Vote on who has the better resume Jones or Spinks

+1

 

exactly.

jones has let's say around 20 or so B or C level titlests, or former titlests on his resume (mccallum, johnson, etc.).

two B+ level victories over ruiz (generous yes but a BIG size difference), and virgil hill (who could have been A level had he been prime)

he has only 2 A level victories (let's go with HOF level to be objective): toney and hopkins. Now putting aside weight or age, those are very good wins.

spinks has fewer B or C level wins, I'll put Cooney and Davis

he has 3 VERY solid B+ victories over muhammad, lopez and johnson

but he does has 3 A level victories: 2 over holmes and 1 over Qawi

When i look at him, they're close but while jones has much more "filler" and lower tier titlests spinks' top wins are just plain better. i guess it depends on what you favour

overall, i give it to jones because, even without the A level victories spinks has, he has soooo many solid wins over underrated comp that he might edge it.

 

true and i think jones' resume is getting undersold on this thread but twice beating a top 5 all time heavyweight, once CLEARLY and then dominating the second best era of light heavies ever, that goes a long way

 

I think Spinks has the better resume, but Jones-Toney might well be the best win.

 

Spinks is winning because in his day he was the top dog at LHW. He beat some really good fighters in the process and more importantly he cleaned out the division while establishing lineage. There were no loose ends when he left. Afterwards he moves up to Heavyweight after he rejected Hagler's offer to come down to 160 and Marvin refused to come up to 175. He then went on to dethrone the champ.

Jones beating Ruiz was special to the extent that he came up in weight all the way from 160 over the years to take a piece of the Heavyweight title. However if we put it in persepective it's like Spinks moving up in weight and beating Greg Page instead of Larry Holmes. If Jones went up to beat Lennox Lewis who was clearly at the tail end of his career then his win would be a wash with Spink's HW win.

Jones has the depth, that is clear given how many more fights he's had but Spinks has better quality wins.

 

Spinks resume is better more quality, better opposition in their prime and was lineal at both his weights.

 

Comparing a win over Qawi with win over Hopkins and Toney is absurd. Both were ten times more skilled and clever than Qawi ever was. Holmes a Top 5 all-time hw? Gimme a break. With his resume?

 

skilled yes but the comparison was made as objectively as possible, using HOF status. it may not mean a ton but it's a start. qawi was a brilliant LHW and cruiser and spinks' win was tremendous

holmes is a top 5 heavy, i was gonna say top 3 but figured i'd be conservative

 

Using the ridiculous standards used by IBHOF for comparing two fighters is quite clever. Fighting the has-beens or never-were's and losing to his best opponents is a sign of brilliance indeed.
Who are the other two if Holmes is a top 3?

 

1)i'm a little confused by your first statement. who is fighting has beens and never weres? and who lost to his best opponents?

2)ali and louis

 

Qawi of '83 was a way more accomplished fighter than Hopkins of '93. He was also the champion of the world at that weight.
Qawi's record is very good.
I don't know exactly how you're measuring skills and cleverness .... ?
How do you do that ?

 

He'd achieved more at that stage, Hopkins would go on to achieve far more and actually had more fights under his belt. In terms of ability '93 Hopkins gets talked down but there is little evidence he was far from his prime

Qawi was a fantastic fighter, but at the end of the day he was a 5'5 LHW taking ona 6'3 boxer with an excellent jab. He was always going to be massively handicaped against the better rangier opponents at LHW so for me this isn't quite the massive win its made out to be

 

Walker was very famous, Greb very well respected. Gans/Langford too were two very respected fighters. Robinson was one of the ten biggest sportsman in the world at that time.

In the sense of the modern superfight, of course they got no where near the publicity. But contemporary newspapers of the time, had a a lot more ink for boxing than the modern era. These fights would of got their share of that, but unlike the modern superfights, there would of not been the six months (some six years!!!) of build up.

 

Ooooooohhh, that's gotta sting.