Hearns or Spinks- who was the better fighter?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by 80s champs, Feb 15, 2010.


  1. 80s champs

    80s champs Active Member Full Member

    536
    71
    Nov 9, 2005
    Obviously if The hit man fought Spinks at Lt heavy
    he would be losing too many advantages but who was the better fighter P for p?
     
  2. Addie

    Addie Myung Woo Yuh! Full Member

    42,502
    400
    Jun 14, 2006
    I think Hearns has the better resume and his accomplishments in so many different weight classes should have him above Spinks, but I think Michael was more complete.
     
  3. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,950
    24,904
    Jan 3, 2007
    Hearns was the better fighter, but Michael would cream the livin' **** out of him had they ever met in the same ring......
     
  4. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    64
    Dec 1, 2008
    I say Hearns but I am a Hearns fan, although I am a Spinks fan also. Moving up and beating Holmes was something I didn't think Spinks could do. Hard to say who is better. Hearns has a better resume and titles and fought 67 times and Spinks fought near 30 times but moved up to heavyweight and beat Holmes.
     
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,950
    24,904
    Jan 3, 2007
    Moving up in weight and beating Holmes, was a great achievement, especially at the time. But, Hearns had moved up in weight not once, but on several occasions and beat many notable champs and contenders.. Ascending to light heavyweight and beating a young undefeated Hill, when Hearns was past it, was huge... Spinks was still in his 20's when facing a 35 year old Holmes, and arguably lost the rematch, after Larry actually trained the second time around.
     
  6. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    92
    Aug 21, 2008
    I think I have to go against the grain here and nominate Spinks. For starters, there's a viable argument for ranking him as the #1 all time LHW, whereas Hearns cannot claim to have been #1 at any one weight class; and Spinks was more consistent/successful in big fights, whereas Hearns had more mixed results.
     
  7. Addie

    Addie Myung Woo Yuh! Full Member

    42,502
    400
    Jun 14, 2006
    I think Spinks is in the same boat at 175lbs as Hearns is at 154lbs. They were both top 5 in their respective weight classes, but there's at least one other fighter more deserving as top spot. I think resume and accomplishments should be the main criteria here, personally.

    ...Terry Norris, can you imagine what Hearns would have done to that guy?
     
  8. anarci

    anarci Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,237
    64
    Jul 21, 2009
    Well overall Hearns was probably the better fighter, but then again Spinks had no weakness at LH where as Hearns had a little below average chin it wasnt glass but it wasnt to good either. Before Spinks move to LH id give the edge to Hearns but for me SPinks moving up to Heavy and decisively beating Holmes was comparable to winning several titles in different weight classes. Holmes was beginning to fade but still very good and considered the best heavy.
    This is very close in fact id rate Hearns early 20s atg id put Spinks about 18-20 forgot exactly but roughly around there and only a few notches above Hearns.
     
  9. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    92
    Aug 21, 2008
    But even there, Spinks as one of the biggest wins/accomplishments in history in being the first LHW champ to go up and win the HW title - and from an unbeaten ATG HOF HW champ at that.
     
  10. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    Hearns is currently one spot higher on the all time list I've been working on (Hearns at #48, Spinks at #49). I wouldn't argue with anyone putting Spinks ahead, though. It's a difficult call in many ways, I guess my reasoning behind Hearns's ever so slightly higher placing would be his success over multiple weights and the fact that the fighters he lost to in his prime were among the very best of all time in Hagler and Leonard. Both lost at higher weights, but the losses and circumstances surrounding those fights (against Barkley and Tyson) are so different it's difficult to get a gauge on who was really the better man.
     
  11. Addie

    Addie Myung Woo Yuh! Full Member

    42,502
    400
    Jun 14, 2006
    Holmes x2, Qawi, Mustafa, Johnson, Lopez
    Benitez, Duran, Hill, Cuevas

    I think that's close enough to have the accomplishments at multiple weights act as the equalizer personally, especially when most agree Spinks only beat Holmes once, and Hearns probably deserved the nod in the Leonard rematch.
     
  12. anarci

    anarci Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,237
    64
    Jul 21, 2009
    :good Yey that to me is what gives him the slight edge.
     
  13. Addie

    Addie Myung Woo Yuh! Full Member

    42,502
    400
    Jun 14, 2006
    I feel Hearns beating prime Hill is comparable to Spinks beating past prime Holmes, no?
     
  14. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    Not so much. The tremendous gulf in class between Holmes and Hill is very defined, regardless of whether or not Holmes was slipping by that point. Hearns would've seemed to match up better with Hill as well, IMO.

    Damn, I'm kind of trashing my own choice here.
     
  15. anarci

    anarci Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,237
    64
    Jul 21, 2009
    I kind of see where your coming from since Tommy started at Welter but I still gave Tommy a good chance when he fought Hill. When Spinks fought Holmes i didnt give him absolutley no CHANCE! Same with almost everyone else.:yep