Spinks had most of his accomplishments at LHW, but had some good wins at HW, while Tyson did all his work at HW. Overall, who would you say had the better career in terms of: 1. Accomplishments 2. Resume
Spink's did something only a few in the history of the entire sport have managed to do, which is jumping from LHW to HW and winning a title. I don't think you can compare the accomplishments of the two, honestly. Tyson was a wrecking ball in his prime but he never did anything to attain the level of a truly great fighter, certainly not in any kind of P4P sense.
I would say Spinks for me but most will say Tyson because of his explosiveness out of the gate. But Spinks beat an all time great when the odds were against him, something Tyson never did.
Spinks had the greater career overall he was an ATG Ltheavy who moved up to beat the undefeated ATG Holmes to become lineal heavyweight champion Tyson had a better resume overall but his career was alot longer with nearly double the amount of fights
Tyson beat Spinks and that also very brutally. That should be the end. That is how fighters are judged i.e. their losses and who did they lose against.
Get off the grass, the guy was a natural light heavyweight. It would be fair to say he was a consensus top 5 light heavyweight at that. Tyson usually resides in the lower half of a top 10 at heavyweight and then you have that little fact that Spinks stepped up and won the heavyweight title. In one of their more recent big rating articles Ring had Spinks at #41 and Tyson at #72. Our own Master McGrain had Spinks #42 and i'm pretty sure Tyson missed out on his 100. Our very own ESB Top 100 we compiled years ago had Spinks #42 while Tyson missed out on the 100 entirely. Basically Spinks has to be above him, certainly no disgrace. Spinks was a light heavyweight champs for 4 years and beat two fantastic fighters in Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Dwight Qawi before winning the big boys lineal crown. The vast majority put this above Tyson's 3 year demolition of the heavyweight division.
Tyson has greater carrier because the heavyweight is the king division and Mike destroyed Spinks easily. Plus Spinks wasn't undisputed heavyweight world champion like Tyson.
I am just using the logic that the nuthuggers of Lenny and Holyfield use when they say Tyson shouldn't be rated because he lost to Lewis and Holyfield even though he was washed up for the former and past his prime, rusty for the later. By that logic, because Tyson beat Spinks (being the only fighter to do so) when they actually fought and did so in a convincing fashion when both fighters were in their prime and because Tyson had spinks **** himself just at the staredown, then yes Tyson deserves to be ranked higher than Spinks
Pfp Spinks is greater and this is not particulary close.. Doesn't matter who wins h2h . tyson kills mayweather in a single round too... Still floyd is greater pfp
First of all who told you that spinks was in his prime when he fought tyson? Spinks was a lhw ,he could not be in his prime fighting in the hw division..pure logic
I don`t think Spinks rising in weight was that much of an acheivement, he was slippery enough that a 35 year old Holmes couldn`t catch him clean and Cooney wasn`t much of a threat either he was outboxed then knocked out if Spinks had beaten Tyson`s toughest prime opponent Tucker then you could say he outdid Tyson by moving up and beating a fighter that was better than the people he beat at heavyweight at that time but beating Qawi at light heavy probably out does anything Tyson achieved anyway.
