Pulev vs Spinks

Spinks is anything but unproven. He had a stellar career and lost one fight, to the most vicious fighter of modern times. Even at heavyweight alone, his experience at the top level is greater than Pulev's.

If anyone is unproven, it's Pulev. One decent win over an ancient Thompson and a heavy loss to Wlad. Not much to write home about.

 

just as barely winning against 40something tony Thompson proves even less....a point you appear to be skirting entirely.

spinks didnt even bother with 40somethings, easily outgassing someone proves nothing in terms of boxing ability. A match which would have been meaningless in spinks time has become a title eliminator today.

 

You can't ignore all the experience he picked up at 175. You can't just wipe the slate clean that way and pretend none of that invaluable experience doesn't count.
I won't even go on to his amateur experience.

Michael at the top level has a ton of experience to draw on and you bet it's what helped him against bigger men.
And Pulev is bigger but so what? He is not a physical fighter who forces his will on an opponent. Nor is he a heavy hitter or partuicularly skilled at any one thing.

Anything he's gonna do, Michael has seen before. Mediocre big man gets outboxed by good small man.

 

Pulev had all he could handle against a 43 year old Tony Thompson. The result was indecisive at best. a 35 year old Holmes was a better win than anything Pulev's ever done, and I dare say that even guys like a shot C00ney and Tangstad were highly comparable to even Pulev's best victims.

 

Pulev is mediocre at best. Spinks at his best was an ATG light heavyweight and was more than competitive against Holmes and eked out a couple of decisions (I personally think Holmes won). Termite, your obsession with the size disparity blinds you to the gulf in skill level between Spinks and Pulev. If Pulev was a truly world class fighter then I would agree with you, but he isn't and Spinks was, albeit at the lighter weight.

 

Funny that, since Gerry was 238 for their bout. And 6'7". Guess what the result was?

Pulev is only 2" taller than Michael and that barely even counts. So we're back to the good old argument of bulk, which you so highly favour.
I dunno how that benefits a guy who isn't a puncher (Pulev) in this matchup.

PS-He fought ****ey for a hell of a lot more money than he was getting offered for Tucker. Any sane man would have done the same thing.

 

Jesus, why do you even bother?

 

I have no idea.

 

emm.. no. he said Gerry was bigger than pulev and he got destroyed by Michael.

its you who is deluded enough to think he said the exact reverse of what you claim he said. do you live topsy-turvy land?

 

Pulves stood in the ring with Wlad for 5 solid rounds. How many would glass-jawed Spinks last? 1? 2?

Before he gets his glass jaw shattered? Spinks is mediocre... very much a B level contender.

 

amazing that spinks, who twice beat an atg... is being derogatrized compared to a guy who lost badly to someone who is barely a HoFer.

topsy turvy land indeed.