Michael Spinks vs Sonny Liston @ HW

Well in the case of Norton/Ali, Norton wasn't much of a puncher. The thing with Machen and Spinks is that they were both movers. Spinks was better at it. And the main argument against Spinks is that he's too small. But that is illogical as a reason because Machen was 194 pounds at heavyweight whereas Spinks was 200-212 pounds so he would not be too small and with better skills and at least equal punching power as Machen.

I'm just saying that since Machen made it the distance, why can't a superior boxer/mover who was bigger plus an ATG AT LHW?

Its not as if no one thinks a LHW could beat Liston. Many think Charles could and he was 185 lbs at heavy. Granted Charles was very skilled. But Spinks would be 15-25 pounds heavier at heavy whilst retaining much of his skill.

This is why I think he could and would last the distance, maybe in a losing effort, but he goes the distance.

 

35 year old Holmes was better than Machen. 42 year old Holmes nearly fought prime Holyfield to a standstill. No version of Machen does as well against prime, reigning heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield as Holmes did.

Machen "easily beats" a 200-212 pound Spinks easily? You mean how he easily beat Spinks fellow ATG light heavy champion Harold Johnson? Imagine how badly Johnson beats Machen if he could've bulked up to 200+ pounds whilst retaining much of his skill and speed? Johnson was 181 pounds, 6 pounds over the LHW limit when he fought Machen. Spinks weighing 175 pounds would likely have been formidable for Machen, let alone 200-212 pounds.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Harold_Johnson_vs._Eddie_Machen

This content is protected

You can't explain it away with styles. Johnson and Spinks were boxer-punchers, but Spinks was much more mobile. But Johnson at heavy was actually still closer to a LHW in size, while Spinks was the size of a modern day heavy.

Walk me through a 194 pound Machen vs 212 pound Spinks and tell me how and why he easily beats Spinks? Especially when he didn't beat his fellow ATG light heavy with a less mobile boxer puncher style and weighed only 181 pounds, giving up 13-14 pounds to Machen? While Spinks would be 6-18 pounds heavier and more mobile?

I rewatched the Machen/Liston fight yesterday. Machen moved but he also stood in front of Liston alot and did alot of inside fighting with him and managed to still not get KO and lasted the distance.

Spinks would fight more Ali-like than Machen-like, using lots of lateral movement, staying out of Listons way using his better speed and playing the counter punching. In this way, unless Liston can hit him flush with big bombs, Spinks lasts the distance.

I rate Charles EXTREMELY HIGHLY and at LHW would pick him over Spinks and thinks he has a live shot against Liston. But whether you believe it or not, size matters. At HW, he'd be fighting a fellow ATG LHW with fellow ATG skills but at HW would be spotting Spinks at least 20 pounds. That would be no easy fight for Charles, even if he did win. Even at LHW, Spinks would be no easy assignment for Charles.

And as highly as I rate Charles, he likely would suffer the same fate as Spinks did if he shared the ring with Tyson on June 27, 1988.

 

Spinks came along in the era of SHW sized HW's. Lets not pretend that doesnt makke a difference in the CW sized era of HW spinks does well

 

No, but Spinks fellow light heavyweight ATG's like Archie Moore and Harold Johnson and Billy Conn and Ezzard Charles did quite well in the heavyweight division and were under 200 pounds in an era where the average heavy was 185 pounds. Imagine if they could have bulked up to 200+ pounds while retaining the majority of their skill while getting extra weight to put behind their punches? All while fighting heavies that'd be cruisers today?

There's no reason to suspect that Spinks at 6'2 200-212 pounds would be almost a giant comparatively, but a skilled one as well. And an ATG puncher at LHW, but the added mass would put more weight behind his shots and he definitely had the punch to hurt any sub 200-215 fighter at HW.

That's why he'd do well at HW in that era. The 80's and going forward became the era of super sized HW's so the dynamic was different.

Just because he lost to a 218 pound, modern day HW, ATG Puncher Mike Tyson in 1 round on what many say was Tyson's best night doesn't mean that therefore any 190ish pound heavyweight contender X could replicate what Tyson did on June 27, 1988.

In fact, you could draw up a list of every single 180-200 pound HW contender from 1900-1970 and pick names at random to stand in for Spinks against Tyson on 6/27/88 and all joking, all "i hate Tyson", all "you Tyson fanboy" aside, in all seriousness, the same thing that happened to Spinks would have happened to them. Even those who did exceptionally well in those era's. So I don't think it makes sense to use that as a barometer of how he'd have done in the era of CW sized heavies. Especially since Holmes, even when Spinks fought him, would have been better than alot of those guys in their prime.

So yes, Michael Spinks, with his ATG skills, quick hands and movement, great chin and the added power he'd have from being 200+ pounds would make him a formidable and a no joke opponent for any heavy 180-200 pounds.

 

The most unbiased and realistic post on here.

The only reason many pick Spinks to get wiped out is because he lost to Tyson, who they don't like.

The fact is that Liston would have to get to Spinks early and Liston wasn't especially adept against movers. Though I do think Liston probably would take it on a decision for pressing the action behind his jab and keeping Spinks on the go, but Micheal would make things very interesting.

 

Indeed