Hearns or Spinks- who was the better fighter?

The difference between Hearns and Spinks is that Tommy was a thouroughbred who was supposed to succeed. He exceeded expectations, but it was obvious he would be great.
Spinks was different. He wasn't given anything. He looked akward, and just didn't have the look of a champ. The stigma of his brother also held him back. Head to head, Spinks really didn't have a weakness, and his awkwardness was an asset to him. I would say technically, Spinks was the better fighter, but Hearns accomplished more because he had more opportunities because he started out at a much lighter weight.

 

I don't see Michael Spinks losing to a fighter of Barkley's level and skill-set. Thomas Hearns was up at Middleweight and past his best days, certainly, but Spinks' soul loss also met under similar circumstances...only he wasn't fighting The Blade, he was fighting Iron Mike at the peak of his powers. No question to me which loss is less forgiving, but I choose not to hold the Barkley defeats against Hearns, just as it's almost inconceivable for me to think a Roy Jones Jr or a Bob Foster could have done better with Mike.

This is a close run thing indeed. You can't really go wrong with either answer.

 

I agree with Mr. Magoo in that even though Hearns probably will retain a higher all-time ranking he would have been brutalized by the Spinks Jinx at Lightheavy.

 

But it's not like Spinks was really fighting anybody at heavyweight outside of Larry Holmes and the shell of Gerry Cooney. There were potential fights against Tucker, Thomas, Holyfield, Witherspoon, Berbick, etc. but he didn't take them. He waited until the Tyson fight got big and cashed in.

I think Hearns has more depth in his resume.

Spinks dominated a very good light heavyweight division, although it can also be said that he came in when the war for the most part was already over at that point. The likes of Marvin Johnson and Yaqui Lopez had been through many brutal battles while Eddie Mustafa Muhammad was moving down after a failed attempt at moving up to the heavyweight division against Renaldo Snipes. There's nothing to take away from the Qawi win though, that was big and the win over Holmes even bigger although Holmes was noticeably declining.

Hearns similarly blasted out most of the left-overs in the welterweight division including Angel Espada, Randy Shields, Bruce Curry, Clyde Gray, Harold Weston, Saensak Muangsurin as well as future light middle champ Eddie Gazo and former number 1 ranked middleweight contender Mike Colbert. He then KO'd the feared Pipino Cuevas in just 2 rounds.

He didn't win the big fight against Ray Leonard, although he came very close, but he made up for it by dominating the light middleweight division, winning over Wilfred Benitez and Roberto Duran along with some title holders/contenders.

He stepped up to middleweight, came out on the losing end against Marvin Hagler, but he didn't let it bother him. He came back, KO'd top ranked James Shuler in one round, beat light middleweight title holder Mark Medal, WBO title holder Doug DeWitt, went up to light heavyweight to beat future 3-time champion Dennis Andries, went down to beat top ranked Juan Roldan for the WBC middleweight title. He was upset by Barkley and struggled to beat top ranked James Kinchen but he surprised many with his "draw" against Ray Leonard.

His last great effort was against Virgil Hill. Hill along with Andries were among the best light heavyweights of the era and Hearns beat both. Even at 40 years of age he beat long-reigning WBA cruiserweight champion Nate Miller.

 

So do I.

I think some people often over exaggerate how good the Light Heavyweight division was at that point, but at the same time, it's impressive to me that a 13 fight novice can go in there and knockout Yaqui Lopez who was not only exceptionally tough and experienced, but one of the division's huge underachievers. A guy with no experience as a professional to topple Lopez, Johnson, and Mustafa in a two year period with less than 20 fights is something to be admired. Nothing more could have been asked of Spinks at 175lbs I'm sure you'll agree. He established his dominance in double quick time, and he wasn't fighting bums.

How much stock do you put in the thought that Duran was in terrible shape?

All true and all impressive from a former Welterweight, but none of those wins strike me as particularly spectacular. The Barkley losses were just that, losses, and like I said before, I don't see even a faded Michael Spinks losing to a guy on that level. What it counts for is dependent on your criteria, but Spinks should be credited as being the more complete fighter with his superior toughness and punch resistance. I very much believe that.

Hearns weight jumping achievements are magnificent, certainly.

 

Duran is always in bad shape when he loses and he is great when he wins. People cannot win when it comes to Duran. The excuses are endless and well thought out.

 

I agree to an extent, but I just wanted to hear what GreatA had to say about it.

 

It's impressive but in the end a win shouldn't be that much better even if you're a novice while the opponent is a veteran.

Spinks only ever had 25 fights at light heavyweight and in many people's eyes that would still be a novice but Spinks was clearly different.

Fidel LaBarba fought Jimmy McLarnin, Frankie Genaro and Newsboy Brown and beat the latter two in his first 11 fights but he shouldn't be made out to be any greater than he was only because he could beat solid pros with very little experience. Some fighters can do that, others don't.

However Spinks did establish his dominance and no one can take anything away from it but I don't think the quality of his opposition was quite as great as it is made out to be.

None whatsoever. However I look at it this way, if it was an old Hearns stepping up in weight against a prime 135 lb Duran then the fight may have turned out differently. But at 154 Hearns was clearly better, much like Spinks was better than Hearns at 175.

All the pressure was on Hearns to perform well and overshadow Hagler's effort against Duran. He delivered.

Again it only adds to the depth of his resume. He had his spectacular wins over Benitez, Duran, Cuevas and also Hill, arguably an aging Leonard. Spinks had the big wins over Holmes, Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad and M. Johnson but he wasn't a factor in boxing for as long as Hearns was and didn't beat as many solid to good fighters although he does have the great names.

Could you imagine a faded Spinks being caught by someone like Bonecrusher Smith? I think it could have happened had Spinks fought someone like that. But he was content on having Tyson and everyone else fight each other while he'd wait for the winner to emerge.

Spinks was facing a peak Tyson, a terror of the ring, but still he didn't last more than a round. I think it does take something away from him that he couldn't even finish a single round. It's not something that should just be ignored. To the general public this is their lasting view of Michael Spinks and while I don't agree that it should be, I also don't agree that the loss should be cast aside either only because he was facing Tyson.

I also do take into account that Hearns lost to Barkley twice but to his credit he was fighting everyone willing to fight him from welterweight up to light heavyweight. You're bound to lose some when you do that, even against lesser fighters.

 

Nobody said it was chapper, only that it remains strikingly impressive from my point of view that Spinks pretty much took over the division after not long winning his gold medal. Just making an observation.

I found Hearns victory over Cuevas only to be spectacular in the way he did it rather than the opponent he overcome. You know I picked Hearns here, yes?

If Holmes and Spinks hadn't got it on twice, I'd have envisioned Holmes spanking that ass like a ******. Likewise, has Cooney never faced Spinks, I'd have wondered the same thing. "What if Cooney landed this..". Fact is, it didn't happen to Spinks, he was toppled by a beast at the peak of his powers, Hearns was toppled by Iran Barkley, a big puncher, but lacking dimensions to his game and real genuine quality.

Whilst it shouldn't be cast aside, it's a ****in' shame that Spinks is only known among casuals as "the guy Tyson stopped in 60 seconds". I sympathize with him here.

 

It's impressive, I'm only putting it in perspective. Spinks like his brother did not seem to need the experience that most fighters do in order to compete against top level boxers. He was already at his peak after around 20 fights.

At the time Cuevas was seen as a fearsome opponent. Maybe not a Tyson but something close to that. He had KO'd 10 men in 10 straight title defenses and in total had made 12 defenses. Most of the men he had beaten were top ranked contenders in the division.

It's quite amazing that Hearns KO'd him in just two rounds.

And if Hearns hadn't fought Barkley, no one would think that he would have lost to him either. After all he had KO'd Duran who beat Barkley. It's just that Hearns fought everyone in the 1980's in 4 different divisions. A disaster was eventually bound to happen. Who is to say it couldn't have happened to Spinks if he fought some young hungry heavyweight bigger than him, even if it was a lesser fighter than Tyson?

If Tyson's body punches were too much for Spinks in just one round then it could have been that a Bonecrusher Smith, Razor Ruddock or someone else like that could have been too much over the distance. Cooney to me was a shell of a man and didn't even throw any real punches to test Spinks while Holmes was never a huge puncher.

I agree. I think Spinks is generally underrated but due to the general public grossly underrating him, he tends to be slightly overrated by the knowledgeable boxing fan as a response.

 

I agree with what you said Addie, about Spinks being the guy being remembered who lost to Tyson in 60 seconds. Solid fighter and his wins over Holmes were impressive. What was Spinks reasons for never fighting again? I never heard it, but maybe he gave it. He sure has been quiet in retirement also.

 

In the context of today's Boxing climate, Spinks was in a hurry and it is more impressive to me, not greatly, but certainly more impressive to me that Spinks was defeating experienced, tough, talented former titlists with less than 20 fights under his belt.

I'm not impressed with his film, but those credentials certainly speak volumes.

I see your point. Hearns was putting himself in the jaws of the lion by being so active and fighting so many tough guys, but people seemed to be comparing the losses. The overriding point was I'm less inclined to ridicule a Light Heavyweight for getting pasted by a prime Mike Tyson than I am for Hearns, who was perfectly comfortable at Middleweight, getting sparked by...an average champion. I see your point though.

It's all speculation, but I certainly wouldn't favor Bonecrusher to knock Spinks out in 4 and to then get a decision in a rematch.

I've seen no evidence of it myself.

 

He wasn't a great boxer but he had a powerful punch, a granite jaw and great stamina. The combination of the three was too much to overcome for most contenders in the division, including capable boxers such as Angel Espada and Harold Weston. Even exceptionally durable fighters left with broken jaws against Cuevas.

I think Hearns's loss to Barkley is worse than Spinks's loss to Tyson because Barkley was obviously worse than Tyson but then again Hearns was dominating him until getting caught while Spinks just got dominated. But in the end it's still the worse loss. However it doesn't mean that Spinks's (lack of) effort against Tyson should be overlooked, or the fact that he didn't really fight anyone of note in the division after beating Holmes and losing to Mike.

I wouldn't have favoured Barkley to do that against Hearns either but it's what happened. How do you think the Spinks that Tyson beat would have done against the other heavyweights of the era?

If you didn't rate Spinks very highly you'd hear about it.

I don't think that the LHW division was in such great shape at the time nor do I think that Spinks should hold two wins over (an aging) Holmes. Perhaps one and it's still a huge accomplishment but made out to be even more. He only ever had around 30 fights and while he stepped up in competition fairly early, it doesn't quite make up for the relative lack of depth in his resume.

Compare Archie Moore or Ezzard Charles's resumes to his for example. Moore didn't win the heavyweight crown but he just about cleaned out the division outside of Marciano.

 

:scaredas:

I've been on this website since '06, and I still have yet to seen one person over-emphasize Spinks' triumph over Holmes. If you want to know the truth, I actually feel it's almost as under-appreciated universally as Spinks entire career has become by the casual crowd. Holmes was faded, but that's kind of negated by Spinks being above his natural weight and giving up a size advantage. He could have coasted, and went away as a moral winner by seeing out the 15 rounds, but he took it to Larry for most part and was deservingly the winner.

The second fight...different story, but the achievement had already been sealed.

 

Not in this forum maybe.

No one can take away the fact that Spinks was the first light heavyweight champion to win the heavyweight title but he was by no means the only light heavyweight to win the heavyweight title. Charles and Tunney and had accomplished this before him, both of them pretty much the uncrowned champions at 175. Patterson, Schmeling, Braddock, Ellis of course used to be light heavyweights too.

As I said, his career accomplishments are very under-appreciated by the casual fan but they are at times over-blown too. He can be subjected to criticism as any other fighter can be despite his light heavyweight accomplishments and the win over Holmes.