both rose from 175 to hw lineal championship skipping the 190's both narrowly outpointed their predecessor lineal champ at hw both were KO'd in 1 round by the most terrific puncher of their respected time both named Michael suppose they had both met at 200 while both prime (i know time machine is needed) for 12 rounds.
Given that Spinks can get out of the first 2-3 rounds unscatched, his awkward combination punching should get the job done against Moorer, who was not a defensive genius and who had trouble taking shots from Heavyweights. Spinks could still punch south of Light Heavyweight I believe, at least hard enough to hurt and possibly stop Moorer.
This is hard to say because Moorer was a chubby heavyweight. Even so, he had more power than Spink at heavyweight and had excellent offensive skills. He could control and punish other fighters with his jab. The problem with him is he became reluctant to let go offensively after life and death shootouts with Bert Cooper and Alex Stewart. He was easy to hit, and a bit lazy. He was still a very good fighter, but if he was 15lbs. lighter, he would have been a much better fight, faster, with better stamina and mobility. Spinks was just a better all-around fighter who's akward style benefitted him. He was as athletically gifted, and earned everything he got through hard work. His rings smarts should not be overlooked. People think of Spinks, and immediately Leon comes to mind. Michael is not Leon. He has a great head on his shoulders. I can see Spinks boxing cautiously, waiting for an opening. Moorer would try to bully Michael with size and strength. Spinks may be in trouble early and may even go down. but I think he could weather the storm and ride it out. He would take Moorer into the deep waters and tire him out with constant, herky jerky movements, tagging him every now and then, maybe even putting Moorer down, but I see a tough decision win for Spinks.
Moorer would have never come close to beating Larry Holmes. Spinks was better. I can see Spinks easily move around and control the action and then start to land the Jinx and stop Moorer in about round 11.
spinks ud , spinks as was said would box cautiously early on but later in the fight would land more and more rights on a frustrated and thought opponent
If we were talking light heavyweight, then I'd go with Spinks any day of the week. At heavyweight however, I'm not so sure.. Spinks left too many question marks at that level. Losing in one round to Tyson, plus beating on a shot Cooney and Tangstad don't give us much to work with... Holmes was 35-36 years of age, and frankly I only gave Spinks one of those fights in their two meetings. Moorer had some problems at heavyweight no doubt, but he fought a considerably larger number of fights, beat a wider array of men with varying styles and abilities, plus showed that he could rise off the canvas to win a fight... We also never saw Spinks face a true south paw of Moorer's abilities, and his tendency to start slow, would likely always prove to be an issue against a fast starting puncher.... I have to give Moorer the edge at heayweight soley on the basis of having proved more at that class.
Good Post, I've always had these two #1 and #2 at 200, but honestly I think Moorer is the greatest 200 poudner Of all-time
Moorer was an impressive fighter....but if Bert Cooper could nearly put him away in one round, Spinks would win no problem. Moorer made way too many mistakes to be able to get by a fighter like Spinks. Spinks was defensively sound and had crushing power....and you don't get to make a lot of mistakes with those kind....Spinks would be too smart for Moorer.
