Michael Spinks .Vs. Larry Holmes (Prime)

Holmes would win a rather easy decision

 

Holmes for me, i think by watching the fight this is sort of shown a little

 

Holmes had slipped a wee bit. Both fights were close. Earlier version of Larry wins a wider decision in a still competitive fight, moving up to HW Spinks was awesome.

 

Holmes by TKo in six ...

 

Holmes by stoppage.

 

Holmes nearly had Spinks out on his feet in their 1986 rematch when Larry was well into his 36th year of life. A peak Holmes from around 1977 to maybe 1982, versus pretty much any version of Spinks would have been a mismatch in my opinion. Michael was an outstanding fighter but for some reason he simply did not seem to be made for the heavyweight ranks. Now, had Spinks brought himself along in similar fashion to the way Holyfield or Moorer did, by facing a string of lesser fighters in an effort to steadily become acclimated to the division, he might have been better equipped for the more elite heavys. But, merely taking on a prime Holmes as is first fight at 200 lbs would have been very bad news indeed.

 

I'd pick any Holmes of 83 and before over Spinks without hesitation.

Considering a Holmes who was noticably past it pretty much split wins with Spinks, picking a prime Holmes is a safe bet.

 

Id pick Holmes aswell...but you could also say Spinks was past his best aswell.

The combination of the jump in weight and his knee troubles led to a fairly clear slip in his overall ability by the time he faced Holmes.

 

Holmes would murder Spinks peak for peak at Heavyweight. Absolutely totally outclass him.

Holmes was pitiful in the first Spinks fight. He seemed incredibly slow and sluggish and definitely took Spinks for granted. He had also been declining and mostly struggling since the Witherspoon fight. Bey, Smith and Williams were all big struggles and he would have whooped these blokes at his best.

Holmes also came back better prepared in the Spinks rematch and for all logical intents and purposes bested him. Even this Holmes looked pretty dang ordinary compared to what he had been.

Holmes at Heavyweight (PEAK) has always looked a stylistic nightmare for Spinks IMO, and i have thought about it a lot. I mean what is Spinks going to do? His frightening power diminished greatly at Heavyweight and even against a crappy Holmes he played a lot of cat and mouse and couldn't budge the ATG chin of Holmes whatsoever.

Holmes at his best is both faster AND stronger and more powerful and has possibly the best jab in history as well. Spinks is just not going to penetrate his game one bit. He'd be constantly trying to fend off the slashing jab while also very much needing to avoid the right hands, as Holmes at his best can very definitely take Spinks out, he had him in trouble as it was. If Spinks got inside Holmes would be throwing him around and inside isn't Spinks game regardless.

I can see a very cruisy Holmes decision and possibly even a stoppage if Spinks gets game. Holmes has all the advantages in this one.

 

Holmes, early round tko.

 

If Spinks went up the heavyweight ranks the real way and beat up on journeyman, i can see him winning. Ken Norton won 6-7 rounds off Holmes and he also has that awkward style of fighting. Spinks would have always given him a good fight. People talk as if Larry was so ancient, how old was Holmes when he became champ, he was 28. 7 years after being champ is hardly ancient.

 

You've only got to look at Holmes vs Spinks then say, Holmes vs a Berbick or Neon Leon to see the MASSIVE difference in Holmes, Jesus. He'd been steadily declining for many fights, and it was oh sooooo easy to see even to the most uneducated of viewer.

 

Then why do people call spinks a top 50 atg if his win over Larry Holmes is totally meaningless. I don't think wins over Qawi, Eddie Mustafa and Marvin Johnson would give somone a top 50 atg ranking.

Berbick and Neon Leon are much lesser opponents. What happened when Larry fought Ken Norton, he narrowly beat him. What happened when he fought Tim Witherspoon, he nearly lost his belt.

 

Who said the Holmes win was meaningless? Where does that come from? Regardless of Holmes age, it was a historical first and he also did what other heavyweights hadn't, and that is take advantage of a heavily declined Holmes. Spinks was a big underdog and shocked the world. A past prime Holmes was still expected to defeat a great light heavyweight having his first go at the weight. This win added the icing on the cake for a top 50 rating for many.

How exactly does Spinks being top 50 mean Holmes wasn't way past his best? 98% of people know full well Holmes was not the man he had been and most of the other 2% don't watch boxing.

So you truly cannot see the difference in Holmes vs these two compared to Michael? Lord. Lesser opponents? I'm not exactly that sure Michael would beat either of these guys at heavyweight.

Bottom line is Holmes sharpness is easy to see and only a fool could miss it. Jeez, one only need look at his physique to get a clue.

Ken Norton? That the same Ken Norton gave Ali fits? He fought for all intents and purposes like the Norton that gave Ali hell.

I'll let you in on a little well known secret - Ken Norton was hell for boxers! His style was terrible for them. He would likely trouble or beat any boxer type in history.

Funny you bring up the Witherspoon fight, this fight was actually the one experts showcased as proving he was on the way out and ready to be overcome by one of the up and coming young Tigers. Even this Holmes would have beaten Spinks (A guy i rate massively at 175 incidentally) handily.

Mate, get a hold of some Holmes footage and actually have a look. Even a non fan would recognise the facts.