Michael Spinks vs Tony Tucker in 1987

Tough fight to call, Tony tucker was very inconsistent, he gave a very good account of himself against wrecking ball Tyson, but just a few months before that he had a real struggle with Douglas, who whilst decent really shouldn't have been as tough to see of for Tucker as he was.

Spinks had obviously come off a close/controversial rematch win over Holmes, and the win over Tangsted. I think ultimately this comes down to just how both prepare for this fight, a fully motivated Spinks beats any version of Tucker for me, but at this point Spinks was aging and his dedication may have been slipping a bit. And the Tucker that faced Tyson would have all the physical tools to beat anything other than 100% Spinks' imo.


I'm going to say though that the Spinks who stepped into the ring vs Cooney beats Tucker in a close decision.

 

Spinks really should win. His boxing ability was superior to Tucker's and that would bank him more rounds.

 

Tucker... points win for me... just too big and strong and cautious.. plus his motivation would be sky high for this fight as it would have been for a title...

 

I'll pick Spinks. Better fighter. But the size difference would have been interesting.

 

Tony, when motivated, was a pretty good boxer, but no one really saw his true potential.That being said, I think he beats Spinks by UD.

 

There is no 'if' distance wise about it. The fight happens in 1987 and an IBF title fight would of been a 15 rounder. And I take Spinks to sneak a decision. Tucker was brave and tough, but as Douglas showed, hated fighting anyone with a bit of cuteness.

 

All Tucker.

I didn't Like the Spinks team not taking the fight back then and thought it was a difficult matchup. And hardly an easy night's work for Tucker either.

But I did not like those Spinks legs going back to that Davis bout in 1985. I thought he should have lost that decision and he was a guy ready to be taken. An old Holmes couldn't capitalize but a 79 version of Larry would have had a picnic and wouldn't even lose a round to the guy.

I think Mike Spinks needs those legs against the youth and size of a Tucker. And Tony didn't give you anything and opponents had to work in there to break him down and I just don't see Spinks doing that. The Stefan Tangstad type opponents are much better suited for Mike to outmanouver and outsmart.

Decision bout all the way and neither guy is going to take risks in there and step on the gaspedal. A dreary bout for sure and neither guy is going to be accurate and both would miss a ton of punches thrown. but tony controls him a little better with jabs from way on the outside and it'd be enough to win on the cards.

Follow this bout up with a Trever Berbick match & let's see the IBF trying to sell this stuff as heavyweight title fights when the other belts are held by juggernaut Tyson.

 

Definitely a fight that should have come off.


Tucker had the size and ability to have decisioned Spinks,but as he was such a hot and cold type,I can see Spinks sneaking out a close verdict. Maybe a split one.

 

Yep.

But no easy night's work for Mike. Far far easier to fight Tangstad and Cooney instead. What killed me was thinking this prepared them for a rising 22 year old that was ko'ing everyone. I thought it was the worst thing to do with Spinks, but you had to keep Michael winning. So that means no Tony Tucker. Or a Carl Williams. Frank Bruno. Witherspoon.


Nope. Never. stay clear of that caliber fighter and look for flawed fighters and easy to hit guys right in front of him. 12 o'clocker's with low hands and guys that telegraph and bring their hands back low. And equally important, guy's not known for ring smarts.

This way Mike Spinks goes into the bouts with some nice advantages.

But it does not prepare him for the best heavyweight out there at the time. And I sure don't think spinks was going through tucker/Witherspoon/Williams/ etc. without a loss or more physical deterioration on those legs and reflexes.

So he was in a difficult position for sure. But we the fans of boxing are owed something as well. Where is the sport w/o the support of us, the hardcore boxing fans?

 

Spinks had $13 million reasons to protect his ass for as long as he could before fighting Tyson.

 

So the end justifies the means then, huh?

Man, am I thankful for all those Larry Holmes defenses. I really bought into Leon Spinks chances and why bother with a Weaver rematch when there was Leon? Did you actually think Leon had a chance against a Witherspoon or a Dokes then? Thomas? He had zero chance with Cooney even.

Then of course we had that huge huge buildup for the Leroy Jones fight. I couldn't wait for that one. How about you?

Then, no unification bout with Coetzee. Nope. The bout we got instead was the one the die-hard boxing fans were praying for--Lucien Rodriguez. Personally, I really admired the way that Lucien had cut a path through the other heavies, leaving a scrapheap. and it reminded of what Tyson was going to do a few years later.

See the problems with end justifies the means with the sport? Or how about recent times with Mayweather/Manny Paq? Nobody ever wanted that fight, did they? Fight could not be sold. We were far far better off getting the Ricky Hatton type matches instead.

 

Think I'd put some money on Tucker provided the lazy version never turned up. I reckon Tucker was the type of HW that Spinks avoided and for good reason....big, skilled and had some go (when it suited him)

 

there's a reason why spinks ducked him