I dont see how this is true. Michael Spinks was (in many people's eyes) the greatest light heavyweight ever. And he won his world title by beating one of the greatest heavyweights ever in Larry Holmes. In fact he did it twice. And Holmes might not have been absolute prime, but he was still pretty good. A lot better thanthe version who bwas a solid contender in the 90s. Spinks was a lot better than the Jim Flynn who knocked out pre prime Dempsey. In class levels, he was arguably better (or at least as good)as the tunney (also one of the best light heavyweights of all time) who one all but one round against Dempsey. In fact, i think that their is definitely a point in time where Spinks comfortably beats Dempsey. The biggest thing against Spinks is the Tyson fight. I am probably crazy. I could see a slightly younger Spinks putting up a better fight under most circumstances. In fact, i think he beats the Tyson who lost to Holyfield or post prison tyson, maybe a few other versions. A controversial view, i know. Let us not forget that prime Tyson looked quite a bit quicker than Dempsey. Looking at the Tyson fight, if Dempsey was in there, that split second difference could easily meant that instead of Dempsey landing the KO blow, Spinks landed that big overhand right he missed against Tyson which could have changed the fight and meant game on. Dempsey was a great and deserves favouritism, but no way does Spinks have no chance at all. He has earned the write to a chance against any fighter who has entered the ring. He would start underdog, but at the correct odds, he is a good bet. I say Dempsey takes a close decision maybe even controversial, with his image getting him over the line. Anything other then an in form Dempsey and Spinks takes the win like he did with Holmes.
But a 37 yr old Willard, basically inactive for 4years, is the litmus test that reveals Jack's greatness?
I like Spinks and feel he was a terrific fighter but he was not beating Jack Dempsey, no way ... Spinks was in wars for his life against Yaqui Lopez and Marvin Johnson before catching them .. he squeaked by a close tough decision over Eddie Davis .. he ran for his life in outboxing Qwai .. yes he beat Holmes but he did it in a chess match fashion, using speed against a fighter still very tough but minus legs to catch him .. there is no doubt Dempsey under achieved in his career based on his own talent and inactivity but he was a serious fighter and a murderous punching bad ass with his own excellent speed and a slightly longer reach than Spinks .. I say Dempsey was too tough and takes him out ..
Good post. I watched some spinks highlights last night and just thought if he wasnt scared he possibly could've beat Tyson.
Gaging Dempsey by Flynn is far more of a mislead than gaging Spinks as a whole by Tyson. You know this more than likely but feel like making a point for the sake of a round and round but that bores me these days ..
This is a good post and you put up a good argument :good I also think that Spinks does better than people think. He may not win, but it would be a good fight.
No, I wouldn't say that. You are free to doubt Dempsey's greatness. It's besides the point. A younger, prime, 1915 Jess Willard is very likely to do better against prime Dempsey than he managed in 1919. Don't you agree ? An active prime Dempsey, not coming off a 2-year-lay-off, would most likely do better against Gibbons too. Agree ?
So you want to pit a prime Spinks against a pre- prime Dempsey? You're like Mendoza with Jack Johnson, fixated and flipped out.:-(
Pre-prime by how much? 12 months? 18 months? It's not like we are talking 5 years. The result is relative.
I repeat that I like Spinks and think he was a great light heavyweight but to call him one of the greatest ever is a reach. He only had 32 fights, 27 at 175. His physical skills and size, speed and power were terrific at 175 but he really did not compiled the body of work at that weight to compare w many others.
