Holmes x2, Qawi, Mustafa, Lopez, Johnson, Cooney I think Spinks beat everyone he had to in a very tough and competitive Light Heavyweight division, and even if you gave the second Holmes fight to Larry, I felt Spinks legitimately won their first encounter. Irrespective of whether or not Larry was in his prime, and most agree that he wasn't, Spinks gets credit for the way he fought, and only being a blown up Light Heavyweight himself. One of the more underrated wins of recent times, perhaps. What's the general consensus here? I think Spinks had an excellent resume, his only blemish at the hands of peak Mike Tyson. Where do you rank Michael Spinks...at Light Heavy and P4P?
Basically agreed with everything you say here. Spinks gets a lot of flack for getting crushed so badly by Tyson, but those people forget that Spinks wasn't supposed to have any major success at HW in the first place (and was generally not expected to beat Tyson either). I wonder how many people who criticize him for getting blown out by Tyson actually picked him to beat Holmes the first time? :think At LHW he's definitely in my top 5, and could conceivably be ranked anywhere there (including #1). I usually have him rated #4 behind Tunney, Charles, and Moore, but I think a case could be argued he was as good as any of them.
Spinks had a very solid resume...It was stacked well with names and impressive performances. Id have him in my top 5 at lightheavy..To tell you the truth I think he could very well beat anyone at the weight on his day. Pretty sure I have him around 35-40..I have him above Roy Jones and I feel he would beat him for reference.
I think 35-40 sounds about right. I really honestly believe the first Holmes win remains an underrated victory in recent boxing history. What's not impressive about a blown up Light Heavyweight, fighting for the first time at the weight, beating the most dominant Heavyweight since Joe Louis, who was undefeated at the time - closing in on Rocky's record. Come on, Larry was not prime, but that's counteracted by Spinks not being prime either, and severely undersized. Like My2sense says, Michael Spinks wasn't expected to beat Larry Holmes, much less Mike Tyson. Spinks could have conceivably retired undefeated.
Larry might not have been "prime", but you know he wanted Marciano's record badly. I think that says a lot about Spinks beating him.
Absolutely. It was the manner in which he won too. It was a close fight, but Spinks really took it to Holmes. Firing off left hooks overload, and throwing flurries like nobodies business in the first five rounds. Great performance.
What kind of argument is that?? What fighter hasn't faced a ton of "bums" in his career? I'll bet you don't even know anything about most of those fighters anyway other than what you've seen on the sketchy/incomplete records gotten off of boxrec.
Lets stay on topic? Why the hell would anyone come in here and say some flimsy **** about Tunney? SPINKS SPINKS SKINKS!
Just rating the Champions at 175, Spinks must be in the top 5 imo.He beat a lot of good lightheavies,and ducked no one.
His resume at lightheavy is ridiculously great, he's a lock for top 5 greatest lightheavys of all time, to be honest he's probably should be a lock for anywhere from 1 to 3 his record at lightheavy is that good, I also have to agree that his first win over Larry Holmes is one of the most underated wins in boxing history,
He showed himself the best 175lber in probably the strongest era of the division. This without doubt makes him a top 5 all-time 175lber.