How would M. Spinks have done against Dempsey's and Marciano's Challengers ?

I think Spinks at 199 lbs in the first Holmes fight was still reasonably fit, mobile and would have been considered a good sized heavyweight in the 1940's and 50's. By the time he fought Tyson at around 212, he was carrying more weight than what his natural build was able to accommodate, on top of also being 32 years old and not very active as of recent. While I agree with many that he was not made to be a "great" heavyweight, I say so with some reservation. He didn't ascend to that division until he was already 29 bordering 30 years old and didn't have very many fights there. He also made this transition during a time when the standards for being a " true" heavyweight had gone up a notch.

 

This is true. Taking on someone Holmes's size was a bigger step but then he knew Holmes was slowing down and could out speed him. It was a great feat but with hindsight there's a number of unique circumstances that favoured Spinks.

 

He clearly did not have any of the steroid signs .. he was not ripped at all .. he looked a bit bloated .. no zits, ect .. I think he simply ate all he wanted and bulked up .. no w look at Evander .. whir I don;t want to accuse he sure looked far different ..

 

Holyfield: Ripped solid muscle weight gain, rapid balding, heart problems, training with steroid monster Lee Haney, Evan Fields steroid buying alter-ego... (I cant speak to the zits) I will say this, I shook Holy's hand once and hes not a huge guy.

Spinks: Softer less ripped look at HW than LHW... and thats about it.

 

I agree with your assumptions but believe Spinks needed to wait for the programme that he used to come along to do what he did. It's not happening without it. Legal or not.

 

Say what you want, but Walcott was a bad mutha! Go watch that left hook that nearly took Ezzard Charles head off. Walcott beats Spinks any time anywhere. Charles would be a closer fight, but no way Spinks makes it outta there with any version of Joe Walcott. Hell there's a reason Joe Louis' camp got rid of him as a sparring in Joe's "early years" much less later on when he got robbed in the first fight with Louis and was beating Louis easily in the second fight until he foolishly got caught. Walcott imo is one of the most underrated heavyweight champs there is, and that of course is due to Marciano.

 

If Joey Maxim could find a way to trouble Walcott then Spinks could beat him. Especially the version that Marciano faced which wasnt the version that Louis faced.

 

Preach it from the mountain!

 

I've seen the Walcott that Layne beat and that version was inferior to the one that fought Rocky and knocked out Charles.

Having not seen the Walcott who lost and fought close fights with Maxim I imagine it was somewhere between his losing performance with Layne and Louis. Walcott could do better than that. He would coast and spoil.

Walcott finally brought more aggression to his game at the end of his career to turn things around. There was no spoiling and coasting in those fights. Against Marciano Walcott was fighting with a desperation to keep his title. Holding nothing back. Teddy Brenner said it was Walcotts best fight.

Spinks never beat anyone as good as Walcott.