I've come to believe that Micheal Moorer carried his power up to heavyweight far better than Spinks did his, and it's a viewpoint I'm going to stick with. Moorer had far more of an impact on the iron jawed Foreman than Spinks did against Holmes. Flurry after flurry, Spink's could seemingly barely get Larry's attention. I feel he won the first fight, but it wasn't because his power was batting Holmes around. Compare this to Moorer hurting Holyfield at the end of the first round during their second fight like was rarely done against him. Moorer did it multiple times even though he wasn't exactly at his absolute best during the second fight. If Spink's couldn't hurt Holmes, would he have a snowballs chance in hell doing it against Holyfield multiple times?
...........It's a bit of an apples-oranges case here, though, Russell. Moorer, as we know, had to practically starve to make 175, whereas Spinks was ready-made for that division and quite at home there. This goes a long way toward explaining why one (Moorer) could carry that power to the higher weight while the other had to improvise more. One was simply a naturally bigger man than the other.
I agree, to a degree. But again, there are details to explain there as well. He still made 175. He was a light heavyweight. And he wasn't as tall as Spinks, nor did he carry the extra weight as well.
I'm referring to him being obese against Jirov and company and seemingly still having monstrous power.
...........Well by then he was older and disinterested. Actually, I always thought he was a bit heavy at heavyweight. There was unnecessary flab there, but the bottom line is he carried the weight better. The power is proof of that. Spinks had to make a supreme effort with high protein diets and powerlifting in order to bulk up. Moorer was just allowed to eat normally.
You don't think he'd have even more power being lean at heavyweight, looking at what he accomplished being flabby? Again, he stunned Holyfield. Can you see Spinks doing that when he couldn't do so to Holmes, at all?
............I don't think there would be any power difference had he lost a few pounds, power's power. I think it would have served his mobility and quickness well, but the power wouldn't have been any different. I don't think Spinks dents Holyfield's chin at all, no. Unless you were heavybags the ilk of Tangstad or Cooney (at least at that stage of his career), Spinks' heavyweight fight plan was guerrilla warfare; strike quickly, and get the hell out.
He was 250 pounds against Jirov. That's GOT to slow the guy down a lot, considering he used to be 175 pounds. 75 pounds...
Moorer was a bigger puncher than Spinks, probably at 175 too (where he never got chance to prove it against top-flight opposition). Maybe Moorer "carried his punch" up better, but that's always a difficult thing to assess. Spinks seemed to carry the body weight better, he actually looked quite beefy and muscular as a heavyweight. Both are probably underrated as world class heavyweights of the last 25 years. Moorer (who spent most of his career at heavyweight) especially, IMO.
There is no doubt that Moorer had more pure power than Spinks, was probably physically stronger, but so what? Spinks had better speed, better timing, better defense, better overall offense and conditioning. I guess what I'm saying is that he was the better fighter. No disrespect to Moorer though. He had a nice career, had some fun fights, made a few bucks. But he was never quite on the level of a Michael Spinks.
I know that as a lightheavy Michael Moorer was viscious and traded on his power and killer instinct, but did he ever knock a man cold with one shot like Michael Spinks did against Marvin Johnson?
