Anyone think that Michael Spinks was better at heavyweight than most believe?

Michael Spinks was a worse heavyweight than most believe . I think Ruslan Chagaev would have brutalized him . I think Povetkin and Haye may have offered him d larger share just 4 that low risk high reward opportunity .
Holmes sucked and Cooney was **** . Steffan Tangstaad . Now that changed my whole perception of Spinks .
I think it was u who made me understand d shade of Merit Tangstaad had .
But really , I think even Mike Weaver may have been a favorite vs Spinks .

 

"Anyone think that Michael Spinks was better at heavyweight than most believe? "

Not me. .... well, on second thought, at least he was better than Leon

 

Aaaaaaa,.....no....

 

Possibly, but he left a few unanswered questions.

 

Yes...:deal I agree with this....

I can´t blame him for the Tyson fight......That just shows how good prime Tyson was.....

 

On one hand, yes he was better than most believe, because he beat Holmes and I didn't see anyone else from that era doing that other than Tyson. The only ones who could have beaten Spinks, IMO, were steamroller guys like Tyson. Most everyone else he probably could have outboxed and outsped with his fast footwork, blazing fast hands, and solid conditioning. Keep in mind though, that he was 31 years old and relatively inactive for quite some time before he fought Tyson, so he was just about done. But if we are talking about the Spinks that twice fought Holmes and blew threw Cooney and Tangstad, then yes, he'd be the favorite against most of the others. No one else could pressure him like Tyson.

On the other hand, he beat an old washed up Holmes who was due to lose, who barely got by Carl Williams, and probably should have lost the rematch to Holmes. Plus, Spinks was very well protected thereafter and avoided all of the young guns and real talent in the division, so maybe there was something to that. He voluntarily gave up his belt rather than fight Tony Tucker. From a business perspective, that might have been wise, but they also did that out of fear of losing as well, and they didn't want to lose the big Tyson payday. He also pulled out of the HBO unification tourney. The two defenses he had after the second Holmes fight were not exactly against top contenders at that point by any means, and probably not even top ten guys. That causes him to lose some points, especially since Tyson blew threw him and he never fought again to show that he would do much better with others. I think he would have, but we'll never know. Probably Holyfield would have eventually overpowered him, but it would have gone lots of rounds and been interesting for a while.

 

He was decent as a HW but not much more. If he had taken on a young gun after Holmes and won it would've raised his stock but he didn't. Coomey and Tangstaad were carefully chosen opponents that Spinks' braintrust knew would pose no threat to him. Kind of like Roy Jones choosing Ruiz as his HW scalp. He knew he could beat him as did the rest of the world. Good win but no threat.

 

Overrated and underrated if anything. The achievement of beating Holmes took a very good HW, but Holmes was old and Witherspoon and Williams arguably did the same. Getting blasted out by Tyson could happen to many op. Having lack of depth raises question marks but he still had to be very good to beat Holmes? Could over HWs like Patterson? Baer? Schmelling? Dempsey? Moore? Johnson? Beat that Holmes? I'm not sure