Could any fighter in history the size of Michael Spinks have stood a chance v a prime M.Tyson?

Holyfield? He doesn't beat 1988 Tyson but he doesn't get blown out in 91 seconds either.

 

You need to think this one thru more Mark and add extra stipulations.

Spinks was 212 1/4 pounds that night. He stands over 6"2'. Ali right before exile was virtually identical in height and weight. Do you think he'd have a chance? Holmes was around 212 in his best fights. He'd certainly have "a chance".

Frazier was lighter and shorter. Liston was shorter and basically identical in weight. Joe Louis is in the mix.

Tho not a natural big man Spinks size statistically brings in a huge amount of great fighters so my answer is plenty would have "a chance" and all of the above would have "done better". It would be hard not to.

Edit - Didn't even think of Holy.

 

At one point Tyson was the most destructive HW in Boxing History, so there would have been very few who 'might've beaten him...

But as stated above, many would have faired better than Spinks did, who was shitt ing it.

 

Maybe 24 or more. Stupid thread.

 

Well, would you say Michael Spinks represented a genuine heavyweight at 212? Are Michael Spinks and the George Foreman who fought Aaron Eastling in 1970 (212 lb) the same size?

 

The problem against Tyson wasn’t Spinks size, he was a lot taller and had a longer reach. No,Spinks problem was Tyson was much stronger, punched far harder, hit faster, moved faster, was more durable, more determined, more focused and maybe more importantly was in the prime of his fighting life.

 

Prime Holy, Holmes, Frazier, Liston, Louis all had a very good chance imo.

That said, there are plenty of BIGGER men whom wouldn't have stood a chance. I'm not sure prime Bowe or comeback George would have made much of a dent, for instance. Pre-Steward Lewis would have been all done.

 

I can think of at least 15 who would have a great chance and many of them would outright beat him. I like Tyson, loved watching him fight, but he was human and had certain weaknesses.

 

That lot certainly "have a chance".

 

Yes he was human, but name these many 210-215ish lb fighters that outright beat a prime Tyson..

 

Of course Spinks was a genuine HW. at 212.5 & lean. Larger than most until not many years before he fought Tyson.
Were prime Ali & Liston not genuine HWs? "Black Hercules" Weaver & many others were lesser weights.
Including Louis, Frazier before he got chubby, more so Marciano...

But while Foreman was a little taller, the main difference is you are taking Foreman at his lightest when very young-& maybe dehydrated, because apparently Saddler foolishly had him shed water before fights-with Spinks who worked hard to add muscle!

So while in those figghts Foreman & Spinks were right around the same size AND about the same body fat level, there is a big difference in bone structure & natural size.
Foreman being over 230 from very young & dehydrating/training down, Spinks a natural LHW *before* guys had day before weigh ins.
They were not naturally the same size or body frame.

Sort of like say SRR & Ezzard Charles. Only maybe more of a natural difference.
Same small height difference, but Robinson was naturally a WW moving up to MW, Charles naturally a LHW who moved up to a small HW.

 

Prime Liston, Louis, Foreman, Holmes, 60s Ali, FOTC Frazier, possibly the Bowe I Holyfield.

 

1. I´m not sure how lean he really was to start with. Apart from that, the question should be if much of that weight represented functional abilitys HWs that day possessed. Normally we compare that weight for boxing athletes trimming down to a comparable level, not up. Bringing me to 2.

2. Many believe we should have seen more of Spinks against Tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs or other standard sized HWs from the era, not beeing the alcoholic rehab version of Cooney. Then we might have seen more of a genuine HW going toe to toe with the 218-pounders of the era. Like Michael Moorer demonstrated for example.