larry holmes vs michael spinks 2

Spinks and Holmes should have had a third fight.

 

There's a bit of wriggle room in both. Not many thought Holmes won the first tho while a few thought Spinks won the rematch.

 

You think Holmes won the first fight?

 

No John, I meant that perhaps my bringing up such an old topic might look a bit sycophantic.

It pains me every time to admit that Larry got beat by Michael that first fight. It was close (and not a particularly interesting fight for what it was), but Spinks picked the brains of his corner and kept to his fight plan (which was a good one).

Michael knew that Larry had trouble with weird fighters, especially the Norton-esque, plus he knew that over half of Larry's strategy involved the jab....in fact, Spinks' neutralization of Larry's jab, his determined freeking out of the then-champ via bizarre hand and foot movement and general demeanor, plus the age factor beat Holmes imo.

Had it been even three years earlier (say, the Larry who beat Cooney, whom at the time was recognized as #1 heavyweight in the world) Spinks would have been out of there anywhere from rounds 8 to 10. The right would have ruined him, especially since Larry would have had the reflexes still to keep throwing and landing it.

It was a sharp decline for LH after the Witherspoon match (which might have been the last of his great fights as a great fighter, which made his return to the ring (and successes therein) even more impressive imo).

 

The Holmes who beat Mercer would have been a mismatch against Michael. Strangely, Holmes became a heavier hitter when he came back, and we know how Spinks stood up to a solid-landing, heavyweight punch. And I mean heavyweight punch (the kind that seemed to disappear from LH's arsenal around the time of the Truth fight...or perhaps it was just the snap that got lost).

At too many points in both fights it appeared Larry was punching like a powerful light heavyweight, thus levelling the field.

 

Holmes of the Mercer fight would have been beaten by the Spinks he actually fought.

 

You have me thinking...certainly Larry was slower then. I think you might be right, Spinks was too spastic and freeky for a comeback Holmes to have beaten.

One of my main problems with both of the Spinks fights isn't as much Larry's over the hill performances as how flippin' goofily Spinks was fighting. To watch the fight with more perspective I had to consciously stop being embarassed by the way Spinks looked.

But there was a method to his madness...I think Spinks/his trainers really did come up with a great plan to beat Larry. I mean, I think they really did their video homework and kind of figured him out better than anyone else (even better than Witherspoon and Truth).

All this said and referring back to the comeback years, Holmes comported himself far better than he should have against Holyfield, and was winning the fight against McCall until that Lewis-kayoing punch got him. Again, I'm not sure how many fighters would have lasted the distance and made a good show of themselves past the age of 37...let alone 46. I think it's relatively rare, at least in the heavyweights. It didn't matter as much that he didn't get the title back, it's that he was actually more than just holding his own against several top heavyweights of the time. I mean, McCall had knocked the champ Lewis OUT.

Forgive me if I'm wrong on any or all the above points.

 

Spinks was definitely not a textbook technical fighter.
He had his own way of doing things, for sure.

 

That and Larry sure had fought a bunch of face first/sloppy defense guys in those title defenses. Against Spinks, he was put in a position of a few things---fighting a champion himself coming in with good form & having to systematically break down a guy. He simply was not being asked to break down fighters in a long long time. Too many years had gone by to resort to facing youth and pulling that off

 

I thought Carl Willams beat Holmes in the fight previous to Spinks as well.

 

Holmes had a system, and for most of his reign it worked out fine (though I personally think he got hit WAY too much in general).

Spinks came at him in a style that hadn't existed before him. Larry was totally flummoxed I think.

You can see Holmes deliberating a lot in the second Spinks fight, working out the latter's style. Too much, as if he kinda didn't do enough of his own homework, even in their second encounter.

 

Carl came closer than Witherspoon imo. But he wasn't consistent and certainly not aggressive enough to take a title from a long-time champion. Holmes looked better than you might remember in that fight. Nothing like he did against even Witherspoon, but he still more than had it together and to some extent outlasted Truth.

I write this fully aware of how close a fight that was. To me Larry earned all of his decisions until Spinks, if by just barely against TW and CW.

I also don't sympathize with the "Holmes only really got beat by Holyfield and Tyson". He lost that first Spinks fight, period. And, though it sucks for me saying this he lost against McCall after that battering left of Oliver's got through in the 9th. He lost them both.

(keep in mind, Larry is my favorite fighter lol)

 

Me too. By a fair margin. Both guys landed about the same amount of right hands. Williams outjabbed him and the Truth landed a ton of left hooks. Too bad Holmes could never hook off the jab---it showed up a ton against Carl Williams.

 

I watched the Truth fight again today because of this forum. Truth just didn't quite do enough imo. If it had been just two contenders I would have scored it a draw. But that's just me. Holmes looked like a different fighter from even two years before but justifiably retained his belt. Truth should have taken the fight to him more imo.

 

He may have. It was marginal and a tactical fight. Williams had some serious talent. Wish he has started boxing sooner.
I do think Spinks won the first bout.