Was Tyson-Spinks fixed?

I did too. I was around 14 at the time, and my friend's father paid like 100 dollars to go see that fight somewhere. The next morning one of my parents told me that had heard spinks lost in 91 seconds. Most fans predicted Tyson to win emphatically, but the importance of the event was taken very seriously by sports fans everywhere.

 

ok ..the talk of fear abounds ..i think fear is the wrong word .
Every fighter is nervous entering the ring (even Tyson) , its human .
Hell ..Foreman once said his knees were knocking when he stood toe to toe with Frazier , at the ref's last words ...He turned the nerves into aggression .
I believe Tyson did the same , and his aggression meter is turned way up , much more than Spinks . I dont think Spinks was 'scared' but he was definitely un-nerved by the hungry lion wandering around the ring pre fight .
The snarl and the eagerness to rip your head off emanating sheer violence enough to unnerve anyone .

FTR Alex Stewart was definately SCARED!!! lol

 

I wouldn't say that Spinks was "terrified" per say. But it was evident by the look on his face coming into that bout that there was little or no determination. It was as if he knew this was a passing of the torch and his last professional fight. A man who goes into a boxing match with that mentality is almost certain to lose.

 

Nothing fixed about it. Spinks froze and got starched by Tyson at his very best.

 

I would have to do the research, but Spinks believed even after the fight that he could beat tyson. I would have to look for an exact quote.

Anyway the whole, Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight isn't really a detraction. Half the guys Jeffries defended against were light heavyweights. Two of Johnsons best wins (Burns and Langford) were against light heavies. Two of Dempsey 's three biggest wins were against light heavies (Gibbons and Carpentier) and the guy who took his title was a blown up light heavy. Billy Conn was 174 pounds when he almost took Louis title. Marciano was pushed to the limit by one blown up light heavy and dropped by another. As mentioned Larry Holmes lost to this very blown up light heavyweight. One of Wlad s best wins is against a blown up little guy who happened to have beat his brother. So let's not pretend like it's nothing to blow out a blown up little guy. Sometimes it can bite you.

 

Maybe they bite you, you psychedelic tragedy. I'm only bit by dogs and girlfriends. And once a homeless person outside a Kraftwerk concert.

 

"Spinks later conceded that "fear was knocking at my door big time."

Judge for yourself. Spinks looks scared when he enters the ring and could not even look at Tyson during the stare down.

Tyson had the ability to intimidate and create fear.

Tangstad? He didn't deserve a title shot, and had little power. Lets not even mention him with Tyson in terms of being intimidating.

[url]http://bestproboxing.com/middleweight-championship-boxing/mike-tyson-v-michael-spinks-91-second-knockout-undisputed-heavyweight-championship-1988/[/url]

 

No but Tyson vs Douglas was:

1.How long was Buster down in the 8th ? 16 seconds..

2. Who was Mike's trainer that fight ? Rory Calhoun ?

3. Why did Mike have a warm water balloon instead of a bucket of ice with no real cut man ?

 

I disagree with the claim that Tyson's people held up the fight at all. Tyson was fighting everyone. It was Spinks who held up the fight and it was Spinks who sat on the shelf while Tyson was fighting often. First of all, Spinks pulled out of the unification tournament. That is how Tucker got the belt in his bout with Douglas. Spinks refused to fight Tucker, which is why he was stripped of the IBF belt. Then Spinks wanted a massive payday to fight Tyson, and Butch Lewis was not about to let him fight anyone else and possibly lose a mega-payday. So Spinks sat on the shelf, they built that fight up, and eventually the numbers were agreed upon. Jim Jacobs all along wanted that fight because 1. he knew it would be lucrative, 2. it was meaningful for Tyson's legacy because Spinks was the linear champion, and 3. he was very confident Tyson would win, and even said they could have a deal very quick if the Spinks people would agree to a winner take all proposition. He said it without any hesitation and you could just see the confidence oozing from him when he said it. But of course they had to agree on the numbers, and although Spinks was the linear champ, Tyson was the biggest attraction in boxing at that time, and he had all three belts.

 

Sulaimán Jr: Your ol' man's organization and DKP were the only ones who tried that to pull that one, and rightfully it backfired spectacularly.

 

Hell, I don't even believe Tyson vs. Seldon was a fix, as many seem to. I think it was more a bottle job on Seldon's part, overwhelmed by the moment and scared witless by Tyson even before setting foot in the ring - and then compounded by a minute of seeing how easily Tyson was slipping and countering his jab (the only real weapon on which Seldon could've realistically hung any hopes to last & thrive). Once he felt the brunt force of even a forearm bash from Tyson - which is what accounted for the first knockdown, since no part of Tyson's fist connected on that right hand and the set-up jab had been stuffed into Seldon's guard - he was done, mentally. He did beat the count, but he was already done and ready to fold ASAP. On the 2nd knockdown, he did get caught with a pretty legit flying left hook. Even after that he could have continued if he wanted to; he just didn't anymore.


Tyson vs. Spinks was clean.

 

***

 

Spinks had no business being rated so highly on the p4p list by 1988. It was based on the hype and his unbeaten 'pedigree' amd on his light-heavyweight career, and the fact that the Haglers and Leonards had gone into retirements. There were several better p4p fighters.

C00ney had no business being rated as a genuine HW contender by mid-1987. Good performance by Spinks but it hadn't escaped everyone's notice that he'd avoided all the young and 'live' HW contenders out there, not just Tyson. And C0oney himself had never actually beaten a prime young contender either, even when he was active and young.

Spinks' second win against an aging Holmes was considered debatable at best.

Yes, Spinks had a certain "mystique" surrounding his unusual style and his unbeaten record that made people consider and discuss his outside chance of being able to "confuse" or "befuddle" the slugger Tyson. He had of course already caused an upset in defeating Holmes, so he was known as a man who bucked the odds. But not many were really so convinced enough to change the fact that the odds stuck at 4-1.

Let's be honest, Spinks was "built up" as a 'viable' rival to Tyson, cleverly, by his manager Butch Lewis who was wise enough to make a lot of currency out of the title lineage, and also wise enough to pull Spinks out of the HBO HW unification tournament, sacrifice the IBF belt and allow Tyson to eliminate all the other HWs so that only Spinks remained and as a 'parallel champion'. The fight in 1987 wouldn't have drawn half as much as it actually did in 1988.
The boxing media were keen to do their bit too, with Tyson emerged as the new superstar of boxing, they needed a SUPERFIGHT for him.

Yes, Spinks was a credible opponent and his linear claim was genuine, but let's not pretend his actual changes against, and relevance to, Tyson wasn't inflated and ballyhooed with a lot of great marketing.

 

***

 

There is nothing to disagree with. Tyson's people categorically refused to allow Tyson to fight Spinks for over a year. When Spinks crushed ****ey a fight was already being discussed between he and Tyson. Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton stated THAT NIGHT that Tyson wouldnt fight Spinks that year and in fact it was just over a year AFTER Spinks fought ****ey that Tyson met him. Simple as that. Its easy to say that Spinks walked away from negotiations whats harder to admit, and what frames that discussion, is that Cayton and Jacobs offered Spinks about half (after more than doubling what Spinks would have gotten to fight Tyson in the tournament) of what he eventually got when the fight was made. In other words they offered him short money. Oldest trick in the book. Offer a guy short money, watch him walk away, and then pretend the guy is scared. Its an incredibly simple and convenient way of looking at the situation, especially when you insinuate that Spinks avoided Tucker, but totally ignores that Spinks was a bankable fighter who held the keys Tyson NEEDED to advance his career. He didnt need to sit around and be treated like a slave by Cayton and Jacobs. Nor did he need to take short money on a tournament that he could have made much more money outside of (Frazier made the same decision two decades earlier). Its not like Tucker was this feared fighter. When Tyson fought Tucker the audience was chanting "Spinks, Spinks, Spinks." Thats hardly a vote of confidence for the 14-1 underdog Tucker. During the prefight press conference nearly every question was about Tyson-Spinks, not Tyson-Tucker, resulting in Don King going off on the press. When interviewed after the fight Tyson said he would not fight Spinks, who had come to the fight lobbying for the match. When the Spinks Tyson fight was first discussed in conjunction with the HW tournament Spinks was only to get $3 million. But first room had to be made in the tournament for Tucker who was originally not supposed to be in but was made the mandatory for Spinks by the IBF and told that Spinks would be stripped if he didnt defend. Don King won the purse bid and Spinks purse was going to be just over $500,000. His lowest purse since he defended his LHW title against Diamond Jim McDonald. Spinks had made twice that fighting Tangstad. Instead he withdrew from the tournament and fought ****ey for 8 times what they would have paid him to fight Tucker and then fought Tyson for almost five times what they originally offered him. In total Spinks ended up earning $17.5 million dollars (in purses alone, that doesnt include ancillary rights or endorsements which he got) Vs. the $3.5 million he would have had he taken part in the tournament. When you frame it in context Spinks was not only smart but right to handle things the way he did and it had nothing to do with cowardice or a fear of losing.