Michael Spinks Light Heavy Resume IS Overrated

Haglers division was considered weaker than Spinks at the time, that's for sure so where that leaves Marvin's comments i know not. He had to mostly rely on greats moving up to catch peoples imagination.

Spinks division was considered quite strong.

 

Just love that bolded bit

 

I tend to think that if Spinks had come along a few years earlier, he might have had a couple of potential losses in him. Galindez, Conteh, Saad, Kates, Ahumada, the younger Lopez, the younger Mustafa Muhammad. Even a man of Michael's calibre is struggling to come through that lot unscathed.

That said, their respective primes were a bit scattered I suppose. Lumping them all in as one collective is probably unfair.

 

I think Michael's resume is very good, considering the fact that his knee injury, and looking after Leon probably cost him a couple of fights which would have even enhanced his resume more.

 

I thought he had a great resume. He fought punchers and boxers and showed his vesatility. Great champion.

 

Context is everything when reviewing Spinks record as champ.

Vonzell Johnson was coming off a very controversial loss to MSM where he appeared to be way ahead on points when he received what some felt was a quick hook. Spinks polished him off cleanly.

Eddie Davis had went too war with Qawi in a televised title defense and had a solid rep as a top contender. Spinks outboxed him and clearly defined his limitations.

Wassaja had some good wins, including one over Bob Foster, and Spinks was his step up. Spinks polished him off with no controversy.

Sutherland was coming off a MSM fight where he was ahead on points as well and was a colorful and easy sell for the networks based on his toughman resume. Spinks cleaned up a lot of Saad's messes, apparently, because he normally would've gotten a rematch with him (as V. Johnson would've too) instead of a Spinks beatdown.

Johnny Davis and Jerry Celestine were solid bottom-half top ten 175lb-ers and Spinks scored decisive wins that defined their limitations.

McDonald, Sears, and Riverdereya were undefeated prospects at a time where there weren't a lot of rising hot 175 lb up-and-comers. He stopped all three. McDonald was hot after an exciting televised ko over Sandman Edwards that was a FOY candidate and Sears was a Burt "Paulie from Rocky" Young protege that was getting hype in the mags.

Spinks ducked no one. I challenge you to name one light heavy he didn't fight that was a legit contender. He also fought frequently and it would have been standard procedure for him to have simply made less defenses and left a few names off this list and no one would have complained. You essentially got extra title defenses from Spinks that other champs didn't make, which was a real benefit to a fight fan in the early 80's.

Again, who should Spinks have fought that he didn't?

 

Great post.

I remember now. I have the Sears fight on DVD, and they interviewed Burt Young before the opening bell because he was sitting at ringside. Not a good night for Paulie. No, sir.

 

A lot of people tend to forget that Spinks didn't have that many fights at Light Heavyweight, yet still got a hell of a lot of good work done during that time.

He faced and defeated the likes of Summerhays and Bethea after only five pro fights; and he had victories over Yaqui Lopez and Marvin Johnson within the first fifteen fights of his career. The victory over Mustapha Muhammad was in his sixteenth pro fight, and proceeded to unify the championship against a future Hall of Famer, and make nine other defences against a slew of tough, talented contenders.

Spinks did all that work in only 26 fights, and that's pretty impressive, if you ask me.

 

Very impressive, Drew.

 

Yaqui was CLEARLY past prime, tho, to be fair, perhaps a prime Jinx may have beaten him.
Eddie is a different story. IMO Spinks came along at the right time. Eddie had to shed 20+ pounds in a few days for that fight. Eddie always had issues in his head. Gregory is a superior HOF level fighter IMO than Michael and anyone is welcome to disagree.
I'd love to meet Eddie; I'd shake his hand and admonish him (a tad ) for not being better than he could have been.
Did anyone know that the Associated Press scored the Gregory-Spinks fight a 145-145 draw? With all of Eddie's issues.
Eddie Gregory is a BETTER FIGHTER then Michael Spinks.
OK, come after me....

 

Yaqui Lopez was certainly past his prime with a number of wars under his belt, but he brought the heat in his fight with Michael Spinks. Nobody at 175lbs at the time would have had an easy time with that Lopez.

 

I thought Eddie stood a very good chance in the rematch. shocked when the fight never came off.

 

Would have loved to have seen Spinks against Saad Mohammad in a unification match. Before Saad's loss to Braxton.

 

Hell, I would have loved to see Spinks against Jerry Martin, James Scott, Mike Rossman, and definitely John Conteh.

 

I don't think Eddie was a better fighter than Michael. Eddie could be lazy in training and in fights. Michael had that extra gear when he needed it. I also think Michael was extremely intelligent in the ring exposing his opponents weaknesses and utlizing his strengths. Intangibles. I like Eddie a little better as a body puncher but that's about all I can say in his favor. So again, I disagree that Eddie was better than Spinks, although I've certainlly seen more outlandish statements.
I watched the fight a couple months ago and had Spinks winning by 6 points. He swept the last 5 or so rounds. No way that could've been a draw IMO.