Given the fact that a lesser lightheavy in Gibbons went the full 15 and another lesser lightheavy in Tunney beat the **** out of Dempsey twice, it's not impossible to see Spinks winning. Spinks, like Tunney and unlike 90% of Dempsey's opponents, had a modern gloved boxing style. However Dempsey was a bit past it by then so he'll probably perform better in his prime.
BTW Spinks is not winning this. No heavy that barely beats a thirty five year old Holmes, loses in the rematch, beats a peak Dempsey. And also Tunney was not anything lesser then Spinks. Tunney did not even beat "the ****" out of him, he outpointed him, and Dempsey performed much better in the rematch.
No he didnt. He copied Dempseys hair cut, his robe, his demeanour. He cried out "I am Jack Dempsey, I am Sonny Liston" To which Dempsey might have replied. "Yes mate but I actualy am Jack Dempsey".
There are a number of types of physical advantage. Dempsey has a 5" reach advantage on Tyson which is badd news for a fighter like Spinks who depends on keeping his range.
Does it go something like this: Dempsey simply didn't have the skill or athleticism to comepete with a modern champion like Spinks. Michael was a fullsized, talented black athlete who defeated myriads of opponents who were infinately better than anything Dempsey ever met. If Jack fought Michael, he'd be way out of his league and would likely get taken out between rounds 5-7, after being thoroughly frustated from the opening bell. Does that work?
No,more like this: Spinks the 'supernatural' would 'moider the bum',knocking out the primitive unskilled open dempsey within the first two stanzas. (not the first as spinks has to take account of the plaster of paris.) Hows that dutch?