The oft belittled heavyweight Mike Spinks versus the beatified heavyweight Gene Tunney. Let's put them in a ring for FIFTEEN rounds. Who walks out the winner? And based on what? Try to be concrete and specific about your reasoning.
You might as well just skip right to the part where you say the only good heavyweight that Tunney beat was Dempsey and that he almost got knocked out in the second fight and about how he wouldn't be able to take punches from the version of Holmes that Spinks fought, etc.
One could argue quite successfully that the only good heavy Spinks beat was Holmes, so your easy way out has been boarded and nailed shut.
Easy way out? We all know this is just going to turn into you disparaging Dempsey and going on and on about how he was a serial ******, pimp, etc. all unsubstantiated and completely false claims I might add.
Spinks defeated Murray Sutherland, Yaqui Lopez, Marvin Johnson, Eddie Mustapha Muhammed, Dwight Qawi, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney. The only "names" on Tunney's record, besides Dempsey, are Harry Greb (who beat him up badly before losing an eye!), Carpentier, and Tommy Gibbons. And oh, BTW, not one black boxer on his record. Spinks plays with Tunney and KO's him middle rounds. Yes, I said it: PLAYS WITH HIM.
OK, they both built their resumes against a past prime all time great, and had a thin heavyweight resume besides. I still see everything favoring Tunney. Tunney fought the past time great who had the less excuses, and was much more dominant. Tunney left the sport because there was no obvious challenger, and Spinks left the sport because there were too many worthy challengers. Tunney could have been around for a while, and Spinks could not, even if Tyson hadn't happened.
OK, this is just laughable. Dempsey had plenty of excuses, the major one being he had sat on his rump for three years and entered the fight with no warm up. Meanwhile, Holmes had beaten an undefeated Williams, an undefeated Bey and a once defeated power punching Smith in the previous TWELVE MONTHS. That's the guy Spinks faced. And Tunney's "could have been around for a while" doesn't hold much water. He didn't have a track record in the division. He also "could have been dumped on his ass" the next fight or the first time a younger buck wanted to go more than 10 rounds.
I used to stare at Jack Dempsey’s pictures in the ring magazines. The reds and the blues convinced me that he was Superman. I used to look in the mirror and try to copy his pose. I believed he could punch through bone, and dodge a bullet. Then, I realized it was all a lie. He couldn’t shoot lasers from his eyes, or spin the world on his finger. His pose wasn’t even an actual boxing stance. My hero, Jack, was a lie. Why Jack, why!?!?? The illustrations!! They were so colorful!! You were supposed to save the world!! You were supposed to save ME!
How dare you. Any day now Jack will bob and weave from the heavens to swoop me up from this dump. You just have to stare at the ring magazine covers long enough and believe.
Howdy Seamus, my money is on Spinks. He has a good height advantage over Tunney , I also believe Spinks would have longer arms despite both having claimed 76 inch reaches. Tunney must have had a good set of wide shoulders on him. I believe Spinks has advantages over the " Fighting Marine " in experience, versatility and punching power and I would back Spinks to win the battle of the jabs with relative ease. Michael had an exceptional jab. Tunney looks pretty good on film but when you actually examine his record he didnt fight many good, prime fighters let alone great ones. He usually seemed to have an advantage in his fights too, either size or age. I have never been that convinced of the merits of heavyweights pre Joe Louis to be completely honest. Boxing was a relatively new sport as far as gloved fighting and the Marquis of Queensbury rules go in the post WW1 period. As a final comment I reckon Spinks would have much more experience at fighting a guy like Tunney than Tunney would at fighting a guy like Spinks. Cheers All.
I think it is a very interesting fight. Spinks has an inch or so in height. Tunney an inch in reach. Over fifteen maybe Tunney edges him but I can see many close bouts in a Charles / Walcott manner.
I think they were both equally skilled, but I favor spinks because he was the bigger, faster more awkward of the two.
15 rounds.Tunney 195 lbs, Spinks 208 lbs. Tunney starts early and has a points lead after 10 rounds. The Spinks Jinx begins to find Tunney more and more, and a Spinks' left upper cut/right hand, TKO's Tunney, as Tunney attempts to rise at a count of "eleven", in the 13th round. Tunney vs Tommy Gibbons: Tunney 181 lbs, Gibbons 179 This content is protected Tunney vs Carpentier: Tunney 173.5 lbs, Carpentier 173 lbs This content is protected Tunney vs Tom Heeney: Tunney 195 lbs, Heeney 203 lbs This content is protected Spinks vs Tunney, Spinks 208 lbs, Cooney 238 lbs This content is protected