Michael Spinks, Michael Moorer, Chris Byrd or David Haye?

Which Spinks are we talking about?
If Michael definitely him
If Leon it could be Byrd

 

Michael, did the most as an amateur, cleaned out the lightheavy division, was the first lightheavy champ to beat a heavyweight champion. Only loss was to a prime Tyson who was destroying everyone at the time.

 

1. Byrd
2. Moorer
3. Spinks
4. Haye

If you're talking about in a H2H sense I may have Spinks over Moorer regardless I think Byrd is number 1 for either resume or H2H.

 

Are you discounting Byrd's win over Vitali or attributing maximum credit? If a victory ever demanded an Asterix, it's that one.

 

Spinks
Moorer
Byrd
Haye

 

I agree. Byrd lost nearly every round of that fight until the pain from his torn rotator cuff was too much for him to continue. A healthy Vlad dominated him in the rematch. I will say Byrd had some good wins at Heavyweight but Klitschko wasn't one of them.

 

Michael Spinks
Byrd
Haye
Moorer

 

In terms of sheer natural talent, i would say Haye.

Spinks is by far the greatest pound for pound fighter amongst the four.

Byrd was very gutsy. He did not have the natural ability of the other 3 but the fact that he was able to compete at heavyweight makes him pretty incredible.

Its a hard question. Moorer and Haye were natural cruiserweights. I know Moorer fought at light-heavy but he was a little too big for 175 lbs. He was definetely a natural 190-200 lb guy. Ditto with Haye.

Spinks had a lanky built and was definitely a natural 175 lb guy. Byrd was also more of a natural 175 lb guy who heavily bulked up to fight at heavy.

In terms of pound for pound greatness, its obviously Michael Spinks. He is an all time top 30 p4p guy. The other 3, brilliant as they were, would not be top 50.

In terms of heavyweight resume, Moorer has the best win over Holyfield. Yes, i am sure we can make the myriad of excuses for Holyfield regarding his heart etc etc. Holyfield always had an excuse whenever he lost. Moorer beat him fair and square.

In terms of depth at heavyweight, its probably Byrd. He has wins over Tua and Vitali.

In terms of sheer talent, Haye. He was quicker than Moorer at heavyweight, he hit much harder than Byrd and i would say he hit significantly harder than Spinks at heavy. Yet his resume at heavy is probably the weakest of the four.

So purely at heavy, based on resume:

1. Byrd
2. Moorer
3. Spinks
4. Haye

At heavy, talent wise:

1. Haye
2. Moorer
3. Spinks
4. Byrd

Pound for pound:

1. Spinks
2. Moorer
3. Byrd
4,. Haye

 

Excellent post, I agree with literally every word.

 

Personally I don’t see why Moorer’s win over Holyfield should be considered a greater singular win than Spinks’ over Holmes. Even if I granted you that Holmes was past his peak, he was still very good and a 6-1 favourite. Spinks literally hopped up two divisions to fight him. It’s an astonishing achievement. Underrated IMO.

 

I'm going with Moorer even though Spinks was the best P4P. Spinks HW resume is very short with his best wins coming against faded fighters. Tyson destroyed a faded Spinks and Holmes won the rematch IMO. So going with Moorer who had the best career at HW

 

Michael Spinks would beat all the others in a head 2 head.
His punching out Cooney was very impressive and any man who bested Holmes or took him to the wire at Heavyweight over 30 rounds could box .
Michael would stop Moorer and outpoint the others flooring Byrd.

 

Yep! Folks wrongly think Holmes was shot and don't give Spinks much credit for those wins. Holmes beat Ray Mercer a full seven years after the Spinks fights and he gave Holyfield one hell of a tough fight and arguably beat Oliver McCall in 95' which was a full ten years after the first Spinks/Holmes fight.