Archie Moore beats Michael Spinks

Am I in the minority? I don't believe Spinks had the experience to deal with Moore's trickery.

I'm watching him fight Harold Johnson at the moment; it's the fifth fight, Moore's fourth and final victory. Before I discuss Moore-Spinks, I'd like to talk about Harold Johnson first...

... He was the Luis Rodriguez of the 175lbs division; the Rodrigo Valdez or the Esteban De Jesus. A genuinely talented fighter who is overlooked by most - on ability, he's probably in the top ten. I would even rate him around #8.
Johnson's strengths were his speed and fundamental skills - he was quick, too, definitely one of the quicker light heavyweights I've seen. His jab rivals Bob Foster's as the best of the division, ever, and his punches are neat and tidy. Strong and endurable, and with easily enough skill to protect his (only) slightly above average chin more often than not, Johnson was quite the well-rounded fighter.

Was he a better boxer than Spinks though? Johnson certainly hit with less force (although he could definitely whack) than Spinks, but I reckon he was the better boxer; I believe Spinks is overrated somewhat, due to the fact he had very few fights. He did well to stave off a tired Larry Holmes, but he didn't really face enough light heavyweights to tell us entirely how good he was. Qawi and Muhammad were top light heavyweights in their own right and these two victories are as good as any win that Harold Johnson ever had - but he never rematched them. Johnson, Lopez, that other one whose name I can't pronounce... They were all solid light heavyweights and proper made up a better bunch than Bob Foster faced. But they weren't Harold Johnson.

And had Spinks faced Harold Johnson, he might have even lost. Spinks had a knack of turning the trick and surprising his opposition with his adaptability; he was awkward, intelligent and hard hitting. But then Johnson was a better boxer than he ever faced - just as technically good as Muhammad but far more alert and 'on the ball.' Qawi was tough and tricky, but again, didn't box like Johnson.
Maybe Spinks would catch Johnson and put him to sleep, I don't know. Maybe Johnson would outbox him for a tight decision victory - it could happen either way. It's not a given, though.

But of course, this is in no way relevant to Moore-Spinks from a styles point of view, because Moore fought totally differently to Harold Johnson. But I think it's interesting for me to point out that Johnson was perhaps on the same level as a comparitively (to Moore) untested Spinks.

-

Spinks was a really big hitter for the weight, and some will say this punching power would be enough to take Moore out, since Moore was known to be a bit shaky. Harold Johnson just knocked him down, although it was a bit of a slip. But for Spinks to use his power, he had to be set; Moore wouldn't let him set himself, and so wouldn't be as vulnerable. Spinks, knowing Moore was a great puncher himself, would probably opt to box like he did against Qawi, not so much fearful of his opponent's power as he was aware. He wouldn't be able to outbox Moore though. Not the Moore of the early '50s.

It's Spinks' lack of experience, lack of fights, that would lose him the fight. He was fantastically awkward, but he wasn't tricky; not like Moore, who just tricked the trickster - Johnson - into falling onto a right lead which scrambled his senses and made him hold. He wouldn't know how to deal with Moore's counter jabs, although he would definitely try.

Moore is probably underrated as a pressure fighter. Against Joey Maxim now, he is slipping an almighty number of jabs, popping up with fast ones of his own from a lower crouch than before, and hooking to the body. He's like a smart Joe Frazier.

On Maxim, he's probably slightly underrated, and I'm not just saying that because he was a Charles/Moore opponent. Look at the record; in the nine year period (which I am rather conveniently choosing, but there you go) between '46 and '55, Maxim lost eleven times. Ten of those losses came to Hall of Famers; Willie Pastrano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Carl Olson and Archie Moore. The lone 'regular' loss was a split decision, and he was never knocked out in this period. Maxim looks much better than usual (because we normally see him against greats) against Bob Murphy, who he beat up quite comprehensively.

I am going to cut this short for now because I'm boring myself and the structure has fallen apart. I was never one for long posts. Debate away.

 

Was there even any point in mentioning this? Moore - pre-prime. And you know it.

How do you know that? Holmes looked lacklustre and deserved the decision in the rematch.

(Struggles to follow Pimp's thought train)...

... Yes. That is my reasoning.

Moore is better than many people Michael Spinks beat. Yay.

Right - first two were heavyweights. The last one? Maxim was conserving his own energy - anyone who's seen him in regular conditions would know this, but I don't suppose you've seen anything other than the Robinson highlights. Anyone who says 'Robinson would have won if not for the heat' is talking bollocks.

Where's the shame in that? He ran them close several times and was never knocked out by them. I'm sure Rodrigo Valdez would lose to Carlos Monzon in five out of five meetings but it doesn't mean to say Valdez was no good.

 

I really have no idea. It's like Ike Williams' knockout loss to Chuck Davey. Davey couldn't punch to save his life.