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

Yes he should have fought Tucker,and Tucker quite possibly would have beaten him,which Butch Lewis probably recognized, but the $$$$$ were with Cooney.Smart move really.

 

Yes it was a great move that made great business sence. I certainly don't blame him. However, turning down the chance to prove himself against a relevent actual heavyweight contender hinders Spinks heavyweight legacy significantly. It leaves us with the notion that all spinks did was twice out-speed a slowed down champion who could not catch him then never beat another relevant heavyweight.

 

No, it kind of does. Spinks time at heavyweight was limited.

#1. Spinks was a small lightheavyweight. Almost super middle.

#2. to orchestrate the beautiful gameplan to beat Holmes required the years, lifetime of experience Spinks brought into the ring against Holmes.

#3 it was crucial that Holmes had slowed just enough for the whole thing to work.

#4. only the modern training "advances" allowed Spinks to make 200lb. He was the first to "bulk up" in that way so he always would have had to wait for these diet, body building, "advances" to become available.

#5. He had bad knees, there was only so long he could continue with that problem.

 

This is just a laugher. He was a big sized light heavy. Bigger than Carpentier. Bigger than Gibbons. Bigger than Tunney.

His weight gain diet was actually pretty basic and fairly archaic by today's standards… 4500 calories of fruits, veggies and pasta a day. Nothing revelatory about that. And yes, he lifted weights. I guess weights were invented in 1985 or so…. Or that trainers beforehand were too ****ing stupid to suggest their charges actually dabble in them before that time.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

No he was not. The heaviest Michael weighed as a lightheavyweight was usually 173lb. He weighed between 170 and 173 for all his title fights and was as low as 170 just 7 months before Holmes against David Sears. His final lightheavyweight fight he was 175lb, still inside the limit. To be a natural 170 pounder at 28 years old does not make for a big light heavyweight.

I can remember the fuss made at the time. Interviews and filming of special new training. It was quite a big deal.

This (if that's all it really was) was at the least portrayed in the media as a "new training and diet programme" designed by an expert especially for Spinks. It would not have been a story if it was just veggies and different use of regular training aids already in practice.

30 pounds in three months...

Evenly distributed....

Without losing speed...

Stamina...

Increasing power...

 

"I can remember the fuss made at the time. Interviews and filming of special new training. It was quite a big deal.

This (if that's all it really was) was at the least portrayed in the media as a "new training and diet programme" designed by an expert especially for Spinks. It would not have been a story if it was just veggies and different use of regular training aids already in practice.

"Spinks gained 30 pounds of muscle in three months...

Evenly distributed....

Without losing speed...

Stamina...

Or power..." [/quote]


I challenged this before & did not see a response.

Anybody who gained 30 lbs. of muscle in 3 months would be juicing.
Even Even HALF that. Absent being underweight/starving/still growing or having lost significant mass, around 2 lbs. of muscle is the most one can add in a month. A little more if you are naturally huge.

Now the mid 80's was the start of weightlifting being applied commonly to boxing, it was derided as making you too stiff & muscle bound before.

But muscle weight is often confused. Normally when you bulk up you gain some fat. And a fighter who was making weight at say LHW likely walked around heavier, so he had more walking around weight. AND you can have close to 10 lbs. (more or less depending upon size) additionally JUST from being "bulked" with much food & eating often, food in various stages of digestion.

Bottom line is Spinks did not gain anything close to 30 lbs. of muscle in 3 months. His program (must have been high protein too) added much weight from food, especially compared to maing weight at LHW, & he went from extremely lean likely to some additional body fat.

Also the scale when he fought Holmes was thought to be set too high for both fighters.

Anyway somebody could juice & gain MUCH less than 30 lbs. of pure muscle in 3 months. Hell I do not know if even the most outrageous juicer ever, with the greatest potential/huge bone structure, COULD gain 30 lnb.s of PURE NEW SKELETAL MUSCLE (an adult, not recovering weight after atrophy or starvation, which still would be unusual) over 3 months.

So give me some SPECIFIC evidence that he used.
He did not appear to get that bulky. Much of his weight must have been what I described above.

And show me the weights & dates he was at them.

Someonewho gained 30 lb.s of new muscle in 3 months would have a far more dramatic before & after photo than Spinks. AND he would have gained a lot more than 30 lb.s, since some of it would be food, water & fat.

 

Spinks was experienced as a light heavyweight and had a good amateur pedigree and he had more experience than most of Holmes 10-16 fight opponents but he was never a strong solid heavyweight, his experience and right hands did Holmes in but he showed frailness in fight 2 vs Holmes. I saw the Cooney fight live and Cooney was a shell, he had the early rush but was just a Big target and Spinks just let go a series and timber went Cooney.

I dont think Spinks had the frame strength as a heavyweight and he knew he was in trouble with Tyson but had it not been Mike a good puncher would have done it so at least he got paid before he went out the same way as the great John Henry Lewis in 1

Spinks was a great light heavyweight but a guy like Charles was a different level IMO and a very good heavyweight . I still rank Spinks & Bob Foster top 5 in my light heavy rankings

 

I agree with this 100% He weighed 175 in his last LHW fight, not 169. He gained 25 pounds for Holmes, not 30, and if you factor in that he had dried out even 10 pounds (weve seen fighters who much smaller dry out as much as 20 pounds so this isnt a stretch) for McDonald then he only gained 15 (and maybe much less). Im not saying he did or didnt take roids because I think roids are and have been more prevalent than most sports want to admit for longer than they want to admit BUT Spinks gain looks a heck of a lot more natural than some of the other modern fighters who went way up in weight.

I dont see why anyone would argue Spinks wasnt a big light heavy. Look at the other LHW champions: Spinks was over 6'2" and had a 76 inch reach.

Jack Dillon was about 5' 7"
Battling Levinsky was about 5'11"
Georges Carpentier was 5'11"
Battling Siki was about 5'10"
Mike McTigue was 5'9"
Paul Berlenbach was 5' 10"
Jack Delaney was 5'11"
Slattery was 5'11"
Rosenbloom was 5'10
Olin was 5'10"
Lewis was 5'11"
Lesnevich was 5'9"
Mills was 5'10"
Maxim was 6'1"
Moore was 5' 11"
Johnson was 5'10"
Pastrano was 5'10"
Torres was 5'10"
Tiger was 5' 8"
Foster was 6' 3"
Galindez was 5'9"
Rossman was 5'11"
Eddie Muhammad was 6'
Marvin Johnson was 5'11"
Saad was 5'11"
Conteh was 6'
Qawi was 5'5"
Harding was 5'11"
Andries was 5'11"
DM was 6'1"
Hill was 6'
Jones was 5'11"
Maske was 6'2"
Hopkins is 6'1"
Christopher Tiozzo was 6'
Rocchiggiani was 6'1"

So yeah, Spinks was just about as big as it gets in a LHW frame.

 

This content is protected

 

He was big in height & reach, not natural weight & bone structure.

But that does not mean he juiced. Klompton you are right, & it did not need to be even 15 lbs. of muscle when you consider water weight & body fat, as he grant said:

"he was not small but trim. Again, he was over 6' 2", had a 76" reach and had big legs .. he easily moved up because he had the frame but if you look was not ripped, had no abs and looked a bit bloated .. nothing compared to the change Holyfield made with all the additional weight but even more ripped..."

I see no evidence that Spinks cheated & used PEDs, nor is his actual muscular size gain very suspicious.

 

I would not like to say what it was that helped Spinks bulk up so quickly other than it had not been done before by a fighter who was not already on the edge of his weight class.

Without doubt what ever it was it was a successful and (for the time) unique training/diet programme to boxing. Perhaps Spinks tall frame helped lend itself to the extra pounds somewhat. Whatever it was I don't think it could have been achieved quite so successfully earlier otherwise 6'3" Bob Foster would have made a stronger and better heavyweight than he did.

In my opinion Spinks had to wait for this programme to come along to do what he did.

What is true is that it WAS Spinks who opened the floodgates for boxers from lower divisions to compete more successfully in higher divisions.

Against David Sears he was 170 seven months later Spinks fought at 199. The Jim McDonald fight was right after the Sears fight and he came in at 175lb a career high at 29 years of age.

Spinks turned down 1 million dollars to fight Holmes, it's not like he was over eager for the fight. Mackie Shilstone was conditioning him for three years before Holmes but only the months leading to Holmes fight did he gain so much weight.

Michael was contracted to make 190lb. Nobody expected 200lb in the timescale he had. Traditional training up to that point could not support that kind of weight gain. Ritchie Giachetti told Holmes that Spinks would be slower and proberbly drank a lot if water. But Spinks was fast. It was all revolutionary.