Michael Spinks Light Heavy Resume IS Overrated

You say it's not even Top 10 and yet you regularly defend Foster for fighting a string of bums in title defences, half of whom were never even rated, the other half rated about a decade before Foster fought them.

 

No PP, I don't think it was considered weak at the time. Hagler's biggest name scalps were guys moving up (Duran, Hearns of course). Remove those names and I think it was maybe even a little better than Hagler's division.
Qawi was a great win (although I agree with Lora that he gets a little more credit than deserved). The win over EMM was a very good one. Lopez ALWAYS showed up for a war, but was probably slightly past it. The Davis' were good fighters. Vonzell Johnson was a good fighter. Marvin Johnson of course a multiple champion who benefited later in the decade from the weakening of the division. Murray Sutherland was a good fighter.
Guys like MacDonald, Sears, and Rivadeyra were mediocre, but I think Spinks fought who was available.

 

Show me where I did that. I don´t argue with you about Foster or Monzon. Waste of time.

 

Mustafa was "pretty good" and Qawi was "great"? I actually think Mustafa, when on his A game, was the better of the two. Calling Eddie Davis a bum doesn't do your credibility any favors, either. You just don't seem to have a firm grasp on any of his opponents, so why do you think we'd take your opinion on his resume seriously?

 

Hagler has never said anything nice about... anything.

 

I agree with this. As we know, his training for Spinks wasn't his best though.

 

Eddie arguably beat Spinks.

 

I second that.

Personally, I think have him in the top 3 but I can accept him in the top 4. The only guys I would accept above him would be Charles, Tunney, Moore. Thats it.

@ Body Head with regards to Eddie Davis; he certainly was no bum.
Look at Andrew Golota; involved in a bunch of high profile fights good fighter has tier 1 talent but never quite moved up to the next level. It doesn't undermine the value of the win.

Look at Jeff Lacy, his decline shouldn't undermine Calzaghe's win. Joe beat a good fighter that night with his speed, awkwardness and talent. Assessing the quality of the win is more than just looking at a resume.

 

Spinks was a great great fighter.

His LHW era was good, and if it had not been, his results vs the field would carry considerable weight.

 

But that's all that is on most fighters resumes. It is very few fighters that ever get the chance to fight multiple HOFers, let alone beat them all.

People have this absurd idea that a fighter should have multiple ATG scalps in a division to be considered great. Think about it - in any given year there can only be at most one 'great' in a division, and often not even that, you might only have 3 or 4 great fighters in the world at any given time. So, how can someone be expected to face SEVERAL great fighters in just one division?

Spinks fought at least one great fighter (Qawi) and beat him. And then moved up to heavyweight and beat another ATG as well as a stoppage win over a very big, good guy in Cooney. That, and his power and consistency is why he is rated highly as a LHW. He is one of the few LHWs to get the HW title and it was from a great heavyweight too, albeit a bit old.

Consider the Spinks beat the legit HW champ. Moore failed to do that, so did Foster. Charles and Tunney are the only other guys to do it.

 

But Spinks then moved up and beat Cooney, and Holmes (twice). That pretty much answers any questions over weak opposition.

 

Heavyweight accomplishments don't count at 175 lbs.

 

Didn't see Hagler climbing into the ring with Spinks though he could have.

His actions pretty much neutralizes his opinion.