How would Michael Spinks have done in this era

I think he would have been an elite member of that fraternity but the “0” would definitely go. I can’t see him going undefeated in that era and given the culture of the times he’d likely have about three times the number of career fights . A question was raised about him facing the top middle weights. Robinson might have been interesting but I can’t see him beating Spinks. Lastly, since practically every elite light heavy of that period found themselves mingling with heavyweights, Spinks would likely do the same. He’d be looking at facing guys like Walcott, Charles, Moore, LaStarza, Valdez, Maxim, cockell, Bucceroni, Pastrano and perhaps even Marciano at some point, though im not sure how it would end up.

 

agreed

Charles and Moore would be obvious threats. I think Spinks splits fights with them. Could go either way.

Although Spinks did go unbeaten at 175lb in a strong era, the 1940's was stronger. So there is no way he going unbeaten.

 

I agree. But robinson is taking a beating here the same beating that hagler would have taken but i doubt that Robinson would have wanted any part of a much bigger man(skilled)like spinks

 

I don’t think Robinson and Spinks would have fought truthfully. But the OP asks how Spinks would have done against middle weights of the time.

 

That and he’d likely be fighting 6-8 times a year or more and at fluctuating weights the way that many of that period did. Very hard to almost impossible to go undefeated under those circumstances

 

Precisely. Even if Spinks were better than Charles, Moore, et al. (which is highly disputable), the fact that he'd have to fight them so often would most likely mean that he would accumulate losses - and likely quite a few. I think a lot of younger fans today do not understand different context and tend to solely focus on win percentages. When you fight every month - and sometimes even more frequently - it is difficult to maintain Floyd-like "unbeaten streak." And the competition was deeper, simply because there were more licensed boxers in the past. All this, of course, makes streaks like Pep's, Robinson's, and Duran's so remarkable.

 

You guys have said it all. Archie and Ezzard could beat Spinks, but could also lose to him, the others can't beat Spinks. I think Spinks would have to fight Moore and Charles each 2 or 3 times to get all the possible outcomes.

 

Agree on all accounts. Being a professional boxer must have been a terrible way to earn a living in those days. Even the best fighters of that period weren’t paid that much and they fought sometimes 6-10 times per year. They rarely knew much about their opponents since film footage was limited and not every scheduled fight gave a man enough time to prepare. Sometimes men would fight while STILL being injured from their LAST outing.

 

Yes, you bring up another important point: The relative absence of film footages regarding the opposition. And this problem would persist to a much later era, especially when dealing with foreign fighters. A few weeks ago, I saw an interview with Jung-koo Chang (he's on TV all the time now in Korea all of a sudden), where he mentioned that he didn't have the relevant film footages of his opponents even as a world champion; and this was the 1980s. So at times he had to actually improvise the fight plan on the first round!

The younger ones do not understand how life was like in the pre-Internet days. Heck, we actually had to buy our porn!