Spinks was a fantastic lightheavyweight. Footwork, speed, good chin, defensive skill, could box, could attack, and oh, he could really punch too, and often suddenly out of nowhere zipped in a lightning KO punch.
I know that guy !!! Welcome !!!:hi: No doubt he was a great fighter but do you feel he was a top five all time light heavy ? BY the way, please give me a timeline for Jeffries. I swear I read and reread your other three books all the time ... amazing stuff.
Patterson gave up 25+ pounds to Liston whereas Spinks/Tyson were fairly equal weight wise. I believe prime Floyd beats prime Spinks...
Spinks carried a little extra weight though and might have weighed the same as Tyson but in terms of strength and power he was a million miles behind. Patterson would probably beat Spinks as well, but it's strange as to why Patterson doesn't get a lot of flack for losing twice in the same manner as Spinks did once.
I didnt like him as a heavyweight and often rooted against him. As with most people, his win over Holmes upset me though he did perform very well. With Iron Mike, I knew he would fianally meet his match. I gave him two rounds at most and thankfully, Mike did not play games. As a lightheavy he was the second best fighter behind Hagler. Had power in both hands, good defensively, awkward. Maybe he did rule a weak division but other than that, haven't seen any real weaknesses.
Pound for pound of course as composed by the editors at KO magazine. You would often see Hagler referred to as the best p4p in the world. Marvin was setting records with all his awards. Micheal never got one award while Marvin started out in his first with 147/150That's how outstanding he was at the time. With me I had Marvin pegged #1 since 1981 after his contest with Hamsho but the media didnt catch onto it until after the Sibson fight The following year Marvin's status went down but still p4p and the year after he finally won all first place votes 150/150 which had never been done before Marvin got himself one more award after that but then lost to leonard. There was no award in 1987 but I don't know why.
I guess I give more credence to being the Great Champion as opposed to being a Great Fighter which is why I rate Spinks over Charles and Tunney. My question why should Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Archie Moore, Bob Foster or Harry Greb get the edge over Michael Spinks? Spinks emerged as the man in a talent laden LHW Division and after conquering all foes he moved up to HW to dethrone Larry Holmes.
Charles emerged as the man in a talent laden LHW division(including Moore X3, better than any Spinks wins at LHW) and after conquering all foes of the era(more stacked than Spinks) he moved up to HW to beat Joe Louis. I'll take Charles, especially when you compare the depth of their resumes.
I know you and I have been over this one before, but Ironchamp, if you really look at the era Charles fought in at 175, and you look at that resume, before he moved up to heavy, it becomes apparent that his achievements clearly outweigh any title reign there, and considering that he never actually was given a title shot in that division, it becomes even moreso. Really, when you look at it in more depth, i will go as far as to say that Charles is one of the few historical fighters that doesnt have any peers in his prime weight classes all-time great department. Not meaning to sound like an arsehole there, but i feel strongly on this one.
..........This is the eventual turn of events that sometimes turns me off some of these discussions. It's as if someone names a fighter, some see it as their sworn duty to point out others who they think were better, and in the course of the argument, talk the other fighter down. Sadly, no one here seems to warrant any merit unless they were the best of the best of the best. And, as such arguments can never be proven no matter whom you pick to be the best, why not appreciate what each fighter did and acknowledge their accomplishments? Is there no room for respect for more than one?
