Holmes Never Lost to Spinks

Agreed. It seems every challenger should suddenly become Mike Tyson in Bill's eyes.

 

You mean damn near dropping Spinks, beating him, hurting him I think it was about 5 times, and basically doing everything you need to to win the fight? IMO you are using a double standard. The same can be said about Spinks in the first fight with Larry.

 

No, but they should at least show something.

 

Larry wasn't the challenger and it wasn't the 15th round of a close fight. Spinks did the same as Walcott did against Louis in their first fight. He coasted at the end, and it cost him. If Larry's and Spinks fight had happened in 1945, Larry would have gotten the decision. He truly didn't beat Larry.

 

Ali seemed to win some fights by name alone.

 

If Holmes was Ali you would have scored the Norton trilogy 3-0 for Ali Bill. I say this sincerely. While we're rolling you may well have even given him Leon Spinks 1 going by you card for Holmes - Spinks 1. Possibly the Berbick fight too. Frazier 1 would have been a draw or Ali by a point.

 

Spinks won by 3 points on two cards, he probably thought he was comfortably ahead going into 15, and guess what? He was totally correct. 1945 has nothing to do with anything, other than to ease your self anguish it appears.

 

No, I'm not C.M.Clay II. I would have scored the Norton fights 1-2, the Spinks fights the same as the out comes. I scored the McCall fight in favor of McCall.

 

Its obvious you guys don't understand what I am trying to say, so just forget it.atsch

 

Oh we understand exactly what you are trying to say. In a nutshell you're trying to say Holmes won a fight he in reality lost. It really is that simple no matter how you try to twist and turn it. Chicken wings or not Bill you have to learn to live with this one. To be a good winner we have to learn how to be a good loser.

 

Your a sick ******* if your thinking of what I think your thinking.

 

Excuse me? I'm laffing at your ludicrous claim Spinks DID NOTHING. Get your mind out of the gutter and go easy on the language thanks

:hey

 

Sorry.

 

I saw Holmes vs Spinks #I live @ a party on TV back in 85'. I judged it, as did most of my peers, as a clear victory for Spinks. Not a blow out, not total domination, but an indisputible victory by a guy who landed a lot more, showed more skill, & more savey.

A defending champion should get nothing in the way of an advantage when it comes to judging a fight. Is there anything in the rule book that says he does, other than the Champ keeps his belt if it's a tie?

I never did see fight #II, but I heard that was a questionable, close to robbery, decision.

Lastly, to say the Spinks win was tied to keeping Marciano's record in tact is just flat wrong. The fight was not that close. Now if it was their second fight that was for Marciano's record, based on what I've heard about the fight, that may get me thinking about it a fix.