Thomas Hearns vs Michael Spinks, circa 1984

No argument from me. I think you are correct in your assessment of how that fight would go.

 

Spinks by KO

 

No. Tommy would have no chance. Once Mike lands The Jinx... Hearns would go to sleep.

 

Spinks was to big, to strong, hit to hard, to awkward, and he could take a good shot. If Tommy's chin did not betray him early, his legs would betray him later, and Mike would get to him.

 

MIke would box for awhile.....then bring the right, left hook or uppercut into play.

Down goes Hearns.

 

You'll get my man killed

Spinks had an excellent chin at 175 and his size/height etc would be bad news too. Of course we also have his power in BOTH hands, which is near or at the top of anyone historically. He'd kill Tommy, but being a slow lazy starter most times it might take 3 - 7 rounds to do. The razor sharp Hearns jab and a couple of stiff right hands might sting him into action at the start of that block.

 

Agreed. Spinks was better than Hill and Andries. His power at the weight combined with his style would pose serious problems for Hearns. I don't see Hearns scoring at will from long range based on the awkward rhythm Spinks brings to the table. Competitive? Probably. But Spinks is just far too good at this weight.

 

IT would be a matter of who had the better chin. I can see spinks taking "the hitmans" best right better than hearns taking his. While a ko.for hearns is not unrealistic it is unlikely considering that hearns lost some power as he went up in weight, and that spinks was awkward and hard to hit cleanly. Spinks by ko in 10.

 

Ok how about the 154 lb version of hearns meeting Micheal. I'm refering to talent not size. prime for prime.

 

Spinks would take him out.

Is there something I'm missing in terms of weight?

The one fight Spinks had in 1984, he weighed in at 172.

Hearns in 1984 weighed in at 153-154.

 

Spinks via knockout.

 

I think Spinks was just plain and simple a better fighter than Hearns, overall. The only edge I really see Hearns having over Spinks is handspeed. Other than that, Micheal either matches, or betters Hearns in every other area, ESPECIALLY chin and stamina.

P4P or 175, Spinks wins either way. Spinks is one of the most underrated greats. At 175, he was one of the best fighters to ever live.

 

In 1984, Spinks KO's Hearns in 4 rds......... Hearns not able to carry 170 to 175 pounds in 1984....... NO CONTEST in '84........:-(

MR.BILL

NOTE:

The lightest I recall Spinks ever weighing was 170 for his last defense at 175 against Jim MacDonald........

 

No ,To be specific,I meant who was the better more talented fighter. I thought Hearns was because of all his accomplishments. Faced better opposition. Probobly more power. (I know if they faced one another,Hearns would lose because Spinks is the bigger man,and with spinks power Hearns chin would'nt handle it.) . I was refering if they were at their best at the same weight. Hope that makes sense