Hearns or Spinks- who was the better fighter?

Irrelevant.

I have a hard time accepting that Michael Spinks is anything but under-appreciated.

 

I don't see it as irrelevant. Spinks's accomplishment is sometimes made out to be unrivaled up to that point in time. If men like Charles and Tunney had rightfully been the champions then they'd have accomplished it before Spinks.

I agree that he is under-appreciated by the casual fan but do you ever hear anything but praise for Spinks by the knowledgeable boxing fan? I think there's some justifiable criticism that can be made about his career, much like there is about any other fighter in history. You rarely hear anyone criticize him.

Even here, outside of my own efforts, it's mostly Hearns who has been subjected to criticism.

 

Hearns

 

Spinks beating Holmes was a great achievement. I remember thinking that Holmes was going to stop Spinks in 2 rounds, and the night of the first fight I got home after the fight started and the fight was in the late rounds. I was shocked. Spinks sure adjusted well to fighting Holmes. Did this make Spinks greater than Holmes? Probably not, although for him to beat Holmes 2 times regardless of the scoring in the second fight was amazing. Spinks and Holmes at their best weight I am not sure who was greater either. But Spinks beating Holmes was an amazing accomplishment. Now what I think puts Hearns over Spinks is how many greats he fought and his record against them, although if anyone thinks Spinks was greater there are reason a person might say that also. . He moved up and made history numerous times. Hearns losing to Barkley I never thought was terrible. Duran lost several times and at the age Hearns was almost exactly when Tommy lost to Barkley the first time- Duran lost to Wilfred Benitez easily. Yet Duran has an excuse which Hearns nor Spinks ever could use. He was out of shape for Benitez like he was out of shape for every great fighter he ever fought.

 

Agreed.

I just think when we have an agenda or we're trying to give a certain fighter credit we almost feel compelled to try and put down another fighter. Hearns has a deeper resume and his weight jumping counts for a lot, so I rated for him, but Spinks beating Holmes is a marvelous achievement in it's own right and nothing will change that.

 

It would be intereting to see who people rate as greater comparing Spinks and Holmes.

 

That is tough. That is like having Bob Foster against Spinks with a huge right hand and jab. I think Hearns wins a decision.

 

Mentioning Hearn's losses to Barkley is hardly nitpicking, and nor do I think that these can be compared to getting KO'd in one by Tyson, especially when looking at WHEN that fight happened. He was facing a man that on that particular night could have possibly beaten anyone in history. I also disagree that he only beat one all time great. Dwight Braxton and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad were great light heavyweights. Marvin Johnson was also a two time champion. The gold medal thing shouldn't be ignored either, and nor should the fact that he was THE MAN in two divisions, where Hearns was basically a fragment holder in every weight class he traveled to. Now, I do agree that Hearns should probably be rated a bit higher due to greater depth of resume, but the margin isn't that wide, and I certainly don't agree with some of the arguments that some have made here.

 

Spinks

 

Spinks was a big light-heavy and could really bang. I love Hearns but Spinks would starch him early.

 

Spinks would probably catch Hearns late. Michael was a slow starter, and Hearns was a excellent boxer who could hurt you early doors.

 

Spinks was better.
But I see why Hearns was a bigger star. He looked the part and brought excitement.

 

Well then what does it say about Tyson to lose to Douglas in 1990 when Mike was at his natural weight and somewhat prime-if you want to define fighters by who lost worst? If you want to define a fighter by his losses then Tyson is only as good as the Douglas fight or Foreman as good as Young. I agree Spinks was great, but when you mention the Barkley fight as being significant yet then do not mention Virgil Hill, it just sounds like you want to mention the negative and not the positive about Tommy, yet then say Spinks losing to Mike was expected. That is Duran fan reasoning a little but I am probably guilty of that also with my favorite fighter Hearns. As for the Tyson fight and people saying now it was expected or not shocking. I remember that fight and watched it live. It was not that expected. In hindsight it looks like an easy win for Mike, but Spinks was 6-3 and Tyson 5-10 and in 1988 people thought he could do to Mike what he did to Qawi. I am not going to make a Duran type of excuse for Tommy like saying Barkley was just another defense in 1988 as Tommy was waiting for a Hagler rematch. Fact is he lost and he got careless. He almost had Barkley out with bodyshots and he got careless, and that was Tommy. But to make that the fight which defines Hearns and allows Spinks to look better now is not fair. If you tell me Spinks best win with Holmes, and Qawi and Muhammad were better than Hearns best wins against Cuevas,Benitez,Duran and Hill then that is your opinion, but on losses you cannot make a fair criteria , or Mike Tyson and George Foreman would not go down well either- Like it said similar to making the Tyson fight the definition of Spinks. It is not fair. Hearns did like to go for broke and leave himself open when he could have been like Roy Jones and won decisions, but that was a flaw. I do not understand why he did like to leave himself open and brawl. He had that power and liked to thrill the crowd. You say Spinks was the man in two divisions well that is not true. He won the IBF title. A fragmented one by your own definition. Now lets get back to Hearns since you said he was fragmented. Let us take the Duran fight in 1984. Duran was champion of the WBA and Tommy WBC. The fact that the WBA stripped Duran of the title for not fighting McCallum is not relevant since that is politics of organizations. A champion Duran did not lose his WBA title, so when he fought Tommy that was a unification and Tommy won. And the IBF titlest that year was Mark Medal, whom Tommy beat 2 years later. Hardly fragmentary.

 

I don't think the gold should be ignored, but it should not get someone rated much higher as a professional. but he was great no doubt. I cannot insult Spinks competition either, although to say Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Marvin Johnson were great is a stretch. Great light heavies? Yeah very good, but great? A stretch. Qawi yes-but I am not sure rated ATG. Larry Holmes was the only sure ATG I think. Johnson? Very good. Incidentally, I still remember when Hearns was thinking about fighting Marvin Johnson for the light heavyweight title. But Johnson lost to Stewart, and then Stewart to Virgil, who then lost to Tommy as we know. But Hearns did beat Andries in 1987, who beat J.B. Williamson who won the vacant title after Spinks gave it up. By the way Hearns and Spinks both fought Murray Sutherland and Hearns won a UD win at middleweight and Spinks also won a UD. Then Spinks stopped Sutherland in the 8th in a rematch. So not much can be made out of that.