Michael Spinks

At light-heavyweight he is definaely among the top 5

I think this article by a very good writer describes Spinks well, and the fact that he is so underated by many

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/lotierzo2402.php

 

He is great head to head and beat two very good light heavyweights, but his lack of fights is what excludes him from being ranked higher. I think he needed about 5-6 more wins over contenders in order to be among the elite p4p greats like Pernell Whitaker or Alexis Arguello.

 

Presided over a strong light heavy era and essentially cleaned the division out. A solid win over a fading but still dangerous heavyweight great and a gift in the rematch were the highlights of a fairly decent foray at heavyweight.

I honestly could see an argument for him being no1 h2h at lightheavy..Though its just indoctrinated into me that Charles and Foster hold the top 2 spots in this regard..Spinks had the right balance of everything to quite possibly beat those guys and anyone else who ever laced them up at the weight.

One of, if not my alltime favorite light heavyweight fighter and a lock for top 50 alltime IMO..I have him around the 35-45 range.

 

Yeah he's in the 35-45 range, but if he could have had wins over some of those other 80's heavyweights, he would be in the top 30 with ease. Great skills and talents, but lack of a deep resume, i cant rank him higher than 35th.

 

I guess to me he is one of those fighters that when I average it out I look at his ability and in the ring dominance a little more then when looking at other fighters.

Which I shouldnt because it should be mostly about resume and the other stuff should play a significant but minor role in ranking someone.

His resume is strong though...very strong.

 

Really do you think its that strong? Like the resumes of past light heavyweights. He's got 3 or 4 wins over good fighters, the rest are pretty much fringe contenders.

 

I think its a sensational era for the weight though, I think Qawi, EMM, Johnson and Lopez are all excellent names to have one your resume..Far better then just about all the fighters Roy, Hill or Dawson have on theirs..If he had only come a few years earlier he could have maybe added names like Conteh, Parlov, MSM and Galindez
Then his resume would have been the tits, truly one of the best ever at 175.

I dont think he fought that many "fringe contenders" as such but they were maybe not the level of contender that are memorable.

I mean technically Glenn Kelly wasnt a fringe contender when he fought Roy..he was the no1 contender, the mandatory but he was trash compared to even some of the weaker opponants on Spinks' record.

But really his wins over Holmes are his signature wins.

 

He was somewhat like a light-heavy version of Monzon. Didn't look particularly flashy or spectacular in what he did, but was a deceptively skilled technician. Tough, cagey, very rangy, could fight inside and out, good jab, underrated hook, and a big right hand (called his "Spinks Jinx"). Sometimes started slowly and took to time to break an opponent down, but could see what needed to be done and had the tools to follow through.

He decisively outboxed Dwight Qawi, who I rank as a top 10-15 all time light-heavy. Also beat the near-great Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, a good ex-champ in Marvin Johnson (who would go on to win another title afterward), and Yaqui Lopez, who was one of the best LHWs never to win the title; and he beat a few other decent contenders as well.

Of course, his defining moment was going up to HW and winning the "impossible" fight against the long-reigning, 48-0 Larry Holmes, making him the first and only fighter to win the real lineal titles at both LHW and HW. The only real embarrassment he ever suffered in his career was the loss to Tyson.

I think a case could be made that he was the best fighter ever to win the LHW title (only Moore could rival him for that IMO), and I rate him among the highest tier of fighters that ever fought at that weight, right on par with Moore, Charles, and Tunney.

 

But Spinks was the youthful guy going up the ladder and the rest of those names were the guys sliding down the ladder when he fought them. Lots of those guys hadn't shown good recent form. Spinks himself never wore those shoes, aside from a bout a heavy against Tyson. And Qawi showed some vulnerabilities in those Martin and especially Davis title defenses. Saad was the perfect style for him to look best against & Spinks was going to be another kettle of fish in there. But it was always the Spinks youth/reflexes against the old guys with mileage on the odometer. I didn't think the Spinks style and legs would've held up for long once he was the old guy himself in the role reversal.

I really think one of the worst decisions was giving the nod for Spinks over Davis. They were building up the Holmes/Spinks bout though & we've seen this on numerous occasions on those kinds of bouts going to the scorecards. That Davis bout hardly makes Spinks look like much of an all-timer in there & I, for one, wanted to see an immediate rematch. And Virgil Hill was an undefeated prospect at the time and had an awful lot of movement and a jab to go with it. That potential matchup surely wouldn't have been the best stylistically for Spinks either. So that 85-87 timeframe was not going to be easy sledding by any means. And after that you had the youth of Moorer coming up and all of a sudden, Spinks is in his 30's--with more wear and tear--and a 21 year old undefeated Moorer lurking.

 

I think you are talking from one extreme end of the spectrum on this one overall. With the exception of EMM none of these guys were ever going to beat Spinks at any stage. He beat the best of his division and he did it mostly brilliantly. Qawi was in GREAT form and is a fantastic win no matter which way one slices it. A tactical extravaganza.

Spinks wasn't a heavyweight, and it really is that simple. To bring up this example is not exactly fair, Tyson was cutting a swathe thru the division the likes of which were rarely if ever seen before. He was bombing out bonafide heavyweights and in hindsight a blown up LH like Spinks had NO chance. A handful of heavies would have probably beat Spinks.

At this stage Tyson would have made short work of the likes of Charles and Moore too IMO. Spinks had everything against him, he wasn't a heavy and Tyson was his nightmare foil, he was inactive with knee trouble and he was just plain not good enough really, against a monster the likes of Tyson.

What can't be taken away from him is his great upset and ambush of the aging but great Larry Holmes.

Qawi's a fantastic fighter tho. He won these fights. I don't think i have seen a fighter yet who didn't have his struggles and not neccessarily against great opposition. Ali, SRR, Hagler, Sanchez definitely, Qawi is in fine company. Sometimes the lesser opponent can be the harder to beat.

Spinks was always going to be a different kettle, simply because he was such a great fighter.

Completely disagree, at 175. He was the biggest bomber in the division and the most awkward as well. He had top 3 at the time defense and was not as dependent on his legs and movement as you say. His power, chin and skill would have served him greatly if he found old age at 175.

It's not one of the worst decisions, it's a close fight one way or another and certainly no robbery.

I think you will find they were building up a Spinks - Qawi rematch and not Holmes at all, unless i am wrong.

To hold this bout up as Spinks not being an all timer is a BIG stretch. We can do this to just about any fighter in history. Goodness.

I really can't see the one handed Hill beating an aging Spinks :hey

Very interesting and exciting match this one. Personally i think Spinks would have been too good, but wouldn't have minded seeing it.

 

Qawi and Mustafa were considered at the height of their careers at the time they fought Spinks. Mustafa had just given his greatest career performance when winning the title from Johnson, then made a couple of solid defenses. Qawi would continue to be a top fighter afterward and would prove to be a formidable cruiserweight champ. Even Johnson would continue to hang around for a while and was still good enough to become a champ again.

I thought Qawi looked awesome against Martin. Martin had whupped James Scott, gave Saad hell and even gave Mustafa a decent fight. I never saw Martin crushed the way he was by Qawi.

 

Larry Holmes, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Marvin Johnson, Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Davis, Vonzell Johnson, Johnny Davis, Gerry Cooney, Murray Sutherland, Jerry Celestine, Mustafa Wassaja, etc.

All in just 32 fights. That's a pretty impressive resume to me. And this is a pretty impressive fighter:

[yt]_5Sd8_XmJas[/yt]

 

I like the Monzon comparison. I never quite made that connection. He was awkwardly effective. Extremely effective. Nice uppercuts too. I seem to recall he KO'd Marvin Johnson with an uppercut (not positive on that one). His wins over EMM and Qawi are top quality wins. I don't think there's much to choose between Spinks and Bob Foster. I hesitently give Foster a slight edge.

 

the majority of spinks' fights were at light heavy, but his first two fights as heavyweight were against the great larry holmes with wins in both, yet this was an aging larry holmes and they were both 15 rd decisions. and then beat a seasoned gerry cooney but tyson seemed to scare the **** out of him when he was introduced to his first loss. puzzling? so spinks called a day after 1 loss. i would have liked to see him rebound and fight again. he looked so scared in the tyson fight but then who didn't.