how do you rate Michael Spinks?

I think he was a much better HW than Foster,and would have won a fight between them.He had access to modern weight gaining methods,and his elusive style helped at HW.
At LH,its a different matter,Foster was awesome there.:good

 

Solid? Any of the Top 10-15 guys in the Light Heavy division back then could have been champion today. Foster fought in a weak era. Spinks foughts in a murderers row era, where even the 10 rounders felt like prize fights.
Spinks was a much better Heavyweight than Foster with a much better chin. Sure, Holmes was badly faded and couldn't get his hands off, but Mike did win a few fights at heavyweight and got the big payday with Tyson. The major thing is he became heavyweight champion. Foster didn't.

 

a murder's row yeah but last time i checked he didnt fight saad, james scott, mike rossman, lotte mwale, richie kates, rudy koopmans, or wille edwards.

Outside of his big wins, he fought guys like sears, mcdonald, sutherland, rivadenyra, johnny davis and vonzell johsnon. All these men have very thin resumes.

Name spinks 10 best wins at 175, then name fosters 10 best and its a clear cut win for foster.

Fosters 10 best:
fourie twice
henry hank twice
eddie cotton
mike quarry
chris finnegan
vicente rondon
dick tiger
allen thomas

Spinks 10 best:
qawi
mustafa muhammad
marvin johnson
yaqui lopez
mustafa wassaja
eddie davis
johnny davis
murray sutherland twice
jerry celestine
as you can tell fosters wins are better in my view, his wins outside of the big 3 are clearly superior.

 

I thought you were one to judge based on quality, not quantity. Otherwise, how again do you rank Monzon above Moore?

Foster did fight in a weak era of Light Heavyweights, it was his dominance and ability that often gets him ranked so highly. In terms of quality of opposition, Spinks fought in a better era, and beat better opposition. Tiger was a natural Middleweight, and past his prime when Foster starched him. Otherwise, good wins over Quarry, Hank, Rondon, etc, but his top wins do not stack up to Spinks's. So it depends on if you're judging by quality over quantity, or vice versa. You usually judge on the former.

 

And to be quite frank, I don't believe based on quantity Foster has much of an edge either, if any. Most of the Foster opponents you named, aside from a few, were not exactly top class. I'd give Spinks the edge in terms of quality for sure, and in terms of quantity he is on par, though Foster had more fights.

 

Hmmm... Tough question. Here is my assesment...

If Tyson knocked out Spinks in two rounds, and Kevin McBride knocked Tyson out in 6 rounds.... My conclusion is that Kevin McBride >>>>>> Michael Spinks. Spinks would simply be unable to deal with the bigger man. I can see McBride using his quick hands to get inside and outwork Spinks down the stretch, winning every round and getting a late stoppage.

 

In what area? Certainly not at Heavyweight, foster got reemed out there many times, and by far lesser fighters than Spinks. At least Spinks actually achieved something at heavyweight and won the lineal title. Spinks is the much better and more successful heavyweight of the two.

At 175 it's up for debate. Foster had way more fights and defences there but never beat even close to the class of opponent Spinks did there.

I admire them both.

 

Jeez, three names to strike fear into the heart of Spinks. Spinks was busy beating better fighters than that silly lot. He also actually won at heavyweight and therefore stayed there instead of coming back down and cleaning out what would have equaled sparring partner level fighters for him.

 

top 5 ATG @ lightheavy

 

Looking at the fights here, Spinks has fought the better opposition.

 

better than that silly lot, last time i checked mwale beat marvin jhonson, spinsk 3rd best win.

 

Foster was brutally koed several times at Heavyweight. He just didn't have the whiskers to deal with the size and power difference.

 

Yeah, 3 years before Spinks even won the title in an 8 round deal. Mwale had his shot ve Saad but was hammered in 4 then 4 fights later was destroyed by Eddie Mustafa. Building him up as a meaningful omission on Spinks record is quite frankly hilarious.

 

either way you name the 15 best fighters in that division from 1980-1984 and spinks beat maybe 5 of them at best.

You yourself even said mustafa wassaja was nothing special and hes like the 5th best light heavyweight spinks beat. Unless you think eddie davis or sutherland had better resumes

I named 8 fighters that bob foster beat that were true contenders, spinks beat at most 5 top light heavyweights.

I can also claim that a guy like pierre fourie would have probably beat yaqui lopez, i mean lopez was the jose luis ramriez of his era, losing nearly all his meaningfull fights.

Your telling me wille edwards didnt deserve a shot at the belt, i would say the people he beat from 82-85 is more impressive than what oscar rivadenyra, vonzell johnson, david sear or jim mcdonald ever did to earn thier title shots.

 

him being outweighed by 25 pounds against frazier and 40 pounds against ali would prooly be the case.