks and he isnt outpointing him.Spinks would beat that version of Moore imo.Holmes wasn't a powerful guy? Do you mean he wasn't a top tier banger, because no one outmuscled him?

Spinks resume at heavyweight isnt long because he retired after 3 fights ,that doesn't mean he couldn't have run up a decent list of scalps ,he just couldn't handle Tyson,and at that time nor could anyone else.
None of Marciano's challengers see the final bell against Tyson.

Walcott and Charles give Spinks the hardest fights.I'd give them the edge

 

I said oockle had heart and even if Spinks beat him it may not be an easy fight for him like it was for Marciano.I used Don because he was the weakest Marciano fought.

Holmes usually fought guys with 10-16 fights or 18-9 records or a Lorenzo Zannon type when he went in against Spinks no one gave Spinks a chance but Spinks did have 28 fights or so and some 12 rounders so he was a step up in experience and pedigree compared to Holmes usual foe.

Dempsey foes some were rugged Firpo may be too strong for Michael S and I heard Miske,Brennan were solid but I am not an expert on them.

I think Moore was better, Waloctt and Charles too much for Michael S and LaStarza was 53-3 and beat every man that beat him except Marciano in a close loss when RL fought for title Roland would be a step up for Spinks at heavyweight