Michael Spinks vs Jack Dempsey

Spinks gets knocked out.

 

Jack walks through the Spinks Jinxs and wins by KO in 4

 

I think this would be a good fight. I think many look at what happened in the Tyson fight and automatically assume Spinks has no chance against Dempsey. It should be remembered that Spinks beat a Holmes that was still pretty good.

 

I'm not a huge proponent of the size thing, but since you are, I'll halfheartedly agree :smoke

 

Funny thing about this match is that Spinks was a lightheavyweight who in Dempsey's era might actually be considered a super heavy. Strange how time has a way of changing things I suppose.

Anyway, I take Spinks by a wide decision.

 

Look you *******,

I don't know who you think you are but I never said anything to warrant your insulting bull****. And anyway Spinks when he ascended to heavyweight was 6'3" and around 205 Lbs which is bigger than about 15 out of the 20 stiffs that you have on that list.

So go **** yourself............

 

hey john i know you are big on size, but didnt i read somewhere once that you make a small exception for marciano, and think he would do well in the later eras despite his size?

 

I'm going with Dempsey by stoppage, rnd 7ish.

 

This kind of thing illustrates the absurdity of the size significance argument you're engaged in.

I mean, you say "Lets take Spinks from the second Holmes fight" ..... But WHY ?
I thought he was better in the first fight !!

It gets silly when these debates just boil down to each side "proving" how BIG or SMALL some fighter is, and I've been guilty of it too, and it's especially ridiculous in the case of Spinks and Dempsey who are BOTH PROVEN CAPABLE OF BEATING MEN OF WIDELY VARIED SIZES.

As for the outcome, I'm surprised by how many believe Spinks would win.
I dont see him dealing with the kind of combined speed, power and aggression that Dempsey brought to the ring. The heavyweight Spinks was too fast for that version of Holmes and Cooney, both of whom produced horrible lumbering mud-footed performances. But against Dempsey ??
Spinks would look slow.
No way can I see him winning.

And I think a cruiserweight Holyfield would haver beaten Spinks too (and I say this only because the Tyson-Spinks analogy seems to have been outlawed due to the SIZE issue)

 

Well, I agree with you.
But then again I watch Tyson-Spinks and it NEVER looks like a big guy beating up a small guy.
I dont think Spinks was small.
I dont think Dempsey was small.
And I dont think Mike Tyson was "much bigger" than either of them.

Anyway, I'm just saying too many of these threads descend into these bizarre arguments over size. I doubt bodybuilding forums spend more time pondering the biceps measurement of their champions than we seem to do here !

Anyway, who do you think wins : Spinks or Denpsey ?