Michael Spinks resume?

I have Michael Spinks no lower than #6 and generally in my top three. Arguments, any number of them, can be made, either way.

He has a terrific resume at light heavy. He did all that was asked of him, leaving no doubts. He could have, IMO, reigned another five years, maybe more, at light heavy if he truly liked what he was doing, was able to make weight, was able to keep focused.

He took a chance moving up. He put his chips on the table and did better than many predicted.

Make no mistake. He didn't love boxing. He was happy to walk away when he did.

 

The reality is that he did do better than expected. He beat, IMO, a flat, overconfident variant of an aging Larry Holmes.....but even that took something. In the rematch, Holmes was not flat and was far more focused...and Spinks weathered that storm very well. In no way do I believe that the Ray Mercer of 1992 compares to the Spinks of the Holmes debacles. I believe that Spinks was far and away a superior fighter to Mercer.

Spinks himself was doubtfully optimistic about his chances against Holmes....by his own admission. Don't get too down on the general perception of that period. One guy that predicted a Spinks win given his keen understanding of both men and where they were skill-wise in mid-1985 was none other than Eddie Futch. He called Spinks risky for Holmes, warning Holmes that he possessed remarkable "sting" and surprising reflexes.

 

As you have pointed out yourself, he was always pretty open about the fact that he had no great enthusiasm for professional boxing, and was really approaching it as just that, a profession that he took very responsibly

Coming in at 170 pounds for David Sears shows that this would never have been any kind of problem for him. In retirement, he looks to have remained fairly lean, and seems a naturally skinny guy.

At the time he challenged Holmes, Mike had reached a position where he could have dominated the light heavyweights as long as he cared to. But there were only a couple potential threats to his LHW crown remaining after he consolidated the light heavyweight title (specifically, in rematching Mustafa Muhammad after Eddie blasted Mwale, and having another go with Qawi), so lack of quality challengers was certainly going to hinder his focus and dull his competitive edge until he retired undefeated or lost by default in a major upset.

There certainly was an element of risk involved, as somebody's unblemished record was guaranteed to be tarnished, but the larger chance was taken by Holmes, as Mike would remain the undisputed LHW king no matter the outcome. Being one of the most brilliant businessmen of any boxer from his era, he went the only place where a truly big payoff was sure to await him, and achieved what some were beginning to think of as boxing's equivalent of the three minute mile. (That he was able to do what he did while the reigning champion at 175 psychologically sets him apart from Root, O'Brien, Carpentier, Loughran, Henry Lewis, Conn, Maxim, Moore and Foster. As far as I'm concerned, Mike's the number one light heavyweight of all time, by being the first to follow that by winning the big prize, proving to any successors that it could indeed be done.)

When he was 37, there was fleeting talk that he was considering a comeback. Al Bernstein discussed this on ESPN, felt it would be a very bad idea for him to try returning as a heavyweight, but that he might still find considerable success at his former weight. He was certainly physically intact, but had nothing left to prove. I don't know that he could have synthesized the renewed internal drive necessary to merely revisit past glories. Even a completely successful return to boxing at 175 was not going to enhance his historical standing in my estimation. ("Been there, done that.")

To me, what happened with Tyson does nothing to diminish his standing. Tyson starched plenty of world class heavyweights with the same dispatch (Frazier, Williams, Tillman, Stewart, Seldon, Savarese, Etienne), and Spinks was a well known slow starter. But Cooney was also supposed to break him in half with sheer size, power and fast starting ability. For me, Spinks/Cooney remains an amazing upset. The Jinx had thus already proved himself as a heavyweight by the time Tyson came along, and smartly obtained a quick easy payday by losing in 90 seconds. (I don't think Mike has the same vanity about his career as many ATGs. Given the choice between retiring undefeated after Cooney or taking the money and quick knockout loss from Tyson, I suspect he'd make the same business decision Holmes did when Don King gave Larry three million to get flattened three times.)

 

How would Spinks Vs Holyfield at CW in 1987 have gone down??

Would have been a great fight!!!

 

On his day Spinks beats any light heavy IMO. Technically good but seriously akward with a good array of shots and power in both hands (he was not always reliant on the vaunted Spiks Jinx) I have him at no4 behind Charles, Foster and Moore

 

I agree.

 

What the hell are even rambling on about??

Gene Tunney is a "bum" now?? So I guess that means Jack Dempsey, Harry Greb, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jeff Smith, Jimmy Delaney, Georges Carpentier, and Battling Levinsky were all SUPERBUMS then, huh? :roll:

 

I think I want you to expand on this statement. If you're gonna throw out stuff like this, at least make a case.

 

LOL, the sport was different in them days.

Tunney once fought Greb, Gibbons and Smith in a six month period with the three having a combined record over two hundred wins with seventeen defeats. Name a world class fighter who now a days who A) fights three fights in six months and B) Does so against fighters with at least 50 wins to their names...

Henry Armstrong used fight more times in a year, than some top pros do in a career now a days.

 

Interesting, considering the fact that Holyfield never even made the 175 lb. limit as a professional.

Heavyweight is a better matchup between the two since we've actually seen them fight there as pros.

 

Holyfield was considered a 175lber after the 84 Olympics, and probably could of made 175lbs for the first year as a pro, if needed.

 

And how many fights did Tunney lose to earn the status of a "journeyman"?

And since when "journeyman" beat the likes of both Greb and Dempsey??

Do you have actual proof of that? Or are you just making assumption's off boxrec's incomplete records.

 

Top 5 for Spinks as a LH, and that ranking would hold true even if he had never one a single fight at heavyweight.