you can't use division 'titles' to justify a boxer's credentials, not in this mickey mouse era where every man and his dog has a title... who they fought and when is the best way to assess a fighter's career, which isn't half bad for spinks really.
he is one great win and one good win away IMO...if he beats one of the top 154lbers and beats a top middleweight he is a shoe in.
true but playing devils advocate, 3 time,2 weight, undisputed welterwight chapion sounds to good to be a poor resume
No not right now but if he became linear at 154 he would be for sure though. With that said people hate on Cory because of his style but in his prime he was a nightmare match up for anyone in boxing.
It's not a poor resume, but it's not a HOF one either. Titles are almost meaningless in this day and age, even though winning the true welterweight championship is a big deal. His only two really good wins are Mayorga and Judah (who he was 1-1 against), and those guys aren't exactly ATGs. After that, you get 1-1 against mediocre Piccirillo, a disputed win over Roman Karmazin and win over shot Miguel Angel Gonzalez. People crack on Carlos Baldomir all the time as a weak champion, but I'd say his overall resume is stronger than Spinks' (even though I think Spinks would have dominated him H2H).
No. He has two wins over a guy who had a record of 0-17. Too many tomato cans on his resume. Plus his style was boring.
If Joe tessitore can get in the hof, sure spinks can, he has a decent resume and was lin eal 147 champ.
If Spinks were to get in before people like Cocoa Kid, John Conteh, Gato Gonzalez, Hilario Zapata, etc....I'd blow my brains out.