Michael Spinks vs Ingemar Johannson @ Heavyweight

spinks fought very well against holmes, fought like a pick pocket. In the first fight he did not get caught by many right hands and knew when to strike with fast combinations on larrys blind side.

Ingo was quite patient. He liked to distract an opponent and lure him in. Ingo was lethal with the right but he outboxed pure boxers like joe erskine a non puncher who outboxed clever willie pastrano.

It could be a stale mate.

For sheer experience and ring smarts I might pick spinks on this one - If he dosnt make a mistake he could outpoint ingo.

 

Get his ****ing name right for GOD SAKE !!! ITS JOHANSSON, OK? J-O-H-A-N-S-S-O-N

 

Spinks by late round KO. Far better fighter.

 

thread.

 

I think thats prety bold. spinks was tricky, mabe if he stays out of trouble he could outpoint johansson but micheal would be facing a prime, unbeaten undistputed heavyweight champion here. He never beat one of those by KO before.

 

If Ingo is to win.....it has to be early.

Otherwise, Spinks wins a 15 rd fight in boring fashion.

 

I honestly don't think Ingo lays a glove on him ... Spinks was a bigger man, taller with four inches on him in reach .. much faster, a much better boxer and carried 208 much more solid than Ingo did 200 ...

 

spinks was the smaller man no matter what the scales say. His style of boxing would bother johansson im sure but he is not out muscling ingo.

Spinks has as much chance as patterson did the first time against the swede only without the firepower of floyd.

 

Tossup.

Spinks get caught early and he's out, probably.

 

An old,fat,tired Holmes badly wobbled Spinks late in the second fight with a single right so I'd give the murderous (and I mean that literally,his right hand was ****ing lethal) punching Ingo a huge shot to go one better and take him out.

Still Spinks was tricky, had underated ring IQ and usually found a way to win and he would probably prevail in this one as well but it's a real pick'em and a great match up.

 

You're logic is flawed across the board ...

Spinks was 1.5" taller.
Spinks had four inches in reach.
Spinks had bigger legs.
At heavyweight he has much more physically impressive than the doughy, flabby Ingo ..

You, lile many Europeans (understandibly) , over rate Ingo and know little about Spinks. Spinks was so much faster, had so much more skill and was so much tougher ... I see him taking Ingo decisively ...

 

The 36 year old Holmes who wobbled Spinks would have diced Ingo to pieces ... anyone that knows Holmes career knows he still had a ton left and would go on to beat a hell of a lot of good man ... Spinks had a very difficult style to crack ... no doubt Holmes was past his best but he was far from shot. He was still much faster than a prime INgo , better conditioned and had eight inches in reach over him and he could land often or enough to stop Spinks although I believe he deserved the decision ... That Holmes would have easily defeated a prime Ingo ...