You're gonna really have to cool it with that. @McGrain, the natives in your patch are in need of some heads cracked together and reminding which roaring twenties we're in (hint: not the nineteen-).
Good heavyweight thread! I'd go with Marciano as eventual winner and I think Charles, Patterson and Spinks are the other semi-finalists. Lots of close, difficult to call fights.
I’ll go with a prime Spinks. He could just sit on his jab and beat Marciano. Spinks was a shot fighter and had knee issues for Tyson.
Spinks was 6'2 with a 76 inch reach which is pretty big for a lightheavyweight especially in the 80's. Spinks also fought at 212 as a heavyweight and did not look the least bit out of shape. How many other lightheavyweight's were able to put on that much weight and be successful against true 200 pound plus men? Moorer? Toney? What did they look like at 200 plus pounds? Pretty damn fat. Again, Marciano was 5'11 and fought in the upper 180's pretty much his whole career. Ezzard Charles never broke 200 pounds either. I stand by my statement that Spinks who competed as a middleweight during his long amauter career was a big lightheavyweight. The guy trained like any animal which is why his knees were shot by his early 30's. He didn't have trouble making 175 because he was a pro's pro that wasn't going to lose his title on the scale or beat himself because he wasn't prepared. Aside from the scale, he never let one of the strongest era's of lightheavyweight's beat him either. All that said, I never said he was a shoe in or definitely winning this tournament. He simply has the best chance to win it in my opinion but who am I? I'm not an expert like Morlock. Regarding Holmes, if you read what I said if he was far from shot and still dangerous at 35 years old. He fought at a high level well into his forties and beat a very good Ray Mercer, lost a split decision to Oliver McCall and gave Holyfield fits. Was he close to beating Holyfield? No. Did he genuinely win rounds and push Holyfield? Watch the fight. He clearly did. Again, I am not pretending that Spinks beat the best version of Holmes but I am saying he was NOT completely shot and Spinks at that point was on the decline for sure. I know he had less fights than Holmes and was six years younger but he had also fought at an extremely high level going back 74' to 76's competing as a high international level fighter.
I stand corrected. Can I ask you when those fights were? Pretty sure those were at the tale end of his career when he really was a shot fighter that needed money. Again, you are not wrong. He clearly weighed more than 200 pounds a few times. Does that version of Charles beat the 212 pound version of Spinks that beat Holmes? I still say Charles was at his beats at 175.
Charles was a great light heavy ,and a very good heavy.His over 200lbs bouts were in his last few,when he was finished .
Spinks looked good at the weight aesthetically for sure. History doesn't have much of anything regarding light heavyweights filling out to 200 or a tad more because most moving up were fighting champs under or around 200 and didn't feel the need to put on that much weight to be competitive. May were also still competing at 175 around these heavyweight jumps so couldn't afford to go too silly i.e. Archie Moore. There is simply next to nothing to compare him with. Evander Holyfield however, would be the one to look at. His first four pro fights were all sub 180 and one as low as 176. He was often around 210 in his early heavyweight successes and was 215-218 by the time he fought Tyson. He looked fantastic. I will agree he was a big light heavyweight actually. I just went thru some of my old articles and he trained down extremely high tech. No, his knee problems started quite early from running in combat boots. He trained hard just like thousands of others but the knee problems were brought on from that aforementioned mistake. Yes agreed. He was a great light heavyweight. That's not even in question. You also said there was "only" 5 years between them as if it was not that much. 5 years at their respective ages in that era is immense particularly given the extra bouts and years as a pro mentioned for Holmes. Tho still hard to beat Holmes had been declining for quite some time. Choosing lesser opponents diminished how much it showed. I wouldn't say he gave Holyfield "fits" but maybe our interpretation of the word differs. I don't believe Spinks was on the decline at all going into Holmes. His only decline in effectiveness was that he was now fighting heavyweights instead of light heavyweights. He'd gone from being a very very big fish in a small pond to being a small fish in a very big pond. He looked fantastic vs Holmes and even more so taking into account the obstacles against him. We have to take into account that Holmes did not turn up at his 35yo best too. He thought Spinks was a walk in the park. In the rematch he turned up in the ebst shape he possibly could at that career stage and tho it was brutally obvious he was badly faded he looked a whole lot better than he was in the initial encounter.
Charles is one of my favorite fighters hands down. One of the most co You are right about Holyfield. I just consider him more as starting at Cruiserweight not Lightheavyweight. But he did compete at lightheavyweight as an amauter. We can agree to disagree about the other stuff. You make some good points especially in regards to Holmes being much better in the second Spinks fight. I don't know if I would go so far to say he took Spinks lightly in the first fight. Holmes wanted to break Rocky's record badly and was fully aware of the historical implications of that fight.
Hey cheers mate. Enjoyed the exchange of idea's and you forced me to revisit Spinks and remember his walking around weight was 190 odd. I had him mixed up with Hagler per his walking around weight being close to his fighting weight. Be sure to keep posting.
