Michael Spinks vs Deontay Wilder

He would beat Wilder when he beat Joe freaking Louis (much better fighter and puncher than Wilder) along with whole galery of HW contenders. It seems that you know nothing about Charles career.

 

If he did he probably wouldn't use the Marciano fights as a benchmark, and he'd also probably realise that Charles has done more than Double Wilder's achievements at HW.

 

The funniest thing to me is that using Marciano fight doesn't help him at all. Charles was past his prime against Marciano and yet he was highly competitive over 15 rounds against Rocky who never tired and was extremely high volume puncher with heavy hands. Yet he couldn't even drop past prime Charles. Meanwhile Wilder is a fighter who throws less than 20 punches per round and most of them are weak lefts, because he tries to find opponent with one powerful right all fight long. Marciano couldn't find past prime Charles with hundreds of punches, but am I supposed to believe that Wilder would stop peak Charles early with one shot?

 

Silly, isn't it? Especially when there's at least 6 examples of Wilder being comprehensively out-boxed by very average guys.

I'd actually give Walcott a great shot vs Wilder, a guy who Charles proved he was clearly better than.

And yeah, I'm told by Marciano fans that Charles was prime. I laugh at that, it's blatant that Charles' prime was in the 40s to anyone coherent. It's like people have only seen the Marciano fights....

 

I'm on side that Louis was clearly past his prime when he fought Charles, but he was still far better boxer than Wilder and he could still knock out anyone with one attack. Charles put up a masterful performance against fighter that was more skilled and still more dangerous than Wilder. This was prime Charles, not the one who lost half of his fights in mid-50s

 

I think Wilder would win by KO around the 10th round mark.

 

As am I. Louis had been in and out of spells of inactivity for the best part of a decade before hand, it's not like he was a spring chicken going into the Walcott fights either.

With a ring IQ like Charles', I can see very clearly how he'd see something, a way to neutralise Wilder's power (since it's literally all he has). I imagine it'd involve lots of infighting and positioning.

 

Hmmmm..... So you don’t consider beating Larry Holmes the 48-0, 7 1/2 year reigning heavyweight champion, who had made 20 title defenses, and Spinks coming up from light heavyweight and fighting his first fight as a heavyweight and beating Holmes “making an impressive mark”,

interesting....... What would have impressed you?

 

Beating Larry Holmes 1978-1982.

 

To be fair Holmes was still beating big genuine heavyweights (even if not the very best in the division they were still genuine heavyweights and contenders) with guile, heart and experience. Spinks moving straight up from 175 without even a tune up fight is still an incredible achievement no matter which way one cuts it. He had to call on all his skills, skills seldom needed at 175 and fight practically the perfect fight. The fight odds of 6-1 bear out the challenge that faced Spinks. Everyone knew Holmes was fading and well past his best but barely anybody thought Spinks could overcome the odds and actually be the one to finally beat him.

 

I'm not entirely convinced he ever beat him. I never saw Holmes hurt even once, but Spinks was hurt in both fights.

 

Spinks most certainly won the first one for mine. I've never scored it absolutely properly but my feeling was Holmes deserved the nod in the second.

@mrkoolkevin and @PhillyPhan69 trying to remember i think one of these might have been posted in the scoring threads?