Can anyone take 88-89 Mike Tyson?

Holmes yes, Spinks no. The version of Holmes that Spinks bear was past prime and many ghjnm he lost at least one of those fights.

 

Prime Lennox Lewis beats a prime tyson everyday of the week.

 

You're not telling it like it is at all. Far from it.

Again, by the time Michael Spinks had fought Mike Tyson in 1988, he'd proven to everyone that he was a very good HW. And if you read the link, he wasn't just a blown up LHW.

 

1. I was using the version of Michael Spinks that Tyson fought in 1988. If THAT version was fighting today at HW, he'd be top ten today. And by denying it, you are just embarrassing yourself.


2. I'm out of my mind to think that if a 39 year old Larry Holmes was fighting today, he'd be a top ten HW? REALLY??

Even though a 43 year old Tony Thompson and a 46 year old Antonio Tarver are rated in today's top ten by The Ring and Boxrec etc??

Are you serious?

Thompson's in it, but Larry wouldn't have been?

Yeah, sure.


3. It's a poor comparison with Roy, because he didn't have a natural walking around weight in the 190's, and he only had one fight at the weight. Also, Spinks beat the undefeated champion who was still a very good-great fighter at that point. So the circumstances are completely different. Again, by the time Spinks had fought Mike, he'd been at the weight for three years and he'd had four fights. I'm sure that had he not fought Mike when he did, he'd have been capable of beating some of the other HW's.

Again, he wasn't just a blown up LHW in 1988, he was an established HW.

 

I know that mate, but just look at today's top ten. If a guy like Tony Thompson's rated in it, then I'm sure Spinks would have been.

 

Larry Holmes was on the decline when he fought Michael Spinks, who was the LHW champion. His legs were shot, had already defended the title 20 times, he was 35, to say he was a great champion is an understatement, as he was the first to defend title 20 times, but was he at his peak, he'll no. It's not a diss to call Spinks a blown up LHW. It's actually impressive what he was able to do winning the HW title in his 1st fight when he was still techie ally the LHW champ. I don't care how many times you say it though he was still a blown up LHW. Miguel Cotto is the legitimate MW champ of the world, but you wouldn't call him a legit MW, and he's had now what 4 fights in the weightclass. I'll concede that just maybe Holmes would be top 10 today, like number 10, Spinks definitely not even if you call him a HW then, he was a very small heavyweight. Call Thompson garbage all you want, but he is 6'5" 240, in the world of SHW like now that 6'1 200 that Spinks was just ain't gonna cut it. That's also the reason I wouldn't have put Holmes in the top 10, after reconsideration though, maybe. But here we are arguing about 2, maybe 3 of all of Tysons opponents possibly being top 10 today, goes to prove just how overrated he was. He never beat anyone of any significance, his prime years was from 86-89 so extremely short lived, was 5'11 212, so a small heavyweight, and people wanna argue he could have beat the likes of a Muhammad Ali. Give me a break. Tyson hit hard, but he didn't hit as hard as an Earnie Shavers or young George Foreman, and yes Tyson was fast, but as fast as a prime Ali. Please.

 

wylan911,

I agree with you that he was on the decline. He certainly wasn't the same guy who'd fought Norton etc. But he was still a great HW even at 35. And again, we know that he went on to have some good wins after he'd fought Spinks. And if he was around today, he'd certainly be classed as one of the best HW's around along with Wlad. He'd certainly be a better HW than the likes of Wilder and Stiverne.

It's a diss to Mike Tyson when you brush off his win over Spinks as a nothing win, by saying Spinks was just a blown up LHW. That is simply not the case. Mike beat a legitimate HW in Spinks, who'd proven himself at the weight.

The circumstances with Cotto are different. He legitimately beat Martinez, but Martinez was far more faded than Holmes, and he's been forced to retire. Also, Cotto has only had two fights at MW, and he's come in well under the limit. So at this moment in time, Cotto certainly can't be classed as a legitimate MW, in the same way that Spinks was classed as a legitimate HW.

Once again, you seem to be completely out of touch with today's era. Now I've never called Thompson garbage, and I'm actually a fan of the guy. But I'm only using him as an example to give you a reality check. Honestly, I don't want to be rude, but I think you're completely deluded. Really, who cares if Spinks was a small HW? So what? Mike was a small HW. Are you going to tell me that Tony Thompson who's had no notable wins (unless you count Solis and Price) was better than Spinks and Holmes? Are you saying he'd have beaten them? This is where you're not thinking logically. On the one hand, you're justifying Thompson being rated at number 9, even though he hasn't done anything, yet on the other hand, you won't include Spinks, even though he had far better wins than Thompson. Do you not think that beating a 35 year old Larry Holmes, and then taking out Gerry C*oney, surpasses beating the likes of Solis and Price?

Do you seriously think that there'd be a huge list of guys today that would have beaten the version of Holmes that Spinks did? Again, after he lost to Spinks and Mike, Holmes gave Evander something to think about and that was after he'd beaten Ray Mercer, who many people think beat Lewis. Although Holmes was faded, he was still a great HW in 85. So the fact that Spinks was awarded the close wins, tells you that he wasn't just your average HW. Because there's no way just an average HW could have beaten Holmes in 85.

We're not talking about 2, maybe 3 guys, there's only you doing that. Seriously, I'm just repeating myself over and over trying to get through to you. How many examples do you want? Antonio Tarver is in today's top ten, yet Spinks wouldn't make it? Stiverne and Wilder are there. What have they done? Are Stiverne and Wilder better fighters than Michael Spinks, Larry Holmes and Frank Bruno etc? Not in my opinion. Pulev is there. What's Pulev done? Takam is there. Just think about it logically. You know that you've exaggerrated their worth.

How can you say that Mike beat nobody of any significance? You are being completely ignorant. Then you say he was only small at 5'10. Yes, he was. And not only was he small in height, but his reach was only 71", and he only weighed in the 220's.

So this small, 5'10 HW, who was completely undersized, was the only guy who knocked out Holmes in a 75 fight career, yet it wasn't a significant win?

This small, 5'10 HW, was the only guy who knocked Spinks out in 32 fights, yet it wasn't a significant win?

This small, 5'10 HW, was only one of four guys who ever knocked out Bruno in 45 fights, doing it quicker than anyone else, including Lewis, yet that too wasn't a significant win?

Yet you've said earlier that Spinks couldn't compete today at HW, because he was too small.

So what on earth was this small, 5'10 HW doing, knocking these guys out easily, in his early 20's?

Just how often does this happen in HW boxing? Yet you won't give him in any credit at all?

Why?

Your whole post is just one big contradiction.

You class him as small HW, but then refuse to give him any credit whatsoever for easily beating guys who were much bigger than him. Again, that's just ignorant.

The fact that he had success whilst being at physical disadvantages because he was so small, should tell you that he was in fact something special.

Just out of interest, what do you think of Wlad?

What do you think of his biggest wins?

Did they impress you?

 

You have no idea what you are even talking about, if Tyson was a nobody, you wouldnt need to be on here trying to convince people, his career stands on its own merit, if he was beating nobodies, then why didnt no one else replicate his dominance? Tyson wasnt unbeatable but he was the closest thing boxing will ever see to a unbeatable fighter..And so what if they were scared? was Tyson supposed to leave the ring and forfeit the fight b/c the other fighters were scared? they were scared for a reason , other fighters would kill to have that type of aura..i will never understand how thats a bad thing and how thats Tysons problem if they were scared? dumb logic.. take a step back and look at his run objectively, i was a hater like you at one point but i did the research and there is no way Tyson isnt one of the greatest fighters to ever put on gloves..its a reason the general public holds him in such high regard with Louis and Ali..

 

If I was forced to bet on a prime Tyson fight, I would pick Mike every time against anyone. Although Foreman would be scary.

 

Spinks never actually beat Holmes!In any of the fights.

 

Tyson was 215/220 ,all muscle at 5'10 I wouldn't call that small...he was short,but theres a difference in comaparing a skinny 6'2 guy like spinks who was naturally a small boned fighter.He has no chance in any year and neither would Holmes.I actually think the Holmes who fought Mercer looked like the best he ever had.If he fought Spinks like that he would have ended both fights under 5 rounds..he was robbed twice.


I think the Spinks fight still showed when Tyson comes to crush he does just that,i don't think Spinks is the best guy though he fought.Tucker who spinks ducked ,Holmes and I would take Ruddock were the best guys Tyson defeated.Ruddock had Tyson by over 20 pounds,i would use that fight if any if you are using size disadvantages.

 

If you put Tony Thompson in the ring with Michael Spinks I have no doubt that he would beat him. Spinks was a great LHW, and he earned 2 great wins over a once great HW champion. But Holmes was not the same at all. We are talking about a holmes that was rocked by Gerry ****ey and knocked down by Renaldo Snipes. He was past his "great" days by the time he got into the ring with Spinks, And to call a win against a green Rey Mercer a quality win is pushing it a little bit. The way you make it sound is there is no way Larry Holmes was beaten by some LHW, so Spinks had to be an established at the weight, when you are wrong. Holmes was beaten by a LHW (still the LHW) not sure what about that you don't get. Saying he was established at the weight with wins over Larry who was faded and Gerry ****ey, ok. There's a reason Spinks was done in 91 seconds fighting Mike. When he truly felt that HW power, it was a wrap. But this is the last time I will be responding to you, I'm gonna call it agreeing to disagree.

 

5'11" 220 is big naturally, no doubt, but in todays HW class, where you have Tony Thompson at 6'5' 240, Wlad 6'5" 240, Tyson Fury 6'6" 250 Deontay Wilder 6'8" 240. 5'11" doesn't look so big anymore.

 

165 I believe. And???


He was still a lot bigger than Roy naturally, and I believe his weight was under 5 lbs off from Tyson on the scales when they fought.

What I was getting at is I don't like the comparison of Jones and Spinks just because both of them moved up to HW from LHW.. Spinks was more of a HW than Roy.

 

Tyson never fought a big heavy over 240 when in his best years,however Ruddock hit harder than anyone today except Wlad.Point being little spinks would look tiny in either era.In the 80's the average guy was 6'3 around 220.The only guys that would make Tyson look small is Wlad and Fury sionce they have girth to them,Tyson fought many 6'3 plus guys just not ones that were built.Tucker at 6'5 and Ruddock 6'3 were good sized Hw's.

Wilder is 225/230 I believe and Fury in bigger than 6'6 and 250.