I just don’t think spinks could ever beat Tyson. Part of the reason why he was beaten so quickly is I don’t think he wanted to be in that ring to begin with but even with full confidence he didn’t have a very good style for Tyson
Prime Spinks Ko's Tyson easily. No contest. And if you believe that I own a bridge in Pakistan to sell you in perfect condition, basically unused. Jokes aside , the fights over quicker ( If that's possible) prime Spinks was a LT.heavy. Possible Tyson charged with agg assault.
No one in history had better assets for destroying former light heavyweights than Tyson. The guy is their ultimate nightmare. You'd be hardpressed to find one that is faster than him and then there's the chin, brilliant footwork and huge power. Add to this a full array of punches thrown from varying angles and it's a light heavyweight graveyard. They'd also have more trouble tying him up than big men like Tucker and Smith. This is on full display in their actual fight. We've seen this fight play out and i'm in no way convinced any layoff or knee problems matter at all.
This thread is pretty silly, but there’s something interesting about their short fight that’s always intrigued/puzzled me a bit. As you noted, Eddie Futch was in Spinks’ corner and was a master game-planner and technician. He could break down an opponent and find find something to exploit no matter what the gap in ability between his guy and the other fighter — even if it didn’t result in victory, there would be something in his fight plan to give the other guy trouble. So in 91 seconds of ring time against Mike Tyson, including an eight-count and the end, Spinks threw like a dozen right-hand leads. Even the finishing punch was a counter to a right lead. Now nobody goes out and throws like 12 right leads in a little more than a minute of actual combat by accident. Especially not someone with the ring IQ of Michael Spinks with a mastermind like Eddie Futch in his corner. I wonder to this day what Eddie saw that made him prescribe that. What did he see that made him instruct Spinks to go out and throw right leads? My best guess is it was as simple as this: You’ve got to get his respect early, make him at least think about it before charging in — if you can catch Tyson flush coming in with your Jinx, you’ll make him just respectful and wary enough to think twice about it. And maybe if you do that, you give yourself a chance to take him deeper into the fight and keep enough distance for that herky-jerky style to throw him off and sneak away with a decision. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Tyson likely beats any Spinks. And Tyson is among the best to beat former LHWs-of those under 6'. He would not be better than all SHWs. Oh & one guy who starte off with much LHW success, & dominated the CW division when it was only 190-less than or ~ the same as most in ring LHWs are TODAY...Beat him twice & it is unknown how it would have gone Prime for Prime.
Likely isn't the word for me. There was little if anything by the way of excuses after Spinks was completely and utterly blown out. He just wasn't good enough at heavyweight and never would be with regards to Tyson. I completely disagree. Tyson had everything needed to KO light heavyweights in dominant fashion and he didn't need to be any bigger. Being big and powerful comparative to ex longer term type light heavyweights whilst not being big to the point of being cumbersome is actually one of his greatest advantages. None of the so called "SHW's" have his combination of speed and agression. Evander Holyfield never had a single professional light heavyweight fight in his life. It's also commonly accepted he was juiced to the gills at various points.
Likely is an understatement. But Spinks was only great at LHW, & his knees were shot. Like Tunney he accomplishe little at HW. Tyson did have what was needed to KO & dominate former LHWs. So did tons of the best HWs. No argument about Tyson being a legitimate ATG, & I have touted his skills many times. But this does not equal or show he would be best suited to beat any of the smaller guys. There are obvious SHWs that had other addvantages-one being pure size & strength-without being cumbersome. Or them not being a picture of grace is offset by overal physical & developed boxing skills. Shaq did not need to do any 3 point shooting or be decent at foul shots to be among the most dominant ever. Ali may be the HW GOAT, he achieved this in a very different way than the other big GOAT (both at least likely were relative to era & peer dominance-one with great physical & improvosatory skills & lacking or compensating for fundamentals, the other the best by the textbook... Holyfield was not a LHW as a pro, you added a new qualification you likely intended to mean all along. But you skipped addressing that as the GOAT CW (very possible exception of you know who, now at HW)... Given the weight limit then & same day weigh in, he was effectively no more than a modern day LHW. The fact that he was often juiced up is irrelvant to the discussion. I am a big moralizer about this. But the question did not specify who might have cheated... And it seems very unlikely that Holyfield needed to or did juice to be 6' 2 1/2" (may be slightly overstated), & an unjuiced looking 190 or just over. Hence a great candidate for a LHW sized man who clearly could beat Tyson when he became a HW...But yes, he likely needed juice to make that likely. Tyson for a few years was maybe a top 5 ATG H2H. If it stands up against SHWs today is an open question. But I see no reason to say he would be superior to say Lewis or Wlad against former LHWs. The massive size, reach & strength differentials means a great deal. Although it is likely he would be nearly as good against them.
Very much so. Yes Spinks didn't get a lot done at heavyweight but he has his believers. He also got further than fellow 175 pound monsters like Foster and Moore. Ok cutting to the chase what heavyweights and particularly "SHW's" do you think would surpass Tyson's ability to punch past the likes of Spinks, Foster, Moore, Tunney, Conn and co? I am yet to see a SHW remotely close to Tyson's speed of hand and foot. I am extremely confident many an ex 175'er would succumb to him quicker than they would to the SHW's. I'm hoping it was obvious to long time posters i meant established light heavyweight professional boxers. I've made the same comment multiple times in the last few years. I think it's also fair to assume i am talking from Tyson's era backward. Holyfield is obviously off the table in the chat as he ever made 175 in the pro's let alone established himself there like Spinks, Conn, Foster, Moore, Charles et al. Lewis and Wlad at their best wouldn't dominate the majority of ex 175'ers as convincingly as Tyson did. Sure they too would be virtually impossible for such guys to beat but Tyson on the whole would beat them more quickly and decisively. That's the beauty of his intangibles when fighting such opposition. He is far more aggressive and dangerous early on the whole than both of them at their peak.There is more wriggle room early against those two for a small man.
I mentioned Lewis & Wlad, Vitali & others would qualify. We both established that Tyson was faster, but the other advantages depending upon the specific fighter, chief among them size, mean many could easily stop ex LHWs. Lewis only went after big guys very aggressively early, so perhaps Tyson would take them out faster. What he COULD & would do may differ, but either way there is no reason to believe-or at least be confident-that SHWs who are near, or better, than Tyson H2H would not be able to take out a Spinks-like character just as fast or faster. A very large size differential makes a difference. I do not know what you said in the past, nor could tell you meant only up to Tyson's era. Most being here for years will not recall who said what when, at least if they have not engaged the poster on the topic. if you wanna take Holyfield off the table that is fine, since you meant in the pros. But the fact remains he was a modern LHW size when a CW of that era. In a way it is silly to debate, since we both agree the the theoretical LHW would be toast in any event, & there is no way to know who would take them out faster.
Ok we will have to agree to disagree. Taking Spinks out in less than 91 seconds really isn't going to be that easy for anyone. 91 seconds. Tyson had him down twice in that time. A guy like Spinks is going to go the route he went against Holmes in their second fight. Play it careful until the edge goes off the big guy. IMO he worked out very early there was no waiting game against Tyson as he's too aggressive and good at closing distance. Thinking guys like Lewis and the Klits COULD take this route involves a lot of speculation and even if they somehow opted for that i highly doubt they are going to round up and batter a guy like Spinks in 91 seconds anyway. There's a reason why Tyson has so many stoppages over so many guys in 4 rounds or less. That was his game. He was almost perfect at it. More perfect at it than the likes of Lewis and the klits. Plenty of these early marks were world class fighters and there are top 5 contenders among them as well. Sorry for taking it for granted but again i thought it obvious. It's the Classic Section. I was in noway thinking of what a modern light heavyweight supposedly comes in at. That's a huge leap. If i was thinking that way why would i say what i did when Holyfield beat him two out of two quite convincingly? I'm just not that silly. The actual topic was also Tyson - Spinks and Spinks was an ex long term light heavyweight champion who moved up not out of necessity but out of choice. If i was think of guys who fought at light heavyweight in the ams or putting some sort of modern spin on it of a light heavyweight being 190 pounds that would bring in a plethora of greats. Ali made 190 more than once in the pro's. He fought under that in the am's. Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Jack Johnson and countless others would all fit comfortably under your umbrella. I'm hoping most knew i wasn't talking that loosely. Well almost everything is opinion in here. We will never know but i'd wager heavily that against a collection of PAST light heavyweights Tyson would likely emerge from the pack. Knocking say 6 guys out in 2 rounds is better IMO that beating said guys down with little difficulty over more rounds. Again i can't see anyone ending a Michael Spinks in 91 seconds. It a very special and indeed freakish result and i think saying anything other is unfair to Tyson. In all likelihood he is the only guy doing it. If i had to choose someone else to pull the trick i'd put forward Foreman long before any super heavyweight. He's a bit more measured out of the gate but might only need one or two solid blows.
Tyson was excellent at getting guys out there quickly. He also went for it more often; when someone like Lewis did he was highly effective at it. He got Ruddock out a lot faster than Tyson did in 2 fights-it strains credulity that this is all because Tyson softened him up. I am not saying Lewis could always get guys out faster if he tried, but if he did, I dunno if Tyson would be faster. With Spinks, that was some accomplishment, however the Fear Factor & bad strategy made it easier for Tyson. Briggs & before him Shavers were good at getting guys out quickly. I do think that maybe Tyson could do at least as well or better with smaller guys-which even a bulked up Spinks was compared to Ruddock type fighters. Since they can more easily tie him up & not be steamrolled as easily. Maybe you are better qualified to answer another question, here is an objection posed to me about Tyson's stamina & effectiveness. My reply would include that these guys more often tied Tyson up, & any World Class fighter determined to do this & just survive through a hug fest is unlikely to be able to be terminated. Saint Pat wrote me: Show me the fights earlier in his career that went past six rounds where he displayed this head movement throughout, threw combos bell to bell without falling into clinches, etc. I want to see this mythical creature. Because it damned sure wasn’t the James Tillis fight. Or the Mitch Green fight. Or the Tony Tucker fight. Or the Bonecrusher fight. If such a Tyson existed for a serious discussion, there should be a stretch of fights where he shows all of these abilities fight after fight, even the ones that get extended. Show me the fights earlier in his career that went past six rounds where he displayed this head movement throughout, threw combos bell to bell without falling into clinches, etc. I want to see this mythical creature. Because it damned sure wasn’t the James Tillis fight. Or the Mitch Green fight. Or the Tony Tucker fight. Or the Bonecrusher fight. If such a Tyson existed for a serious discussion, there should be a stretch of fights where he shows all of these abilities fight after fight, even the ones that get extended.
I hope you don't mind me sub quoting as i usually like to address points more directly so my reply can be easy to follow and hopefully more pinpoint. I've highlighted the operative word. "When" Lewis went for it. It's become a quite popular theme that Lewis sometimes went out to get certain fighters out of there early. Ruddock is one of the first ones cited. If we watch the actual fight we will see that what has become the accepted norm is simply incorrect. In the first round Lewis is actually boxing behind a good jab and throwing the odd powerpunch. He is not going after Ruddock aggressively nor consciously looking for an early night. Right at the end of the first round he lands an absolute peach of a right hand out of no-where and drops Ruddock hard. The bell rings before he can follow up. At the start of the second Ruddock for whatever reason comes straight to Lewis and gets hammered with more right hands and dropped. Ruddock gets up and STILL puts himself right in front of Lewis and is bombed out. So contrary to recent folklore Lewis didn't go out after an early knockout, the opportunity simply presented itself when he landed a big right hand late in round 1 from which Ruddock never really recovered. A secondary point is that this wasn't the best version of Lewis, it was the flawed pre Steward version who was 4 fights away from getting caught by McCall. He was also 20 odd pounds lighter than his peak fighting weight of 240+ under Steward. Ironically this looser less refined version is more likely to stop light heavyweights faster than the latter. Tyson on the whole will still get them out faster. He throws far more punches and fights far more aggressively. He is also better at finding a home for his bombs early. This is what he does, his style was built around it. I totally agree Ruddock didn't suddenly turn to jello overnight. This is usually thrust forth by big Tyson fans and the usual Lewis detractors for reasons you and i are very much aware of. The fear factor was caused by Tyson, 100% Tyson. The guy was a terror during his short peak and this is what such fearsome performances and intimidation can do. It's like Liston with Patterson. Full credit must be given to the monster who can cause that sort of intimidation. Futch also claimed that Spinks fought nothing like he was supposed to which was to box early and stay away and not trade punches with him. Either fear caused this or the realization he had to gain some respect to have any chance of keeping Tyson at bay. Either way full credit to Tyson, again. We can't disparage victories like Tyson's over Spinks and Liston over Patterson because in all likelihood they had them shitting themselves. I'm going to totally ignore Briggs and his collection of easy beats. He wouldn't beat Moore and Charles let alone take them out early. We will pretend he wasn't mentioned. Shavers in all likelihood wouldn't beat Charles or Moore either. A guy like Moorer might get him first. He's not in the race. Yeah he could get tied up by big dudes for sure. He also steadied down after the first few rounds. You could argue others might start to match or surpass him when talking bigger fighters that were also top 10 types. We have to remember however that he knocked bigger taller guys like Williams out fast and stopped the likes of Bruno in quite impressive time. Also if guys like Tucker and Smith fought as defensively as they did with Tyson against others a stoppage might not be happening. But Tyson also lacked inside compared to a Frazier so there's that. It's a tough one this question, isn't it. I will try and come back to it tonight while enjoying a couple of quiet Saturday night beers as it will take a bit of time to address.
You know boxing very well! Sure come back when you are ready to unpack the claims I quoted, hopefully after just 2 beers so mental acuity remains uncompromised! You must be correct about Lewis vs. Ruddock. But he took other big guys/potential threats out very quickly, Grant & golota spring to mid. Man_Machine made a good point that ~ then/in the 220's he was at his physical, agility & energetic best. But under Steward he boxed better & more cautiously. I think he was equally capable of taking guys out soon, but took a more fail-safe strategy of boxing them more when he was bigger & stronger. Tyson & any fighter beating top competition should get much credit of defeating them. But nah, if their opponent is scard stiff", then effectively they are worse competition. If they fight less well, whoever beats them merits less praise than if any performance was handicapped by terror. I will not ignore Briggs. Sure it is fine to say his competition was worse, but I dunno if Tyson would be much different fighting his guys. The reality is he & Butterbean were great at early blitzes. He also fought some good boxers also-better than say Butterbean-& was 60-6-1, fighting until old. Still excellent compared to normal fighters! Yes Tyson was better at taking out better fighters. Your quote here is all i was initially saying: "You could argue others might start to match or surpass him when talking bigger fighters that were also top 10 types". Shavers & Briggs taken out by Moore & Charles? Unlikely, but not so much in multiple fights. They are all still World Class fighters, & so considering the size discrepencies & who the latter men they lost to...These guys would haver some chance for a victory.
Some of my better posts have come after 6 plus hahaha MM is correct and your point as well. He took less risks later and that was partly due to better technique and strategy. We will disagree on this one. If a fighter is so scared due to his opponent frightening him oh so much tough. These are world class boxers we are talking about and in Spinks and Patterson we have two lineal Heavyweight champions. If a guy can intimidate them to the point of taking gas then he has my utmost respect, awe even. The bottom sentence you have quoted was said after you brought up Briggs. We were never talking about anything but ex light heavyweights. You threw Briggs and Shavers forward and the bottom sentence was actually after and in response to this. I can only take it that you think those two are in the running to dispose of ex 175'ers better than Tyson and i responded as such. Neither are in the conversation when compared to Tyson, not even remotely. I didn't say that you need to read it again. I said Briggs wouldn't beat Charles and Moore let alone take them out and i don't think this would be a controversial stance at all. Who did Briggs ever beat? In the real world granddaddy Foreman should have got the decision. Briggs never knocked out anybody of much status early. I think I'd favor both Charles and Moore over Earnie. He has the literal punchers chance. They'd see him coming from a mile away. Moore would be a chance of putting him away once he got through the early going and The Acorn gassed. When you're not sure a guy can even beat the debated opposition he's not worth mentioning vs Tyson in the topic. That's why Earnie didn't KO too many top flight guys - he wasn't good enough. We know he had the power to spare but he couldn't get it done. Tyson is so much better and more dangerous simply because he is on an entirely different level to Ern.
