Michael Spinks - 1980's Heayweight Ranking

Michael - one of the all time great light-heavyweights does n't feature that high in the pantheon of the bigger division. He was certainly in the right place at the right time when he fought an fading and jaded Larry Holmes.

 

Spinks beat Holmes but got his shot just off LHW feats. The group you can rank over him are those you'd think could beat Holmes in 1985 and 1986 if they'd gotten the title shot instead.

For me that group is Tucker, Witherspoon, Buster Douglas and Pinklon Thomas. Obviously Tyson.

Ranking this group(3-7) including Spinks is tough they all have a unique group of pros and cons that balance each other out. I usually rank Tucker, Witherspoon and Pinklon in order but Spinks and Douglas can put anywhere from the front to the back.

 

Tucker? Again????? Tucker at that time was fighting the likes of Bobby Crabtree, David Jaco, 11-3-0 Eddie Richardson x 2! and 11-10-2 Otis Bates. Like he was getting a title shot, let alone winning it. The better conditioned Holmes of the rematch would beat tucker at any stage of his career. He doesn't remotely below in a group with Witherspoon and Thomas. Tucker beat one contender in the entire 80's despite having 36 fights. I've seldom ever seen anyone so underwhelmingly managed.

Tucker beat one contender in the 80's. He'd be lucky to be in the top 25 given his glaring lack of quality wins. Douglas at the time was considered a good win, nothing more.

 

Spinks an extra talented guy, but he got lucky against faded Holmes.
Beating Tangstad and Cooney was like a bum of the month club.
He had a big fat 0 Chance against Tyson.

 

Cooney was actually considered a decent win at the time he was on the comeback trail and actually considered a threat to Spinks at that time he was an 8-5 favourite over Spinks.

Just for the size difference between the two I think it's a solid win.

 

Yes in size respect definitely.
In hindsight we know now that Cooney was drinking still before Spinks,his confidence not that good and his inactivity really didn't help.
A few more fights, doing a early Foreman comeback, would have greatly increased his chances imo.

 

I remember Ali and Jersey Joe picking Spinks, I actually thought he'd test Tyson a little while.

 

I don't see how you can bring up Tuckers resume when comparing him to Michael Spinks of all guys. If people rate Spinks high with a 4-1 record at HW I don't see the problem rating someone high who started 48-1. While Tuckers list of quality wins is light he has over 14 times as many of them(counting all of them). Tuckers got at least 4 quality wins at HW and did better against Tyson. So I don't know how you say Tucker doesn't have enough when Spinks has the shortest HW resume of any champ in history. At least the other guys Tuckers being compared to actually have more big wins and we can debate the merits of whether Tucker proved he was on a higher level in a few fights. Spinks doesn't so why even go there? Usyk has beaten more HWs then Spinks.


Tucker won his state title, the NABF/USBA double, a world HW title and got multiple other title shots.His managers followed the established blueprint for getting a US fighter to the top and it yielded him all the hardware you can win. Whats different is who Tucker ended up fighting on this path to and for these accolades compared to others which has a highly random element to it. Like Wilders team if a fighter accomplished enough where people blame their management for ruining their legacy it means they did a great job. Unlike Wilder Tucker payed for this luck by drawing 3 lineal champs for his first 3 title shots and did well in all 3. It all evened out in the end. Tucker beat McCall and Douglas who went on to beat Lennox and Tyson and further cemented that Tucker was on that level.

Fighters should be credited for doing well in losses to the best fighters and many have this mental block against that for some reason. And then they wonder why no one fights anyone any more. Tucker wasn't fighting anyone until he fought 3 lineal champs and he committed the mortal sin of going 1-2 and winning 13 out of 34 rounds. Tucker might have actually beaten Tyson if that was a 15 rounder. Spinks on the other hand barely survived being touched by Tyson.


And those people in the 80s were wrong about Buster. We know they were wrong and I don't understand why we have to pretend they weren't wrong. Its not even hindsight Douglas was written off because they saw the 3 losses on his resume. He'd beaten Page and would have beaten Tangstad if not for deductions. Tangstad being one of Spinks only 3 HW victims.

This "Tucker beat 1 contender in the 80s"(I have him at 3 with Jimmy Young and Broad)is why I think we should rank fighters by generation and not by what they literally did in decade. Decades cuts up fighters careers in all sorts of bizzare ways and doesn't prove anything. Those saying Douglas's win over Tyson doesn't count towards 80s rankings cause it was in February 1990 are missing the whole point of this exercise. Same goes here where we can cut out a whole 13 fight win streak from Tuckers career because it wasn't part of the decade Tucker is seen as belonging to. Any decade in relation to someones career is a random 10 years. This isn't neutral and favors those whose timing aligns with the stars. Its super stupid when women make decisions based on astrology but ranking athletes based on when the 00s and 09s happen to align isn't that different when you think about it.

I don't think Tuckers team steered him away from challenges it just sorta happened. Tucker fought a 12-4 fighter who beat Jimmy Young in his first fight. Eddie Lopez retired after fighting Tucker and Dixon retired shortly after both in their 20s. Those are the sort of guys who could have turned into guys people would give Tucker credit for beating and they didn't. A lot of Tucker opponents had a bad record against an amazing SOS too like Jaco and Everett Martin guys who lots of HWs fighters farmed. And Jaco actually had a good record when he fought Tucker. Everett Martin had just beaten Witherspoon and knocked down Moorer a few fights earlier. I put more responsibility on reigning champs to control their SOS. Something Tucker or anyone in this discussion really wasn't. When Tucker was IBF champ he defended against Tyson right away. What more can you ask for?

 

Michael Spinks beat the reigning lineal champion, x 2. The number #1 rated heavyweight in the world, a guy sitting at 48-0, a guy that had fought a dozen years and not been defeated, a guy that had been considered champ for 7 odd years. A top 10 heavyweight who many rate top 5. Regardless of whether Holmes was in steep decline he'd kept on winning (albeit not against the best contenders) and was a huge favorite over Spinks. The first win over Holmes puts spinks miles above Tucker in the 80's heavyweight stakes. Throwing up Tucker's 48-1 with zero context shows what a hail Mary you are riding. It's virtually all filler. There's been loads of fighters that got to similar records but were found to be pretty ordinary as soon as the competition got steeper.

Light? His quality wins are almost non existent. Even the win over Douglas wasn't rated highly at the time, and to be frank, it's hardly rated enormously now. He was the fourth guy to beat Douglas and not even the first to stop him. Douglas had actually looked the better fighter before the end, an end many believe came about via Douglas quitting. Tucker did not have 4 quality wins at heavyweight lol. Him doing better vs Tyson, i mean, he won three rounds, means little to nothing. He got widely outpointed. Spinks short top end at heavyweight wallops Tucker.

Spinks won the big one. Tucker never won much of anything, ever. Tuckers achievements aren't remotely comparable to Spinks at heavyweight. Spinks was lineal champ. He beat the MAN. Tucker beat nobody really.

Many boxers won the NABF and USBA titles, they were minor events. You try to make them something amazing in a mad attempt to boost Tucker. It will never work. His "title" was vacant. He never actually won a title off a title holder. Tucker didn't win all the hardware one can win. Where the WBC title? The WBA? Lineal?

If you think people blaming management for ruining a fighters legacy due to fighting stiffs is a good thing i don't know what to say. Wilders a laughing stock in here to a great many people. Unlike Tucker tho, more than one person will remember him on a reasonably regular basis.

Tucker lost to basically everyone decent he fought except Douglas. Douglas wasn't seen a a top win. These are the facts. Douglas beating Tyson 3 years down the track doesn't do near as much for Tucker as you try to claim. In the 80's, which is the topic of the thread!, Tucker didn't do much at all. He's not REMOTELY in the conversation for top 10 Heavyweights of the 80's.

So what? Those wins weren't Tucker. Tucker actually lost to both Lewis and Tyson! Tucker beat McCall in 1992, not the 80's!!!! He lost to Lewis in 1993. Tucker had twice the amount of fights and experience McCall did. Don't even begin to try and pass McCall off as prime. He beat Lewis a whopping 8 years later and had quite a few losses in between.

The trouble for Tucker is that he didn't beat anyone. Again, these losses you fawn over aren't even 80's.

Let me get this straight. You are counting Douglas as Tucker fighting and beating a lineal champ? Surely you jest? Tucker never fought a guy who was lineal when they fought in his life. Could you be any more desperate trying to boost Tucker's resume? It's insane.

How on earth could you think that. Jesus. Pigs might fly too, which is probably more likely. So what if Tucker lasted 12 fighting mostly negatively against Tyson? It's pure desperation again.

Wrong how? Are you somehow trying to imply Tyson beat the Douglas that beat Tyson? So Spinks beat Tangstad and Douglas lost to him? Got it.

Broad wasn't a top 10 fighter, so cross him right off. Jimmy Young??????? Young had lost 4, count them, 4 fights in a row when he fought Tucker. Do you think me silly? Young would not have been top 25.

The thread specifically states the 80's. If you don't want to play don't post in here. Tuckers also did jack in the 90's so lets not pretend it overly impacts his career.

No, you are!!!!! Terribly so.

One can only imagine the quality of that 13 fight "streak"

The thread is extremely clear in it's ask. Start your own thread if you can't handle this one.

 

Jesus.

I don't know but at the end of the day his win list is very ordinary and pales to over a dozen heavyweights in the 80's, to put it mildly.

Sure they might have hahaha. Maybe one of them would have broken Joe Louis' heavyweight defenses record and we could retroactively rate tony Tucker the #1 heavyweight of the 80's LOL

Stop it. Jaco had lost 3 of his previous 5 fights.

Everett Martin had lost 9 of his previous 10 fights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He may have had some good names in there but he couldn't beat anyone. He won 1 or 2 rounds against Qawi for heavens sake.

So? He'd lost 9 of 10, Witherspoon was the only fight he won.

Right.

Are you going to pretend he wasn't obligated to defend against Tyson via the Unification series was locked in? Do you think he could just dump the title and walk away from $1.9mil? He'd had to fight oodles of nobodies to earn that sort of loot.

 

Counting 2 wins is dumb when its Buster Douglas and Oliver McCall but barely beating Holmes twice at the end of his reign is different cause he was the champ? Holmes might have been be 48-0 with 20 defenses but before winning the belt and after losing the belt his SOS was at least as bad as Tuckers in non title fights. He fought Shavers, Mercer and Ferguson in eliminators then senior circuit fights with Smith and Weaver at the very end of his career. Holmes did the same thing you are accusing Tucker of.

If Tuckers 48-1 is mostly filler hes still got more than 4-1. Hes got 4 or 5 big wins. How much more than that is up for interpretation but hes got that much.

The Douglas win isn't rated highly because people slander him as a one fight pony who was a good fighter for one night. They've even named him after the place he beat Tyson.

This is that Usykian nonsense where beating the lineal champ or best fighter is everything and it washes away lack of a resume which wouldn't have counted anyway because they "fought no one". "I'll forgive 6-0 and close wins only if you beat AJ, Fury and no one else". "I'll forgive 4-1 but only if you beat Holmes twice". And forgives the same thing you won't forgive Tucker for who did not get the oppurtunity to fight Holmes and could have done better than Spinks did. The same was likely true of Douglas who became a lineal champ.

Tuckers 4 best wins and best loss whatever you think it is beats Spinks. And this is only accepting your premise the rest of his resume means nothing.

McCall was 27 hadn't lost in two years when he fought Tucker and wouldn't lose for 5 years after. I don't think me thinking he was reasonably close to his prime to be unreasonable.

Douglas is a lineal champ. That is a fact. I'm joking for stating facts? Tuckers first 3 title shots were against LINEAL champions and he fought well in all 3 fights. This is a fact. Tyson and Lennox weren't lineal yet either they were belt holders who'd become lineal.

At one point NABF was the 2nd most important belt during the 70s when held by Ali and Foreman and the USBA became the IBF. Given the US's dominance in the late 20th century they were the most prestigious regional titles you could win. And I have 6 guys winning them Witherspoon, Tucker, Tua, Peter, Rahman and Oquendo. Maybe I'm missing someone but its not a common honor.

If people don't remember or think about Tucker why has he invoked more passionate responses then any other fighter I've ever written about on here? Clealry people do remember him and think about him a lot.


Who did better against champ Tyson than Tucker? Oh Buster Douglas. Who did better against Lennox then Tucker? Oliver McCall. Both Douglas and Tucker did way better against Tyson then Spinks. Tucker won 4 rounds against Tyson and 3 of the last 5. Its possible if that fights 15 Tucker wins.

Douglas's lose to Tucker was the only one he had in 5 years prior to Holyfield. Whats so wrong about saying thats a similar Buster Douglas to the one who beat Tyson? Douglas v Tangstad was a draw that Douglas wins if not for point deductions. Tangstad did not beat Buster Douglas. That fight makes Douglas look good not bad.

Were Cooney or Tangstad ranked in the top 10? Broad was a fine fighter who would have won the NABF/USBA double if he'd beaten Tucker. I'll admit Young was well past his short prime. But the win didn't mean nothing. Young was on a 4 fight losing streak against good competition but after the Tucker loss he didn't lose his next 3. He was fairly capable albeit done at the top level. Also isn't a Jimmy Young from 1980 Cooneys best career win?

The point of the decades exercise is to sort generations. Not to pedantically filter fighters feats into a random 10 year window some will fit in better than others.

The fighters Tucker beat on that streak had a record of 225-67.

Nothing about 80s HWs strictly requires you restrict fighters by stuff they did in the 80s. And by neccessity many decade rankings use stuff that didn't happen in those decades as a factor because sometimes stuff that is important to sorting the best fighters of a decade happens outside of it and its hard to ignore.

 

Dont you think Tyson in 1985, when he debuted, was still too green for an older, wise man like Holmes?

 

You know, thats fair. Douglas's chances of beating Holmes are also much better in 1986 then 1985. The rest I listed should have as good a shot as Spinks either year.

I said "obviously Tyson" cause he beat or nearly beat all these people. But yeah it might be a tad too early.