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

Mike Tyson would have been in an era where no one feared him, Walcott would have taken him to school (even Buster looked good doing it)and Charles would have did what Evander did and Tyson fought in the under 200lb class in the amateurs so he wouldn't have been juiced up in the 50's so it may have saved him from the ear incident and other mishaps

Spinks couldn't survive Ezz or Charles or Moore. LaStarza, the Cooney and Holmes that Spinks fought would have gotten eaten up by Walcott,Charles and Moore and no guarantees they would beat the others

 

The 1955 version of Archie Moore was not too far away from his prime. He had won 21 in a row, and just knocked out Harold Johnson. Spinks had arguably declined just as much by 1986.

 

Harold Johnson was pretty fast. Moore got past him in 54.

 

Spinks beats all of Dempseys challengers in my opinion. Some by knockout, some by decision.


Spinks TKO 11 ****ell
Spinks W UD Lastarza
Walcott W UD Spinks
Charles W SD Spinks
Moore TKO 14 Spinks

 

Spinks had lost one fight to a heavyweight most consider an ATG.

Moore was ringworn and according to himself had "no legs ".

NO FIGHTER IS PRIME AT 40.

 

I agree with all of these picks except I would also make Moore a pickem, maybe.

 

"Juiced up" Oh, so now a prime Tyson who weighed exactly the same for almost his entire career was on steroids? You do realize that when Tyson was fighting sub 200 at amateur he A. was forced to get down to that weight and B. was a teenager. Tyson didnt need steroids he had genetics. Unless you think this guy who was 12 years old beating up adults was on steroids back then too.

 

He was very well conditioned when he competed for the Olympics and he lost to Henry Tillman I think Cus would have made him fight at his normal and comfortable weight so he did at under 200lbs. I have no proof other than rumors but If anyone was a candidate for steroids it was Mike T by his actions and sudden muscle growth, however I still think he has trouble with the tougher, stronger mind guys who had skill and power regardless of which Tyson shows up

 

sounds reasonable

 

I like these predictions. Although I might give Ezzard a chance at steeling a close one. Then again he may very well have beaten all those guys.

 

watch Charles against Satterfield,Wallace and Marciano 1 IMO that version beats any Michael Spinks. I also think Moore was too experienced and cagey and hit very hard. Walcott too strong for Spinks

 

I think you would be very alone on some of these opinions.

Rocky, as slow as he was of foot and hand was getting to Walcott after a few rounds. Tyson, with his vastly greater speed of foot and hand, would get there extremely quickly. I just don't see this lasting more than 4 or 5 at the outside.

Walcott was fighting at 176 when he was 19. Did he juice to get to 200? Tyson was a 200 pounder at 16 but was guided against fighting at superheavy because he was 5-8. After a time, there was just no way in hell for him to come in under 200. Even today, on a vegan diet and exercising a couple hours a day, he's 240. He's just a natural heavyweight.

I also would choose Spinks, nevermind a prime Tyson, over a shopworn Charles and an old Moore. Sorry, Charles was on such a downslide when Marciano caught him it's downright sad, hanging on for money and not even going .500 for the rest of an otherwise HOF career. And Spinks, even in his heavyweight incarnation, was too fast for Moore and would beat him to the punch.

 

I agree with some of this. Firpo, Gibbons and Brennan all being far tougher than Cooney and Tangstad see the final bell but so too do Lastarza and Cokkell. Why would you think Firpo and Brennan were any better than Carpentier, Lastarza and Cokkell?

I think Walcott, Moore and Charles hand Spinks defeat at heavyweight. Too much pedigree against solid heavyweights for Spinks.

Remember it was only Spinks LH pace that beat Holmes. Walcott, Moore and Charles were 15 round experts and still on world form. They could match Spinks for pace and were just as clever. There was nothing tired about them against Marciano. They gave Rocky life and death. I think they beat the pants off Micheal Spinks.

 

In the light of the underlined above

We can confidently disregard the gratuitous remark below then then?


"so he wouldn't have been juiced up in the 50's so it may have saved him "

Just wanted to be clear .:good

 

Spinks's pace didn't beat Holmes.It was his rythmn breaking ,herky jerky style , Holmes's age ,reflexes and eroded accuracy. Walcott's weariness lead to his ko imo, he resorted to leaning on the ropes to save his legs and got caught. They gave Rocky life and death because they were far better technicians than Marciano ,[who wasnt?].He won because he was younger.fresher, stronger, and more durable ,not because his skills[such as they were ,]were in the same ball park as their's.