Michael Spinks and his reign as Heavyweight Champ - Questions

How is a heavyweight title reign that starts with defending against the mandatory, consensus No. 1 contender (Holmes) embarrassing?

Tangstad was Euro champ and, as you noted, was ranked. Hardly the worst title challenger ever.

Cooney was the biggest money fight out there and Tyson was a unification.

I don't see your beef.

 

Let's see, he had five heavyweight fights:

1. Holmes, the undefeated, undisputed champion
2. Holmes, rematch, the No. 1 contender without question
3. Tangstad, yeah, an easy fight but everybody gets a defense like that. Everybody.
4. Cooney, the biggest-money challenger who had only lost to Holmes. It turned out easy, but the 6-foot-7 Cooney vs. the "blown-up light heavyweight" Spinks was not considered a throwaway, easy defense, given that Cooney was much larger, was a puncher and had only lost to Holmes.
5. Tyson

So out of five heavyweight fights, three were against ATGs who were the top fighters of the two respective eras that Spinks bridged. That should give you a gauge of where he stands. A lot of guys have come and gone without fighting three fights against ATGs in that short of a span.

Compare his reign to anyone in that general era besides Tyson and Holmes (I'm talking about all those one-and-done champs) and it's a decent reign. He wasn't ducking anyone or he wouldn't have rewatched with Holmes and wouldn't have fought Tyson.

 

Cooney wasn't part of Spinks' reign. Spinks was striped for taking that fight instead of fighting Tucker. It was a huge payday. Cooney was perceived as a much greater threat going in than in hindsight too.

 

Cooney was not seen as an easy fight! He was much bigger than Spinks. This is, in fact, one of my favorite fights, and in my mind, one of the most impressive performances ever.

 

Neither Cooney or Tangstad were ranked by the Ring .Spinks fought Cooney in 87 ,Cooney hadn't be ranked since
84

 

I think you guys need to get what the OP is trying to say in his unerudite manner.....its hard to gauge how good a heavyweight spinks was...his two wins over holmes were controversial but symbolic of a good heavyweight....than he beats cooney who only had 1 loss in impressive fashion....than the massacre in half a round with tyson..i think the OP is saying that it would be easier to accurately gauge spinks if he had fought in addition say a bonecrusher, a witherspoon and a Berbick...

 

No one can strip the worlds hwt championship. Spinks was champion until he lost to Tyson.

Saintpat is on the money.

 

Instead of fighting two unranked men?

 

I still can't believe people think Holmes won the first fight vs Spinks.

The 2nd fight was much closer so I have no issue with people saying or thinking that Holmes won that one but I think he clearly lost the first fight.

 

Cooney altho unranked due to inactivity was definetly a top fighter....hindsight is a great thing but gerry had only had one loss at that stageand when he had sporadically reemerged to fight he usually knocked cold a top 20 opponent...so there was still a bit of waryness of cooneys power and aura at that time....altho in retrospect it seems mistaken....cooney was an alcoholic who had fought a couplevof rounds in 5 years and his big three wins were 7-8 years behind him.his skills had eroded .....that said spinks did a real number on him....a better job than foreman....the cooney of the foreman fight looked sharp again

 

I haven't watched them in ages but my recollection of both the Holmes/Spinks fights is that they were awful spectacles. Whilst the first bout was close, I certainly don't believe Spinks won their rematch.

I think the Tangstad bout was a legitimate defense but a bit of a soft option; not something I'd be too critical of Spinks for, though. With that said, I felt the Cooney fight was a mickey take and this wasn't even recognized as a defense.

Spinks' ring walk towards Tyson could be likened to a man, whose time on death row would soon be at its end.

So - really - having caught Holmes at the right time and been gifted a decision (and perhaps two), he takes a couple of seemingly tough options (having been a former Light Heavyweight) that weren't and then looks like a dead man walking against a legitimate Heavyweight peer. There was nothing solid, in between him winning and losing the his title, which could have affirmed him as a serious Heavyweight belt-holder.

All-in-all, Spinks as a Heavyweight, was a disappointment. He gets a pass for having formerly been a Light Heavyweight (and an exceptional one, at that), with there being mixed expectations from him in the higher division. That is to suggest anything Spinks did as a Heavyweight would be seen as more or less passable, from this underdog's perspective.