Michael Spinks vs Prime Cooney

I think whats even more telling is you having to throw out every single excuse in the book to try to excuse away those losses to a light heavyweight. That four fight KO streak is important because shot fighters don't go on four fight KO streaks. The timing isn't there anymore. They get upset by those same guys they were supposed to beat. They don't stop them all in succession and the right hand Holmes knocked out Frazier with is still one best set up right hands you will ever see. Shot fighters don't throw right hands like that. You have to do a lot of damage control and bring out the full array of excuses to diminish those losses to a light heavyweight because maybe you think that makes Holmes look bad. But I don't. I don't have bring out every excuse for why Holmes lost those fights. The only excuse I need is that Spinks was just that talented and that good.

 

I'll go so far as to say there's a parallel in opponent selection between Holmes' choices of Frazier and Spinks.

Frazier was undersized, but otherwise very talented. He was 56-2 as am, had good wins a s a pro, and was undefeated. Spinks fit the same mold, but had accomplished more. Cherry pick gone wrong.

 

I'm not saying its regarded as a robbery it isn't a robbery but it's considered a very controversial decision and alot of people do think Williams won it.

As for Bey he won a very close decision over a hot and cold Page, and fair enough I'll give Bey credit for that win since Page did go on to beat Coetzee after. But have you actually seen Bey vs Page ? It was one of them very lazy disinterested performances from Page. Honestly I could never work out Page as a fighter his performances were so erratic aka Greg Page vs Mark Wills.

But anyway if I can try and put this another way would you even consider David Bey a top 20 H2H Heavyweight fighter in 80s ? I would not.

Realistically Bey only had 14 fights and was out of his depth vs Larry Holmes and wasn't considered much of a threat.

After the Witherspoon fight Holmes wasn't going to take on anymore dangerous opponents in which he perceived as loseable fights for him. And I don't think the fights vs Williams, Bey, were good performances and I don't think they're strong arguments in regards to showing Holmes was close to his prime.

 

Yes I agree it was a cherry pick gone wrong but I still think it's fair to say Holmes was considerably past his prime when he fought Spinks.

Holmes's prime weight was about 210 he weighed 221 and 223 against Spinks aswell as being 35 years old. And you can see from the footage Holmes hasn't got the legs, speed, reflexes, he once had 4 years ago.

 

I call BS on that. Spinks making Holmes come forward is what makes his legs look bad. Handspeed, reflexes, snapping jab. All still plainly on display.

 

For guys who saw top 5 Ring ratings in the 1980s, Rodrigues and Leon Spinks were worse,

Anyway, I'd say 1985 Holmes was as a point in his career similar to Holyfield from Moorer II to Lewis, or 2009/2010 Vitali Klitschko. Michael Spinks deserves lots of credit for those wins.

 

Oh of course I agree Spinks does deserve credit for beating Holmes, especially with the context of Spinks moving up from Light Heavyweight.

But I still believe Holmes was ready to be taken and was past his prime at this point, I don't believe Holmes was close to his prime like another poster is suggesting in this thread.

But overall I do think Spinks does get a bit underrated in regards his H2H status at Heavyweight, I actually believe Spinks could out point a comeback Foreman.

 

The only guy who I’d expect to beat Holmes in 85 is Thomas. Tubbs or Williams might, but they weren’t exactly consistent or better than him. Not exactly 91 Douglas.

 

Yeah I would of favoured Thomas over Holmes definitely that fight should've happened between 1984-1985 I don't think Holmes himself believed he could beat Thomas at that stage. I also think Withersoon would've beat Holmes in a rematch aswell between 84-85.

Random question where would you rate Michael Spinks in regards to his H2H status against the best Heavyweights of the 80s ?

 

You can say Holmes was not at his peak when he fought Spinks but you cannot say he was far removed from his prime. Spinks beat a good version of Holmes. Anything else is just petty little word games or you're turning into a non stop excuse machine to try to diminish those losses as much as possible instead of just admitting that the other guy was the better man.

 

Spinks. Cooney is a good man with a lot of moral and sense of justice, but he was, if we have to say the truth, a media creation, meant to establish a lifelong pensionplan for him and his advisors. Cooney was fun to watch but never a true top ten fighter. His friendship with Holmes is a class act. They are both two great persons. Holmes was an all time great, Cooney a good provider, and they both live with that.

 

1. Tyson
2. Holmes
3. Holyfield

Thomas, Ruddock, Spinks, Witherspoon, and Tubbs are all about the same after that. And Spinks might've beaten late 80s Holyfield anyway.

And there's a tier with guys like Tucker, Douglas, Dokes, Page, Coetzee and Cooney that I'd put just beneath them.

 

Ouch Michael would be a hurting unit. Liston wouid have badly beaten Michael. Lennox Lewis. The Holmes that beat Ali, 92 Bowe, FRAZIER....

 

Ewps, I thought this was Holmes Spinks h2h with ATG heavyweights in the past and future.