Is Michael Spinks a greater fighter than Marvin Hagler?

Between 1980 and 1985, I think it is very, very close. They both peaked in 85 in achievement terms with their greatest wins. Between 1986-88, Hagler probably comes off 'less worse' is how I would put it. Spinks was an unfavorable decision away from defeat in the rematch against Holmes. Hagler got that unfavourable decision against Leonard (one I happen to agree with, but let's not go there!). Other than that, Spinks seemed content to fight average opposition for 18 months and then take a big payday against Tyson (I don't blame him for that).

And you're absolutely right, there's really nobody comparable that Hagler could have fought to the Tyson that Spinks fought. So, yes, it probably is a little unfair to knock Spinks on the Tyson fight. But when measuring up these two, I consider it a contributing factor.

When you've got two guys with otherwise spotless reps and pretty much spotless records, even a small stain on a record can be magnified. The problem for Spinks was not the defeat per se but the nature of the defeat. Toughing it out for a TKO defeat in around 7 like a Pinklon Thomas wouldn't have had the same negative impact. But being annihilated in 90 seconds - that's hard to forget even if it's somewhat unfair as a final memory of an otherwise spotless career.

It think it makes a difference though.

 

By the way, this was a bloody good comparison thread, @Golden_Feather99!

 

Yeah? Which specific numerous fights against the toughest of opponents are you talking about?

Apart from his actual losses, what numerous fights was he in any actual danger of losing before he toughed it out and came out on top in the end? There's the fight against Hearns when the cut on his forehead might have stopped the fight but apart from that I can't remember many fights, in which he came out on top in the end, tough as they were ,that you had the feeling he was in any real danger of losing.

 

Mugabi was a top challenger and a paralyzing puncher who came in the ring trying to KO Marvin from the first round Bell with every blow. Hagler won in a brutal encounter.

His aforementioned battle with Hearns speaks for itself.

 

No

 

Anybody who thinks Spinks beat Holmes the 2nd time does not know how to score.I am tired of reading this.One if the worst robberies I have ever seen

 

I watched that bout live. In the end I was so confident Spinks lost My buddies and I were not staying for the decision. When I eventually heard they gave the decision to Spinks I did term this the worst decision I ever saw. HOWEVER I just recently rewatched this bout and I must say on second look this was a close fight. Holmes came out early VERY aggressive looking for a KO expending lots of energy. He felt he would get that KO but he did not. Mid fight he was spent and Spinks came on strong outpointing an increasingly exhausted Holmes. In the end there was not much between them.

REGARDLESS Spinks won the decision and in the end the judges call stands. Spinks best Holmes to win the WORLDS hwt championship, repeated this win in his first defense and defended his title twice more. He remains the only lt heavyweight champion to win the worlds hwt title. An historic accomplishment at a very high level.

 

In the end I thought Holmes closed the show leaving absolutely no doubt about who was the winner,He had Michael out on his feet.I think we disagree about the end then

 

When I write “in the end” I’m not referring specifically as to who won or who did not win the final rounds. My point is that upon seeing the fight a second time at its end it was a close fight overall. Holmes winning the first half big and Spinks winning the second half big. Holmes exhausted himself going for the KO early.

 

Both great ATG fighters but:
1) Spinks was moved along slowly after the 76 Olympics.
2) Marvin sharpened his skills against a myriad of 'bad arse' opponents in the 70's; they were not pan fed to him early on (as Michael was groomed for his eventual dominance-no knock there) as evidenced by his two early losses.
3) If if...I know...but: If Eddie Gregory hadn't ballooned up for his 'brain-dead' decision to fight Snipes and stuck to LW 'BUSINESS' and...not shown up to defend against Spinks looking like a 'shriveled pear' you're looking at Spinks' first loss right there! Jeez, he was in control of the fight the first half before wilting late and even a 'jinx right hand bomb"...ON THE MONEY! didn't keep him down. In addition to everything I've said the Associated Press called their fight a 145-145 draw!
Eddie ruined his legacy with his, shall we say, 'weirdness'.
IMO he was a better fighter then Spinks, more skilled, with a higher % of power shots from either hand and a better chin!
Don't get me wrong, Spinks was great; just not as skilled...my $0.02
I'll take Marvin as a better ATG over Michael by a sizable margin!

 

I watched Spinks much anticipated fight with Gregory. It was a non event Spinks won fairly easily. You can’t look back and say the result would have been different “if”. Well you can but it’s a huge disservice to the winner. Spinks won the bout fairly easily. Eddie was always a talented but very lazy fighter. Spinks won 9, 10 and 11 rounds respectively on the judges scorecards if my math is correct.

 

Mugabi was also really a light middle his scalps at 160 are pretty underwhelming.

 

Both are top 5 all time in their respective divisions,imo.Hard to call.

 

Fair enough Jel. I do feel terribly sorry for Spinks in that the more casual fan only really remembers that Tyson blowout and so many barely even know he was a great light heavy. That's not most in here tho of course.

It's obviously on a razors edge for you and imo it should be - it's that close.

I don't give Hagler any leeway for the SRL fight as i firmly believe Leonard won the fight. For me it was a meek way to go out considering all the factors involved. Spinks clearly won the first Holmes fight even if imo he was beaten in the rematch which can be argued as close. To be honest a close decision loss to Holmes in that rematch would not have hugely impacted him for me. Spinks was a huge underdog vs Holmes where as Hagler was a huge favorite vs Ray.

Spinks didn't think he could beat Tyson and of that i am very confident. In one of my mags somewhere a reporter asked him when he was going to fight Tyson (well before they did) and his response was very negative and disinterested. Something like why don't YOU get in the ring with him. If i come across it i will post it one day.

I can understand it being the tipping point for you based on it is so close but i think to myself what would Tyson have done to other great 175's? I think he is the worst matchup for any 175 pounder in history. He is uber aggressive, at worst has a very very good chin, is faster than just about any 175 ever and has the power to leave them prone - and then some. He also has great punch variety and pounds the body. Even Charles, who made a very very good heavyweight would be highly likely, IMO, to be starched early. Moore as well i reckon and Foster would have a terrible time.

So close tho. Hagler's extra fights and better competition/opponents coming thru the ranks, Spinks decent top end wins incredible feat of winning the heavyweight title.

The extra convo has put me in a place where i really need to try and split them - for TODAY hahaha!

Today i side with Hagler. Disregarding SRL he was extremely unlucky not to have got the decisions over Antuofermo and Watts. That would have seen him beaten just once (twice avenged) in well over a decade after being matched tough early and fighting everyone and anyone.

Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney would have been the first two do the double if opportunity fell their way. They were both the best light heavyweights in the world so that takes the teeniest bit of shine off the achievement for me even if it still needs to be held in huge esteem. Spinks also gets points for scaling divisions.

But yes gun to the head it's Hagler for me.

 

both excellent fighters in their weight division - Hagler fought & defended against a solid group. Spinx beat Dwight x 2 and defended well. He was also a decent Heavyweight beating Holmes and Cooney-aged but still good win- unfortunately he walked into a Fresh Prime Mean in condition & ready & unexposed Mike Tyson & we all remember that one. If Marvin would have moved up he may had had issues. Some guys are meant for a division & should live there.