Buster Douglas vs. Micheal Spinks

Did you actually know anybody picking or putting $$ on Tangstad in that Spinks fight? Tangstad was up there w/ McNeely as a credible opponent & looked like he wouldn't have been a threat in the national hockey league.

Spinks in 1986/1987 should've been fighting Tucker and Douglas and Witherspoon and guys of that top 5 heavyweight caliber---good fighters but beatable--instead of the drek they were digging up for him.

 

Spinks, did manage to handle a big boxer in Larry Holmes, who I think even at the age of 35 was still better than any rendering of Douglas. Of course, this isn't any guarantee that Spinks would be the victor here, but its the only thing we really have to go by given that he didn't have many appearances at heavyweight. The one thing that can be said for Spinks is that he was only floored and stopped by one man, and that man was a totally dissimilar fighter to Douglas, and came in the very last fight of Spinks' career. Douglas on the otherhand, was beaten by a number of fighters of various different caliburs and descriptions.

Spinks was in a higher classification of fighters than Douglas.

 

You think the '85 Holmes would've beaten the Tyson that Douglas thrashed?:admin

 

I disagree friend. The actual version of Holmes that initially faced Spinks was pathetic. So slooooow and uninspired. Overconfidence and complacency sure gave him a lesson. In the rematch he was much better than the first fight but still IMO lacked REAL sharpness and snap. Regardless he deserved to win comfortably. The Douglas that fought Tyson was a much more effective fighter than Spinks ever was at heavyweight IMO.

 

To John Thomas and Chris Pointus.

Both of you seem astonished by my comment that Spink's victory over a 35 year old Holmes was better than anything Douglas ever did.

While I agree with you both, that this version of Holmes looked like a shell in contrast to the one who was in his prime years earlier, you both have yet to acknowledge the pathetic mental condition and feeble efforts of the Tyson who fought Douglas in 1990. I saw this fight live, as well as a number of times after, and believe me, this was not the Tyson who obliterated Berbick, Thomas, Tubbs and Spinks. The corner work in that fight was a three ring circus. Tyson's attemps at closing the gaps between he and Douglas were nothing like his efforts against Tucker and many others.

In conclusion: I stand by my first statement. Although this was not the best version of Holmes, the Tyson who fought Douglas was no better, and in all reality was possibly even worse.....

 

With Spinks style really anything can happen

 

Holmes looked like he was stuck in mud while fighting Spinks the first time. Thats the best way I could describe him. His variation was non existent.

 

We're not going to agree, but i'll make my comments anyway:

Tyson certainly wasn't the fighter who destroyed Berbick and Thomas, but he was still very capable. Let's not forget that in a head-to-head sense, Douglas was better than Tyson ever fought and had the perfect gameplan, which made Mikey look worse than he was. For instance, i just re-watched the first few rounds of Tyson-Tillis and i noticed that just like the Douglas fight, he threw very few punches; yet he was in perfect shape. Douglas worked just perfect at stepping a bit away when Tyson rushed in, and then tying him up to neutralise his entire effort.


I'm not trying to say that Tyson was at his best, but he was still very capable and i think he would've laid the Holmes that lost to Spinks out , relatively easy. He (Larry) could hardly get his right hand off throughout the entire 15 rounds, not to mention any kind of movement or reflexes, which he'd need badly.

 

What was actually said, was this.....

Again i totally disagree. I quite disliked Holmes at the time, but watching him look so impotent and slow in a boxing ring actually had me cheering him on heavily in the rematch much to my immense surprise. He was much better prepared in the rematch and fought loads better, tho he was still sadly past it.


I know what you are saying, and agree with the premise that if we deem Tyson way below his norm in the Douglas fight then look at Buster's other performances it gets a bit bare. But i still rate the Holmes from the first Spinks fight very lowly.

Douglas had some serious tools in there, great speed in a big man, very solid power and a superb jab.

I have always stood up and claimed Tyson was WAY below par vs Douglas and given my brief outline. Many disagree, but i stand by it. IMO lots of people try to take Tyson down via the Douglas fight by saying he was at his usual best. I intensely disagree.

However i also believe that Douglas really had his **** together and put forth a wonderful effort regardless of Tyson's percieved condition. A blending of both IMO, a real alignment. I mean watch Douglas putting those punches together.

Arguable, and i find myself with a boot in both camps. Again tho, we have gone away from your actual statement and view, which is your belief Holmes at that stage was better than any rendering of Douglas. I don't agree here.

 

You're right.

I had a busy day when I posted my response, and should have taken a moment to review my previous statement.

At anyrate, I think we can both sum this up, by saying that Both Douglas and Spinks' victories over Holmes and Tyson, were mainly a result of two fighters giving the best performances of their careers, while the other two were giving their absolute worst. We probably should not use these fights as an accurate measure of how they ( Spinks and Douglas ), would do against each other.

Addressing the actual topic of the thread, I would probably give Spinks the edge over Douglas in a head to head matchup, simply because Buster's overall resume, while decent, is still riddled with signs of inconsistancy. In either case, win or lose Spinks hands down, has the better legacy.....

 

Douglas was the best fighter Tyson had faced but Tyson wasn't physically or mentally prepared for what faced him, but he was 23 and still a natural athlete with extraordinary skills and talent. Holmes though was over the hill when he fought Spinks I think Douglas would beat Spinks but Spinks has a strange style to combat if you ask me.

 

No worries at all, i knew it was unintentional.

Arguably for Spinks, as he had some great efforts at 175. We can safely say it was his "greatest" win tho. Totally agree Holmes and Tyson gave their worst professional efforts to that point, deffo.

Interesting point, as yes Douglas was very hot and cold and Spinks, a master at finding his way to the finish line may have met him on a cold one.

Douglas did however show some consistency in the couple of years leading up to the Tyson fight and i take this version over Spinks.

Michael just doesn't do it for me at heavyweight and i think he was a little bit lucky to cop Holmes at his poorest in the first fight.

 

Douglas surely was inconsistent, but what about Spinks? He beats Holmes at his worst as you say, but quite clearly loses the rematch, beats a no-name and a washed up Cooney, and then is blown out by Tyson. I know he was (is) a legend at lightheavyweight, but that is irrelevant because he's facing a superheavyweight here.



in a head-to-head fight, we're picking them at their best, right? Because i rate the Douglas of the Tyson fight much higher than the Spinks that beat Holmes, in a pure head-to-head fashion. Spinks had a more unorthodox style, but other than that, i find it hard to think of something that he did better than Douglas.

 

Douglas knocks him out late. Spinks would be in trouble against true super heavies.