Does anyone think that Michael Spinks could have enjoyed the success that Michael Moorer did as a heavyweight barring his run in with a prime Iron Mike? As a matter of fact, let's assume that Spinks fights the same opponents that Michael Moorer did as a heavy. How does it proceed?
Michael Spinks likely WAS a better heavyweight than Michael Moorer. Moorer never beat anybody as good as Holmes. Technically he beat Holyfield, but, clearly there was something wrong with Evander that night. An older, slower Holyfield destroyed the much younger Moorer in the rematch.
The next fight after Moorer lost to Holyfield, he weighed the same George Foreman did when he beat Moorer
I feel like he was as sucessfull if not moreso. He knocked off the undefeated Holmes and defended a few times then got two huge money fights against Cooney and Tyson. Other than upsetting a lackluster Holyfield in their first fight, Moorer didn't do too much. And he as embarrassed by Old George Foreman.
Yes.Michael Spinks was a more complete fighter than Michael Moorer before he moved up. He was the unified champion and nothing else to prove and his name will always be debated when discussing the list of top ten great LHW.