Is Michael Spinks a greater fighter than Marvin Hagler?

Once i reckon.

 

Excellent post JT and I agree with you - it’s Hagler for me too and I’m comfortable in that but there’s still a very strong argument for Spinks if people want to make it.

The pre-title experience you mention is also somewhat of a factor (though not as significant as the title experience) and it’s worth noting that had he got the decision he deserved against Antuofermo, Hagler almost certainly would have matched Monzon’s defense record. That extra setback probably helped keep him as hungry as he was throughout his title reign, though.

 

You make good points Jel. That decision, like earlier ones, did indeed maintain his rage.

The argument for Spinks really begins and ends with winning the heavyweight title IMO and how much emphasis the particular judge puts in it.

 

Spinks greatness is shown all through his boxing career:

Olympic Gold medalist dominating over pro level amateur opponents

Light hwt champion of the world defeating most of the leading contenders along the way.

Only light hwt champion EVER to win the worlds hwt title and he defended that title three times.

Only lost one bout and that was against Tyson.

Spinks was a winner. A tremendous puncher at lt hwt with excellent technical skills.

 

Hagler's greatness is also rather prevalent to say the least!!!!

 

Hagler was a great middleweight. Top five all time.

However the biggest prize in all of sport was the worlds hwt championship and Spinks was the only light hwt champion to become worlds hwt champion and he also defended this championship three times. Add his Olympic gold medal, light hwt run, hwt accomplishment and few fighters all time can really compare. The great thing about Mike was he was always soft spoken about his accomplishments. A real gentleman.

 

Hi Houdini! I (sort of, stand by your comments) but...it seems you're agreeing with what I said. Eddie was ahead on all scorecards halfway thru the fight before 'wilting". I don't give any 'disservice' to Michael's performance but, as I said, due to Eddie's going into a sweat machine to lose lbs. in a short time, he showed up nowhere near his optimum self.
With all due respect, IMO Gregory was a BETTER fighter basically across the board, in virtually all aspects, sans his 'weirdness' as I'd said.
"Spinks won fairly easily"? I'm not sure what fight you were watching?

 

Scorecards were one sided. Gregory was always a lazy fighter. During this time period lots of praise was dumped upon Gregory but he never fully lived up to the hype.

 

I certainly agree, Eddie never lived up to his hype but, IMO, he would have beaten Spinks in their fight had he been in shape. With that loss, IMO, Michael would still have established himself as an ATG.

 

Moorer?

 

in respect to their divisions overall, No. Spinks resume is solid, but remember his knee injury and his feeling personally responsible for Leon during his mess probably cost him a few fights and wins over fighters who he most likely could have beaten, but he never met Conteh, Galindez, Scott, and a couple of others. He came in at the tail end of the division's heydey. Marvin was more in the thick of it, and even though he probably he didn't meet Ronnie Harris and Emile Griffith, probably could have beaten them if he met them.

 

Both tremendous fighters and worthy shouts as top 3 in their respective divisions ( I rank middleweight as historically deeper but Lt Heavyweight is nothing to sneeze at either).

The Spinks trip to Heavyweight gives him a boost but he was a big Lt Heavy with the frame that was conducive to moving up whereas Marvin was a smallish Middleweight perfectly suited to the division.

Marvin has the better resume (again close), skills are similar, Spinks maybe the more dangerous puncher, Hagler the better chin (one of the best in the sports history).

I rate both very, very highly, I prefer watching Hagler and rate him higher accordingly but again I rate both men extremely highly.

 

To me Michael Spinks never had a win as big as Marvin over Thomas. Over-the-hill Holmes doesn't count as that big a victory imo, undefeated or not.

That said, I loved Michael at light heavy.

 

I prefer Marvin's story to that of Michael's.

The gap between them is not huge, overall. I just think that, whereas Spinks’ career consists of some major talking points, Hagler’s career at Middleweight represents an epic journey; maintaining a fiercely competitive level for over 50 fights before finally lifting the Championship, after which he would panel all-comers, bar Leonard.

Spinks is an often underrated talent who, as a Light Heavyweight, was undisputed and undefeated and I think he defended a fair few times (double-figures?), as well. He also fought in a good LHW era; even though he is often perceived as the heir apparent, cleaning up shop.

Spinks is rightfully in the discussion when considering the Greatest Light Heavyweights of all time, but his Heavyweight exploits, in my opinion, are a tad inflated, based almost entirely on him beating a jaded Holmes. Gifted the win in their rematch (IMO), he didn't really do much else of any consequence there, other than perhaps allow himself to be 'fed' to Tyson.

Two quite contrasting careers, really. But, for me, Hagler just wears that aura of Greatness more convincingly.

 

I always thought the heavyweights were overrated. No weight limit, and the weight advantages are a bigger variable sometimes than all the others, which cannot be the case in the lower weights. And the fighters didn't have to work to get to a weight limit, which encouraged more laziness than other weights. Holyfield was a rare fighter who was always in shape.