Michael Spinks Vs. Virgil Hill

Spinks UD or possibly late stoppage. Just don't see an argument for Quicksilver in this matchup.

 

pretty much this ^^^^^

 

Roy Jones Jr stopped Virgil Hill with a body shot, on April 25 1998, in round 4. Michael Spinks would score a stoppage of Virgil, round 6. Michael would score the knockout with the Spinks Jinx. Spinks not as quick as Roy, does hit harder at 175 lbs. Look at Michael's opposition, and title defenses, before taking Larry Holmes IBF title in 1985.

 

Spinks all day- because of his loss to Tyson - Michael Spinks is overlooked- he was a top 10 ATG light heavyweight and moved up and beat Holmes clearly without ever fighting Heavyweight - to get blown out by Tyson who was at his peak should not reflect on M Spinks greatness at 175 - I have him close to the top 5 ish or closer or somewhere in the top 10 respectfully- talented Olympian

 

Hill would be sent flying over a hill once that Spinks Jinks catches him. But seriously, Spinks wins this one and how!

 

Hill would lose big either way, but whether or not he lasts the distance is up to him. If he mentally quits and runs for his life, he drops a wide decision. If he actually stands his ground and fights, then Spinks takes him out.

Either way, Hill has zero chance of winning.

 

Virgil was a Hall of Fame fighter but not a great fighter. That is why Hearns could just show up and win a UD outboxing the boxer. Which is an underrated accomplishment. Duran beat Moore, and people think that was good. Moore had only 11 fights. Virgil was undefeated and had 10 title defenses.

 

I agree that Hearns is sold short for the Hill win.

 

Hill is being sold short here. He was only stopped once and that was past prime due to a perfect body shot against the best fighter at that time. He had a tremendous chin and is a HOF. That being said Spinks on points

 

Thanks. I always believed Hearns sort of put a good exclamation on his career here. This was 1991 and Virgil had been champion since 1987 and had I think 10 title defenses and he was undefeated. Had any other fighter beaten him like Hearns did it would have been a big big win.. And winning by UD with a jab? In a way because it was Hearns, people knew he was capable of that yet they still remembered Hagler and Leonard. This win, or the Cuevas or Benitez or Duran wins were always put in the background because of his two biggest fights against Ray and Marvin. Too bad. Foreman never really was forgotten for losing to Ali the way he did. As for Thomas? Tommy had himself to blame. Less for Leonard since Ray got him a fight both guys shifted gears, but more for Hagler. Tommy and Marvin fought a great exciting fight, but for Tommy to come out swinging in such a reckless way against Marvin. He threw the fight away. Tactically I thought that was the most reckless irresponsible things to do in such an important superfight against a strong chinned great champion like Hagler. And it really had nothing to do with Marvin making him do that. Tommy started swinging right off. Anyway, I got off track as I do with Hearns. The point is the two biggest fights he ever and the losses too away some of the great wins he had.

 

Spinks by decision

 

Spinks Jinx KO 7

 

WHAT DOES ROBERTO HAVE TO DO WITH THIS? WHY BRING HIM UP? AGAIN?

 

Spinks by shutout points. If Hill can lose to a former welter weight he's definitely losing to a dominant fully fledged lightheavy, just my opinion. And Spinks would come close to stopping him.