I'm not talking weight divisions here I'm talking about pound for pound. Who would win and why? Both at their peaks as far as primes go.
Tommy is a great boxer, Spinks is Mr. Herky-Jerky. At PFP, power is about equal. Height & reach about equal. Spinks down a minimum of times (maybe only Tyson) Tommy (well, you count) A scenerio can be made for Tommy to outbox him. But I think Spinks catches up with Tommy about Round #8 and out goes the lights.
idk care what you think, spinks would ko him p4p and head to head. Hearns will probably win the first 4 rounds and then hes gonna get caught in the later rounds. In the leonard-hearns fight, he showed techincal superiority and easily outboxed him but as soon as leonard fought back, he couldnt take his shots. Spinks hits harder than leonard p4p and obviously head to head. I dont belive in p4p crap anyways, what does it mean exactly. That they are both 5'10 and fight at 147? Another reason why i tend to respect spinks more is cuz he only fought light heavies and heavyweights, he didnt fight guys smaller than him. Im sure if a 6'1 hearns can make 147, spinks could have boiled himself down to make 160. Spinks would have been held in even a higher regard if he picked on smaller guys like hagler, minter, hamsho and vito.
I'd take Spinks. He's really underrated, maybe because of that Tyson nightmare. He handled a lot of really good/great fighters. He beat Dwight Muhammad Qwuai, who later gave a victorious Holyfield a bruising introduction to championship boxing , beat Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Marvin Johnson, good old Yaqui Lopez, Holmes huge Cooney. That's a serious list. Hearns was great but lost a lot, Spinks didn't. By the way. Why did Holyfield vs. Spinks never happen?
Put the dudes in at the same weight and Hearns has a chance. Did Spinx have a great chin? A good question. He didn't at HW against a prime HW fighter. Hearns hit very hard, but comparing him to Tyson is like comparing an apple to an orange. If somebody has a magical formula regarding weights for this thread, I'm all ears.
Hearns either takes him out or gets taken out. I don't think he could go 12 or 15 without copping something huge, and no-one hits bigger than either of these. P4P Hearns would be the biggest puncher Spinks fought (He's 175 at his best) but at 175 he seems to take a decent shot. Hearns is definitely the better boxer. Yes, Hearns has to take Spinks out in the first half. It's possible too. I'd install Spinks a 7-5 favourite.
Marvin Johnson, Johnny Davis, Eddie Davis, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Ramon Ranquello, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Larry Holmes and Gerry Cooney could all punch. Tommy would not have the firepower to hurt him. Eventually, Hearns would fade late. Mike was one of the most intelligent boxers to ever grace the squared circle. Nobody ever outsmarted him. For a time, I fully expected Tommy to move up and try to take Mike on. My belief was that Hearns would wind up getting carried back to his corner in the same manner he was after Hagler got through with him.
Hearns moving up tot lt Heavyweight to fight Spinks would be a mistake,a smaller framed man. But p for pound(what that means is pure talent and greatness I guess) I think Hearns was the better fighter but that could be debateable.
Spinks via late stoppage. Hearns did carry good power at 175lbs, just ask Andries, whom he dropped 5 or 6 times. Not sure he'd be able to stop a brilliant light-heavyweight like Spinks. Hearns does have the boxing ability to give anyone a nightmare, Spinks included.