Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

...Non-pollin' motherfather. :bart Wants everyone to "explain themselves", I guess. :twisted:

 

Definatley Conn

 

Spinks....better opponents, And when he beat the **** outa Holmes Spinks was given up 30 lbs..thats enough for me.

 

Ditto.:good

 

I like Spinks.. Only a single loss in career consisting of a very dominant lightheavyweight reign in a splendid era, followed by winning the heayweight crown from an ATG.. And while amateur careers don't usually factor into professional acheivments, having an olympic gold medal doesn't hurt him either.

 

Conn would have reamed that old overconfident fossil that turned up against Spinks first time out.

 

So would Harold Johnson, Charles and maybe Moore, Loughran etc for that matter too.

 

Conteh? :hey

 

Why don't we just cut to the chase and say that Tarver would have beaten a 1985 Holmes while we're at it?

 

The Hopkisn who beat Tarver would probably have won every round against that Holmes.

 

Nah, not Tarver.

 

I agree, and Spinks gave up 30 lbs to Holmes..Incredible