Mike Spinks vs Frank Bruno

Choklab seems to be penalizing Spinks because he decided to tread carefully as a Heavyweight. Did he tread carefully? I mean, he jumped in the ring with Larry Holmes, who was the champion, on two separate occasions, and then later fought Gerry Cooney who, albeit horribly faded, still went into the fight as the favourite. Spinks outpointed the great Larry Holmes twice, and he chopped poor Cooney down like he was chopping down a tree. The undersized underdog in all three encounters. And of course, I don't like mentioning it being a fan of his, but Spinks did step up to fight Iron Mike. He may have gotten blitzed in the opening round, but he took the fight. That's not exactly treading carefully.

Concentrate on the fights he did take as a Heavyweight instead of the fights he didn't and I think there's more than enough evidence to suggest he would have been a little too smart, a little too good for the likes of Frank Bruno. Frank was a bit...well...limited. Y'know.

 

At ATG level Bruno should never register but he was world class. If Bruno was just Euro level what does that make the best men Tyson cleaned out? Giving Tyson the fight he did proves Bruno had to be world class since Frank put up better competative resistance than the rest of TYsons victims.

Bruno was as much world class as fighters Spinks would not fight like Tucker and truth WIlliams.

I don't think it was a clear gap at all. It is 50-50 at worst.

 

But was he "as much world class" as the fighters Spinks would fight, like Larry Holmes? :huh

 

I think Holmes himself once said before he fought Tyson "that no heavyweight beat me" because Spinks used a tactical lightheavyweight paced gameplan to outsmart him. Spinks was smart. He knew Holmes did not have the engine.

Was 1985 Holmes better than Bruno? Of course he was. He was faster than Frank even as an old man but Bruno was a danger man and just too physical for Spinks. Bruno had too much power. Where as Cooney was one handed and inactive Frank was two handed and relevent to that period. If Cooney was a calculated risk, Bruno was downright wrong for Spinks.

 

Agreed.

And it's because of the combination punching. Give Spinks a wide looping 1 punch at a time guy, and I think he handles them. Cooney. Or Smith would've been another.

Combo guys would have presented lots of problems. and people seem to forget how badly Spinks was cut in that Cooney fight. That was a real real bad cut in there. But Cooney isn't the type to work a cut. He just slugs. Other guys would have worked the cut and Mike is stopped via tko.

Those cuts against a guy like Tyrell Biggs could have easily cost him the fight. Or a Trevor Berbick even. Busted up like that against Bruno would put him in far more dangerous waters than Cooney.

But Spinks at the time was a fighter ready to be taken. He had that real tough bout with Davis. I thought he lost. Then the 2 Holmes fights. Lets face it, that wasn't 1979 Larry circling and jabbing his way around the ring. So, three concecutive decision bouts.

Anyone picking Tangstad at that time to win that fight of theirs? All these other fighters around at the time and the other organizations trying to unify the heavyweight titles....and we got Stefan Tangstad. that was a worse choice than Haye just recently picking Harrison.

Then Cooney. Inactive and Spinks got busted up. So Spinsks had major deterioration in his legs those 5 bouts compared to his movement in 82 or so. then he fights Tyson and that was a whole different ballgame than old guys way past their prime and a Tangstad. A quantum leap and then those shortcomings get magnified and lead to a defeat.

 

Yes, Holmes had reached the point where he was no longer decisive over 15 rounds. Still good up to a level but no longer 1979 Holmes for sure. Larry could still steal a fight from an inexperienced guy without being as sharp as he was. Spinks had the antidote for that kind of fighter, he could outbox him, stay away, nuetralise Larry and counter from angles. But it was a one fight deal. The rest of the division were not like that. Extra youth, timing and power would be disastrous for Spinks - and he knew it.

In the rematch Holmes near exhausted himself giving Spinks the kind of physical heavyweight fight that was wrong for Michael without Brunos power. Even though Frank was a 6 round fighter no way would Spinks consider that kind of heat. That is why he took Tangstad and gave up his belt.

 

Spinks would have been clever enough to have outboxed Bruno.

 

Bum club.

 

Bruno's jab would rock spinks head back further than a solid Holmes right hand. Too big and powerful for the career L / Heavy Spinks. His no show against Tyson tells people all they need to know about Spinks, and Heavyweights who were a threat.

 

If Bruno was his mandatory, Spinks wouldn't have gave up the belt.

Spinks stops an exhausted Bruno.

 

Spinks would beat Bruno, possibly a late stoppage, 9th or 10th round.
But Bruno would leave his mark, it would be a tough assignment, Spinks wouldn't walk away unscathed.

People who say why didn't Spinks fight Tony Tucker ?
The answer is simple : he fought Gerry Cooney for millions of dollars instead. Tucker was a no-name, the fight would have given Spinks a paltry purse. This was all known and discussed at the time.

 

I agree with this, because it's true. Spinks v Tucker did not make business sence where as Cooney did. I get that. The truth is Spinks gave up a belt over it right at the time belts were about to be united in the HBO tournament. Spinks obviously felt he had paid his dues as a lightheavyweight and achieved already what he had wanted to do by pipping Holmes on points. It tells me Spinks did not want to be a heavyweight champ and was done fighting relevent heavyweights. This was not like Holmes giving up the WBC belt because Spinks had not already defended regularly beforehand nor had he sought recognition elsewhere. He deliberately did not want to fight a rated contender because he was aware of his limitations. There was a whole host of rated fighters he could have fought in his last two winning fights without fighting no name Tucker. Carl Williams? Tyrrell biggs, Witherspoon? A Holyfeild fight? Frank Bruno himself? Spinks knew his limitations as a heavyweight, that is why he froze against Tyson when eventually the money was too good to turn down.

 

Spinks only fought one heavyweight puncher who wasn't shot and got obliterated and retired. You can't pick him against any monster punching heavyweight. He DID NOT HAVE A HEAVYWEIGHT CHIN!!!!! Bruno, KO1.


Edit: Bruno could never win his biggest fights against his best opponents. You CANNOT PICK HIM AGAINST A HOF FIGHTER!!!!

Secondary edit: Holy fuzzy logic paradox melonfarms, Batman!!!

 

Franklin D. Brunovelt v Mike Spinkton