This is a tough one. Tucker had a lot of skill and his size is a huge advantage but Spinks was a master of winning fights. I think it would be closely contested throughout. Spinks would use a lot of tricky movement and look to steal rounds with flurries of punches. Tucker would be consistent from the outside boxing and trying to put a hurt on Spinks. I think overall Tucker's size and strength advantage would allow him to dictate the fight better with his jab and land the harder punches. I think he'd probably have Spinks in trouble throughout the fight like Holmes did but Spinks craftiness would allow him to escape and for the most part the damage to go unnoticed. I think Tucker in the end gets a decision something like 9-6 or 10-5. If Spinks was to win this one he'd do it in the later rounds outworking Tucker in the last 4 or 5.
At this point in time, I would say Tucker would win a unanimous decision.There was a reason Michael Spinks didn't fight him.He was too good.
Spinks was a better fighter, Tucker was a big boy with some skills. I like Spinks to take the nod. I dont think Tony's size would make much of a difference and Spinks had that awkwardness that could confuse
You are 100% wrong.The Spinks-****ey fight was for much more bigger money. The Spinks-****ey was recognized as a world title fight by 18 !!! states. Spinks was a 8 to 5 underdog. ****ey looked much more dangerous than the seemingly unknown -but talented- Tucker.
Well a man of his age and comeback plan can be excused for making such decisions, he did think he could beat a top 10 fighter, that's why he wanted Tyson. Tucker wasn't exactly the most exciting of fighters and I understand the reason Foreman didn't fancy the fight and it sure as hell wasn't because he feared him, Tucker is way overrated IMO.