Michael Spinks (Holmes 1) vs 1973 George Foreman

You have to double check everything with some people.

 

Yeah but even if you switch back the numbers that still only makes a five pound weight difference between Spinks and Foreman. The point he was trying to make is still roughly the same. A five pound weight difference and a half inch height difference isn't really much.

 

Because he was routinely doing neither of those things at that juncture in his career. The fights with Peralta highlighted the need for Foreman to improve in this area & at the time of the Young fight, Gil Clancy had thoroughly done away with everything that made Foreman a winner in a bid to exorcise his stamina issues.

Watch Foreman stalk Ali early on & then look at his approach to the Frazier return fight, & to Young. He’s a markedly different fighter stylistically - but just as importantly, has mentally lost his edge.

1973-74 Foreman isn’t going to have trouble finding a one-legged Spinks unless it involves searching the arena, car park, & surrounding woodlands.

 

The point is moot. One made 175 for many years, often coming in well under 175. The other was 220 or more possibly dehydrating. He picked the lightest weight of Foreman's big wins and Spinks highest career weight while also just happening to add 6 pounds to it. Foreman weighed 224 3/4 when he decimated Ken Norton.

Lets go the other way - Spinks weighed 199 3/4 when he beat Holmes. Foreman weighed 231 1/2 belting Dino Denis. All of a sudden with the reverse finessing, we are looking at over 31 pounds. Color me shocked, and that's a Spinks whose built up from fighting around 173.

Common sense.

 

I can only halfway buy that Foreman cut off the ring on Ali. A lot of that was Ali deliberately going to the ropes. He flat out couldn't cut off the ring on Young and couldn't cut off the ring on Peralta. And he looked very confused in those fights. You can try to dress it up (he was green/he "mentally lost his edge") but an even simpler explanation is he just wasn't good at cutting off the ring. At least against guys who knew how to use the ring. And he very very rarely fought those types.

Heres my take on it. And I think I'm being fair. Spinks does his herky jerky spoiler act on Foreman and cruises to a decision a la Jimmy Young (wins) or a la Peralta (loses) but goes the distance either way or Foreman looks a little lost and catches up to him late. But no matter what Spinks makes him look bad. Thats just what Spinks was really good at. Spoiling out the fight and making the other guy look bad. And that just may be the kryptonite for Foreman.

 

We’ll have to disagree simply on which fighter comes out looking bad. At least you’re in here defending your position. Where are the other two who voted Spinks?

 

I don't question that Foreman was a bigger guy but looking at their heights and their frames theres not a lot of difference there. What Foreman had was more muscle on his frame. I think if you just looked at their skeletons you wouldn't see a huge difference. Foreman had more muscle but Spinks wasn't some little guy himself either.