Prime Michael Spinks vs Evander Holyfield @ HW

Hello Clinton.

At least someone has remembered me. :good

 

Heavyweight Holyfield would beat Spinks up.
It would last maybe 7 rounds.

 

Spinks is rated just right.
He did well to nick a decision against Holmes, was very lucky to get the decision in the rematch, was steered clear of all the decent young heavyweight contenders, the top 10 guys, and eventually they took the Tyson fight because the money was too big to turn down.

Spinks was a tricky customer, but the Holmes he barely beat was no puncher and no young energetic pressure fighter. He wasn't a "killer" heavyweight, he was a past prime champion who was coming off a very disputable decision win over Carl Williams.

With only 5 heavyweight fights in total, 4-1 with one of those wins being hotly disputed, it's hard to rate Spinks higher.

A great victory for Spinks, a historical win. But his ONLY meaningful win at HW.

Holyfield's win over Holmes (who had just eliminated Mercer from the title shot, to be fair) is just a standard one on Holyfield's resume and not a particularly impressive one.

Michael Spinks would do better against a lot of great heavyweights than he did against Tyson, especially the Spinks of 1985 who was a bit more mobile still.

 

Holyfield should be favored. But I think the Spinks of the first Holmes fight, if he boxes intelligently, could make an evening out of it and maybe even score an upset. Michael was quick and awkward.. Certainly a better technician than the vast majority of Holyfield's actual opponents and was capable of going 15 rounds. I don't see this as being the mismatch that most others deem it as.. But again, this is the 1985 version of Spinks I'm talking about. Not the one who fought Tyson in 1988.

 

Cheers:good. You're an excellent poster! Even when I disagreed with you, you always said something interesting and intelligent. Glad you're back:good

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I don't know if Spinks could beat Evander, but I honestly think he's twice the boxer that Holyfield is, just don't know if he could control ranges and the tempo of the fight, if he does he takes a UD, especially in a 12 rounder.

 

At light heavy I’d take spinks

 

He beat an undefeated Holmes once, it's litterally impossible to do it more than once

 

Holyfield by close decision

 

Holyfield was a better counter puncher and harder to hit with hooks, he rode shots better than Spinks also, he could take Spinks punches far better than Spinks would have taken his, I don`t know if Spinks chin was any better than Moorer`s.

 

Holmes was a lot slower by `85, that version of Larry wouldn`t have fought as well as Holy did in his rematch with Bowe.

 

At cruiser I`d take Holy, a catchweight match would be more interesting.

 

Holyfield would have destroyed Spinks. He was too strong for him.

 

Holyfield prevails in a tough fight.