Revisiting Holmes-Spinks l and ll

I'm the biggest Holmes fan here, and I have scored it one point for Spinks the dozen or so times I've watched it. Holmes got robbed bad the second fight.

 

I had Spinks in the first fight and Holmes in the second. Sadly, this is the fight that taught me to stop betting heavily on boxing. I was sure Holmes would take Spinks more seriously the second time around and win by a decision if not a knockout. I believe I had it right but judges Frank Brunette and Jerry Roth disagreed.

 

Spinks clearly won the first fight and the second seemed very close, could have gone either way.

 

I had Holmes eeking the first one, and outright robbed the 2nd.

 

I'm a fan of Larry Holmes but he lost the 1st Michael Spinks fight clearly IMO. I think big deal was made about it because Larry Holmes was 1 away from Rocky Marciano's 49-0. So they probably tried to spin it, that they robbed Holmes to stop him equalling the record. But for me the decision was a fair one.

The 2nd fight Larry Holmes was more aggressive, and I feel he won that fight pretty clearly. And he was indeed hard done by in the 2nd fight.

Another question is did Carl Williams do better than Michael Spinks in the 1st fight ? And was he more deserving to stop Larry Holmes undefeated streak ?

 

Yep. Also a HUGE Holmes fan—it’s mainly just a style thing.

Agree. Spinks clearly won the first fight; Holmes the second.

144-141 each way (9-6 in rounds).

 

I think 143-142 Spinks and 144-141 or 145-140 Holmes for the rematch.

 

Holmes won clearly the second time. It was a robbery.

 

I remember both fights well and, in my opinion, the first match's verdict was correct, Spinks won. However I completely disagree with the rematch's verdict, where I believe Holmes won clearly, by a small but clear margin.

 

Agree.

I genuinely can’t fathom how anyone could score the first fight for Holmes and the second one for Spinks.

Holmes improved a great deal in the rematch. So sluggish first time around, plodding forward mainly behind the jab, his right hands were scarce and he couldn’t put punches together. Extremely one-dimensional.

 

144-141 both times

First for Spinks, then Holmes

 

I had it 8-7 for Spinks in the 1st fight but despite me scoring it close I didn't really feel like there was any argument for Holmes winning it.

Holmes let the smaller man outhustle him and he couldnt get his right hand going.

The 2nd fight however I actually had it pretty wide maybe a bit too wide at 10-5 for Holmes.

But as i see it Holmes bullied the smaller Spinks and this time around was able to get his right hand going in which he wobbled Spinks multiple times with.

Here's my scorecards for both fights.


Larry Holmes vs Michael Spinks 1

1 Holmes
2 Holmes
3 Spinks
4 Spinks
5 Holmes
6 Spinks
7 Spinks
8 Holmes
9 Holmes
10 Spinks
11 Spinks
12 Spinks
13 Spinks
14 Holmes
15 Holmes

143-142 Spinks


Larry Holmes vs Michael Spinks 2

1 Holmes
2 Holmes
3 Holmes
4 Holmes
5 Holmes
6 Spinks
7 Holmes
8 Spinks
9 Holmes
10 Spinks
11 Holmes
12 Holmes
13 Spinks
14 Holmes
15 Spinks

145-140 Holmes

 

I'm sharing the sentiment of a majority of posters here: Spinks won the first fight clearly and Holmes was robbed in the second. I literally can't see how you could score the first fight for Holmes or the second for Spinks.

BTW, Larry Holmes was named Ring's fighter of the month despite losing, that's how much of a blatant robbery it was and the press wanted to give him a consolation prize.

 

While they obviously weren’t Ali-Frazier or Holyfield-Bowe for outright brutality and drama, both Holmes-Spinks fights were actually pretty good.

I’d describe both as “steadily good” all the way through. Solid.

How did others see them in terms of fight quality?