Did people project Spink's greatness onto Mike Tyson?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Russell, Dec 19, 2017.


  1. Russell

    Russell Loyal Member Full Member

    43,443
    12,844
    Apr 1, 2007
    Spink's was a legitimately great fighter at light heavyweight, and dominated the division during one of it's strongest ever periods. That's a hell of an accomplishment. In my opinion, Tyson never accomplishmed anything in his career that equals Spinks LHW work, none the less him moving up and upsetting Holmes. That was big. Anyway...

    Did part of the hype bubble of Tyson exist because dominated and beat Spinks the way he did? Despite the fact that Spink's wasn't truly a heavyweight to begin with, yet was in the ring now, at the very end of his career, against a very dangerous and young one.

    Basically, did people just assume that Tyson was going to clean out the heavyweight division the way Spinks had at LHW, because the way their matched played out? Basically, making the assumption of greatness even though it's clearly a situation with a lot of different facets to it.

    I guess the same applies in Tyson's drubbing of an old Larry Holmes.
     
  2. surfinghb

    surfinghb Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,406
    17,590
    Aug 26, 2017
    I personally don't think so ... Spinks sh*t his pants when faced Mike, just like most did against prime Mike ... I think it was more about Mike than it was about Spinks... I mean the Mike Hype was well already there
     
    Sangria likes this.
  3. Russell

    Russell Loyal Member Full Member

    43,443
    12,844
    Apr 1, 2007
    I wasn't following the sport ack then, so I was wondering how much of Spink's greatness people automatically put onto Tyson's shoulders after the win. I've heard his aura of invincibility was pretty surreal at one period in time.
     
  4. 5016

    5016 Member Full Member

    153
    97
    May 3, 2014
    The Spinks win didn't make an iota of difference. Tyson was supposed to be unbeatable and everyone expected Spinks to be executed. It's hard to convey how big Tyson already was unless you were there. He was huge before he won his first slice of the title.
     
    Sangria and JC40 like this.
  5. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    15,098
    10,730
    Sep 21, 2017
    Michael Spinks IMO was a formidable fighter. Depending on the heavyweight, Spinks could have done much better. Spinks lost the way he did because he fought a prime Tyson. Not just because he fought a top level prime heavy. Spinks may have lost against say a prime Ali or Holyfield, but I do think he'd have gave a good account of himself which would've boosted his standing as a top heavy.

    The way Tyson beat him was a gift and a curse. Had Tyson struggled more with Spinks and got a 6 or 7 round stoppage, people would more highly regard Spinks and the win. It's just that Tyson blitzed through him.
     
    Contro, Sangria and Russell like this.
  6. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    15,098
    10,730
    Sep 21, 2017
    Many favored Tyson, but a lot of people expected Spinks to be the one to beat Tyson if anyone could. His odds were WAYYY higher than Buster Douglas odds.
     
  7. 5016

    5016 Member Full Member

    153
    97
    May 3, 2014
    Higher, yes, but Tyson was 4-1 favorite. Long odds considering spinks was in theory the champ.
     
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,198
    26,478
    Feb 15, 2006
    Possibly so.

    Many people thought that Spinks would win, and those who thought that he would lose, thought that he would be relatively competitive.

    Memories of Ezzard Charles were still relatively fresh in some peoples minds.
     
  9. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    471
    Oct 6, 2004
    Tysons aura was massive when he KO d berbick in the first. And lets be honest, this was one of the 10 best world heavyweight title wins, in terms of dominance. Combine this with the unification (none of the fights were really close and both big heavys simply hung on as best they could and barely landed a decent punch). Spinks win was billled as a huge fight and again Tyson's dominance was probably a top 10 heavyweight performance. i do think this cemented his legacy and added massively to his aura. Not because of Spinks greatness (and he was better than he is given credit for) but because of Tysons dominance. Throw in the Williams fight, the many early kos and his general complete dominance over everyone until Douglas, Tyson legitimately cleaned the division and built his own aura. Spinks' greatness wasnt really a factor, it was more tysons performance.
     
  10. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,363
    41,294
    Apr 27, 2005
    Agree, Tyson had well and truly built his platform. Spinks was a cherry on top as many saw him as the last legitimate type challenger at this point and the best of the rest. Quite a few thought Spinks had the style and talent to be some sort of chance.
     
  11. Saad54

    Saad54 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,796
    6,500
    Dec 10, 2014
    Per highlighted part:

    The divison was stronger in the mid to late 70s then it was when he became unified champion in 1983.

    As for your question:

    Spink's accomplishment at Light Heavyweight, however great they were, were not considered in determining the type of opponent and threat he may be to Tyson, or factored into rating Tyson after he beat Spinks. The fact Spinks had moved up to successfully beat Holmes was seen as a great accomplishment and he gained great respect for that - Many great LHW's had failed to win a Heavyweight title - Archie Moore and Bob Foster top that list. So, Spinks was actually looked at as a legitimate Heavyweight after the two Holmes wins and the destruction of Cooney.
     
  12. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    15,098
    10,730
    Sep 21, 2017
    It said ONE of the strongest periods not THE strongest period
     
    Russell likes this.
  13. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    15,098
    10,730
    Sep 21, 2017
    To be fair, Ezzard Charles didn't have to fight a prime Mike Tyson. I could see Michael Spinks beating the version of Joe Louis that Charles beat and I can see Charles beating the version of Holmes that Spinks beat. I think had Charles fought say, a prime Sonny Liston or a prime Louis and was competitive or even beat them, it would have been more comparable. But still not 100 percent comparable because Tyson had a unique combination of attributes they didn't.
     
  14. juppity

    juppity Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,342
    4,343
    Dec 28, 2016
    No. When Tyson ko Michael Spinks it had as much affect if Tyson would have
    ko a Roy Jones Jr HW. The usual excuse too big and powerful for a blown
    up LHW.
     
  15. Russell

    Russell Loyal Member Full Member

    43,443
    12,844
    Apr 1, 2007
    Thanks for the discussion so far, from everyone. I'm still wondering if anyone got exactly what I was trying to convey with my post or if it was just nonsensical babble. :ohno