Revisiting Gerry Cooney Vs Michael Spinks 1987

How did you rate this Michael Spinks performance? How would have Spinks performed if he accepted IBF challenger Tony Tucker instead and defended the IBF title as opposed to be stripped of it? Would he have acquitted himself better a year later in 1988 against Mike Tyson?

 

What I remember most about the fight, is that didn't Spinks land a ridiculous amount of punches in the 5th round vs Cooney ? Like wasn't it compubox record or something like that ?

As for your two other questions, I feel like Spinks was starting to fade already in 87. His legs weren't as good as they used to be, so I feel like Tucker would of beaten Spinks at that point.

As for Tyson well Spinks was intimidated by Tyson, so unless he overcome that fear factor somehow, I don't see him faring much better.

 

Spinks' performance in this bout was afforded him by Cooney's dire performance.

Tucker would have beaten Spinks and there just wasn't enough money in it for Spinks to take that hit.

Tyson would have always wrecked Spinks, regardless - but it would always have, at least, given him a big payday.

 

I completely concur, Tucker would have beaten Michael. However, I see Witherspoon and Smith stopping him as well. Perhaps Bruno.

Spinks was never a great heavyweight, he was a sensational light heavy though, for sure.

 

Michael Spinks looked remarkable in that performance. But a lot of it also had to do with the fact that his opponent didn’t want to be in there and looked as though he hadn’t trained much at all. As for Spinks vs Tucker I’m not as quick to write off Michael as some here already have. While Tucker should probably be the favorite it’s hardly a mismatch. Tucker was for the most part a non aggressive fighter who’s record was comprised mostly of trialhorses. The one live opponent he faced ( Buster Douglas ) was actually beating him for a good portion of the evening. And mind you, Douglas was a unknown who had lost to Jesse Ferguson a year or two earlier. Against Mike Tyson, Tucker fought to survive. Not win. Spinks despite being outside his best weight class ( and past prime ) was still very mobile. Packed a good punch. Could go fifteen rounds and had far more skill at the world level than Tucker. Don’t be fooled by the fact that one of them went 12 rounds with Tyson while the other lost in 91 seconds. Totally different circumstances as well as styles

 

Cooney's career was practically over after the Holmes fight . After it He was simply going through the motion.
His fight against Spinks was proof of this.
But I believe Cooney prior to Holmes, ko's Spinks with in 6-8 rds at the most.

 

I agree, Spinks couldn't have taken more than a few flush Cooney lefts in 1980, and yes Michael did get hit folks....he was no defensive wizard at heavyweight.

The reason I condescend to Spinks' heavyweight career is because he really didn't have the wins in my eyes. He barely beat Holmes that first time (quite a few people thought he lost) and the second fight was clearly Holmes, not just in my eyes. His defenses were against tomato cans...

I'll sing the praises of light heavy Spinks all day and Sundays too, but as a heavy he left a lot to be desired imo. He didn't even look good against Holmes in that first fight, half the time he came across as a spastic clown...though I admit that could have been an intentional tactic, it mostly looked really bad. I never thought he once looked like a heavyweight Champ in the ring, he just changed his style too much and too weirdly.

 

As I've said many times before and I know I sound like a broken record, but I feel like Tucker does get a bit overrated. His first 30 or so fights were vs nobodies until he stepped up vs Douglas. And outside of the Douglas win, there isn't many high quality wins except for Tucker winning a highly controversial decision vs Orlin Norris, and another close win vs McCall.

I do feel like though at that point in Spinks's career, with his legs not being what they once were. That Tucker would be able to win vs Spinks, but I do agree its not quite forgone conclusion that people think.

 

Exactly. And I’m not saying that I’d necessarily favor Spinks. Michael wasn’t all that well suited for heavyweight. And after the Holmes fights his hunger for boxing seemed to subside. But I’m also not ready to give an automatic win to Tony Tucker. Tucker was a passive fighter who had noticeably less skill and tenacity than any good version of Spinks

 

I would agree tho i do think Tucker, just by virtue of his size, youth and straight punches will be a tough out for Spinks. Tho he had a great chin at 175 a stiff breeze seemed to wobble him at Heavyweight. He's canny tho and a real winning type of fighter, a guy who finds a way to get the job done so it would be interesting. He was very sharp against Holmes but you feel like over the duration Tucker will be fresher and sharper than old Holmes was.

Would have loved to see it play out.

 

Yeah I totally see where your coming from, as I said Tucker struggled to beat 5'10 Orlin Norris who was a Cruiserweight. It's not out of the question the 6'3 Spinks could befuddle and outbox Tucker like Norris did. Spinks also hit pretty hard even at Heavyweight, I remember Tex Cobb saying when he sparred with Spinks, he actually buzzed him in sparring.

 

Yeah I feel like Spinks's legs were just not there anymore in 87-88, and the youth and size of Tucker might of been a bit too much for Spinks at that point in his career. But I do agree with both you and @mr. magoo i think it's a more competitive fight than some people believe.

 

Cooney looked like a guy who trained on Irish Whiskey for a month , probably Red Breast or Jameson .

 

Even though it looked like Cooney was just going through the motions that night, have to give Spinks credit for a great performance. Just dominated the much bigger man, and landed 84 of 101 punches in the 5th round.

I don't think Spinks would have gotten by Tucker, and if he did somehow, I don't think he would have acquitted himself any better against Tyson because of it. Spinks wouldn't have been able to keep Mike off no matter what.

Just a quick shout out to Butch Lewis here. Spinks-Tucker went to purse bid and was won by King for $711,000. It was to be split 75/25, with Spinks getting $533,250. This was to be part of the tournament to unify the titles (except the lineal title held by Spinks). Butch Lewis pulled Spinks out of the Tucker fight, and the tournament altogether to take on Cooney in a much lower risk/higher reward bout. Spinks made $4 million vs. a Gerry Cooney who had only one fight in about 2 1/2 years at that point. Tyson, of course, went on to unify the belts, but Spinks still had the lineal title....and something to negotiate with. Spinks' purse for the Tyson fight: $13.5 million. So instead of Spinks fighting Tucker for $533,250 in a fight he very possibly could have lost, Lewis pulls him out and gets him Cooney & Tyson for a combined $17.5 million. I think Lewis knew Spinks was on shaky ground at Heavyweight, and made the best possible moves to get his man a couple of huge paydays before retirement.

 

The Cooney fight really showed his power. Tyson is lucky he didn't get hit w those bombs I think he could've stopped him.


Alright I'll b serious now. Spinks already reached his peak at light hvy and his stay at hvy was never going to b a long term success. He really didn't impress me against a turning past prime Holmes either time. No point would he have beaten Tyson even if he wasn't intimidated. Damn sure would've been a stepping stone in the 90s. Fortunately he retired b4 it got to that point. No shame in losing to the scariest Mike has looked in the ring while also at his peak.