I’m biased towards Michael Spinks …so I’m basically just here to listen to someone make a case for Jimmy Ellis
Spinks was getting pushed by a nigh immobile Holmes, I don't think that his durability was that good at heavyweight, either- Ellis will probably outbox him with ease.
I don't see it. Ellis wasn't a particularly big heavyweight with lots of punching power. At heavyweight, Spinks and Ellis would be comparable in size and skill level was similar with Spinks having the edge.
Spinks had an edge in skill but lacked about everything else at heavyweight, and with someone as mobile as Ellis, while Mike is confined to being the way he was, I just don't see it ending well for him. Jimmy DID have good power, though, remember that he dropped Bonavena multiple times. Just compare their performances against Quarry and Holmes- I can see Ellis winning against the first match's version of Larry and losing to the second one, but do you think that Spinks would've beaten Quarry? If we think of the Mike we saw at heavyweight, and ONLY heavyweight, he arguably went 3-2 against very lackluster opposition other than Tyson. The only reason that he even beat Holmes the first time was because Larry didn't think he'd need to train to beat a light heavyweight, and he was coasting to what was supposed to be the end of his entire career. Ellis wouldn't lose to Spinks.
Spinks, he was the better fighter, they’re both similar size, Spinks is probably the bigger man actually, apart from the jab, which is debatable anyway, what did Ellis have over Spinks? And one thing Spinks knows how to do is to take a jab away, and once he does that, what can Ellis do? He’d feint up and down, feint with the feet, slip side to side and also use his own jab, + unlike he did Holmes, he’d be able to get Ellis on the backfoot consistently with him being the bigger man. Spinks finally jinxes him late on.
