Michael Spinks (1983) vs Canelo Alvarez (2021)

Kovalev was stopped by two men rising in weight and a third who was an aging contender with a thin resume and who had only stopped 3 of his last 10 opponents. Point being, his chin and legs were gone. Note: he retired after Canelo. Now Canelo beating Kovalev was obviously still a good win because he was the champion and it was Alvarez’s first fight at that weight. But For the purpose of the thread topic, I mentioned his being passed it as a side note to capitalize on the fact that fighting a prime 1983 spinks would be a totally different kettle of fish. THATS the main focus. I can’t see comparing a 37 year old Kokalev coming off a spotty streak to a 27 year old undefeated spinks who was beating Braxton, Gregory and Johnson.

 

Now you're calling Kovalev shot because he was stopped by a man rising in weight (Canelo Alvarez). Fun times.

Btw Eleider was undefeated in over 30 fights and had beaten Bute and Pascal.

 

No. He was like 23-0. And those guys were both past prime and non-indigenous to light heavy as well. I never used the word “ shot.” So by arguing these points you’re saying that kovalev wasn’t past it and that he was just as good as 1983 spinks. Have fun with that

 

Wasn’t it “completely past it?” Pretty much synonymous.

More on Eleider:
At the 2008 Pan American Championships[10] in Ecuador he won gold.

Based on his qualifying results he was given a first round bye in the 2008 Olympics, but after a 5-5 tie at the end of his second round bout with Britain's Tony Jeffries (eventual bronze medalist), Álvarez lost on countback.

 

Instead of grabbing at straws by doing things like referring to amateur achievements or discerning semantics why don’t you just answer these two questions:
1. Was Kovalev prime when he lost to Canelo

and

2. do you think he was as good as a prime spinks at that stage ?