Why was Michael Spinks though as someone who could dethrone Tyson?

Spinks fought in the Olympics as a middleweight.

Evander was a Lightheavy in the Olympics.

To me, Holyfield had more on his "chassis" to be
able to add to.

Even Spinks' own Manager use to call him "Slim" as a nickname.

 

Some people -- and they were definitely in the minority -- felt that Spinks's natural talent, long range boxing ability and hand/foot speed might enable him to outbox Tyson over the long haul.

Remember, styles make the fights. The fact that Spinks barely beat Holmes, whom Tyson easily destroyed, didn't say much about the fighters prior to fight time.

Of course, it turned out that Spinks was just too small and weak to trouble Tyson.

 

To answer your question BIll, most people at the time thought that Spinks was going to get destroyed.

Of course, there were a select few who felt that Spinks' elusiveness and awkward style was going to give Tyson problems, but for most who had paid attention to these two fighter's careers between 1986-1988 knew that Michael was just going through the motions.

His ducking of Tony Tucker to take a bigger and safer payday against Cooney was telling if his intentions. Spinks was just out to rake in the cash, while Tyson was demolishing the rest of the division. On the night of the fight, Spinks had a look in his eye that said " Ok, let's just get this over with. "

Additionally, I myself had always wondered why Spinks never fought Tyson with more tenacity, but after viewing some of his earlier lightheavyweight defenses, along with his showings against Cooney and Tangstad, I learned why Spinks was no match for Tyson. He was a very slow starter, who allowed his opponents to build up too much momentum early on. Stephen Tangstad was about as mediocre as a fighter could be going into a championship fight, yet he managed to fire off some very good shots early, as Spinks was warming up. This was a terrible chemistry to have going up against a spark plug like Tyson in the late 80's.....

Michael Spinks' right as lineal claimant had been very far removed by 1988, and his overhyped superfight with Tyson was nothing more than a marketing ploy in my opinion. The public was fooled into believing that this was the greatest matchup since Ali vs Frazier I. But, I was watching nighty news briefs leading up to the fight, and about 3 out of 4 experts picked Tyson to anialate Spinks. It was a sad scenario, but the simple fact that Spinks was undefeated in 31 fights and was a two divison conqueror, was enough to convince the people that Michael was a legitimate threat.....

 

Let me say this - if they never met i can absolutely PROMISE you there would be people running around in here saying Spinks would have been too crafty and Tyson was lucky they didn't meet.

It was craftiness and awkwardness that led quite some people to thinking Spinks could win a decision.

 

Spinks was a necessary lamb for the slaughtering mate... We can both agree on that.......

 

I thought he might make it interesting for a bit at the time, but hindsight now shows me how woefully i judged the situation. A guy with Tyson's aggression, hand speed, power, durability and footwork is just MOIDER on ex light heavies. I can't think of a light heavy in history i would back to go the distance with him at this time.

 

Agreed. The size is not so much an issue, as Spinks was actually the bigger man at the time, but still. He simply did not have the tenure at heavyweight, nor the right set of skills, or mindset to be competitive with Tyson.

Funny thing. I saw this fight one week after it aired on pay-per view television in America. My parents had already purchased tickets for me to go see an Iron Maiden concert in Chicago that summer, and weren't going to pay an additional bundle for me to see a fight at home. In hindsite, I made the better choice...

 

...well, i'm one of those technical s.o.b's who felt that it was not spinks trying to unthrone tyson...it was the other way around....that spinks WAS the defending champion (lineal) and tyson was the challenger. i have my own personal boxing history, so to me tyson was older when he won the title than the age given when he won the alphabetical bodies.

re: why some thought spinks had a chance. james tillis showed how tyson could be vulnerable to a good boxer. (to me , that fight was more like ali-tyson light.) the fallacy was that spinks wasn't clever boxer in the classic sense...he had a herky-jerky style that had been good against other fighters. i myself felt spinks might stay in for a while, but thought tyson would eventually catch him. eventually just came sooner than I thought.
p.s. can't some editor or whoever get tid of al those damn pictures?

 

.............Ha ha. You swore too.


P.S.........what the hell are you talking about?

 

Well for me size is the actual issue, in a different way. Spinks may have been technically bigger in some ways, but he was the MUCH smaller man. Tyson's size was all natural and totally dynamic, where as Spinks size was full of artificial filler. He was never a bonafide Heavyweight and never would have been, even given his historical wins over Holmes. He lost so many of his 175 pound advantages including the edge being completely taken off his incredible power. His speed was also only average at 175 so he didn't gain much advantage there over the standard heavy.

Iron Maiden, now that would have been interesting. I envy you guys back in the day with concert after fantastic concert rollin' on thru.

 

:good

 

Spinks didn't want to face a real threat at HW. At 175 he had a lot of physical advantages. He dipped out of the tournament because he didn't fancy meeting a Witherspoon or a Thomas or even a Bonecrusher... A Tyson fight was worth a fortune and whilst he had a lineal claim he had a bargaining chip...

So he fought against faded HWs like Holmes and Cooney and peripheral figure Tangsted. Like John says many hoped Tyson would be stretched a little. But the fact remained that Spinks had avoided any real challenge just in case he got beaten.

John's analysis is also spot on IMO. Tyson was so fast on his feet that at the time no 175 fighter could compete. Spinks' wins were all about movement and Tyson's footwork and footspeed (plus Spinks' knee) meant the advantage he enjoyed over other HWs was not there.

IMO Spinks would have lost to any top 10 rated challenger. What's more: he knew it...

Back then Tyson was cutting through the division and we fans wanted to see him stretched in order to see just how good he really was. We wanted to see him in a give and take fight. A come from behind situation. A get up from a flash knockdown and win fight. Of course none of these things ever happened.

 

In hindsight, I doubt very much we actaully managed to witness a truly prime Mike Tyson. Nothing remains to provide a true "PEAK" of Tyson, without offering contentious arguements. Taking into account, the numerous negative episodes he endured in the early stage, Champion stage and post prison stage.

Many Heavyweight champs endured the same fate, to a degree, and evolved through the negatives, allowing them to better themselves. Positive influences afforded these men direction also.

Tyson appears to have been nothing more than a walking $$ sign to all who entered his life.

 

Very few gave him a shot ... Tyson was a huge favorite ... Spinks had dethroned Holmes and defeated Cooney and since Tyson had destroyed everyone else, it was hyped as a title unifier ... plus remember Spinks had his own history as Olympic gold medalist and undefeated light heavy champ who had successfully moved up ... all that hype and money for 91 seconds ...

 

Come on man.

The fact that Spinks had bandages around both knees says it all.

He had no chance.

No guy with bad knees beats that version of Tyson.