Sorry, missed this travesty. Zarate is possibly the most under-rated fighter on this forum. But then what would you expect from someone who rates Spinks over Jones and Hearns... :verysad
Spinks clearly beat the better Heavyweight fighter, clearly. But you gotta remember Jones started at Middleweight whereas Spinks started at Light Heavy. Spinks Light Heavy resume is better than Jones light heavy resume, but definitely not by much as you think. To say Spinks resume is far, far greater is a bit ridiculous. They both don't have great light heavy resumes. Plus Jones does have a resume at Middle and Super Middle. With wins over Jorge Castro, Thomas Tate, Thulani Malinga, James Toney and Bernard Hopkins at those weights i rate him over Spinks.
So his unparalleled punch placement, exceptional ability to slip shots or pick them off and counter, ability to cut off the ring and trap opponents, throw from different angles or against a moving opponent, exquisite feints and show-stopping, one-punch KO power - you don't find that particularly impressive? Name me a puncher in the history of the sport who had honed his craft to the extent Zarate had, or one with a comparable range of abilities. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could name me a better puncher full stop.
Holmes was 6-1 or 7-1 favourite over Spinks. You're talking revisionist history now. Spinks lost one fight ever, against a guy many were proclaiming the greatest heavyweight ever. Spinks was a blown up light heavy.
Indeed, any former Light Heavyweight in history who spent a considerable portion of their career at 175lbs would have done well to survive the opening three minutes against that version of Mike Tyson. I've yet to see a lot of this in his performances. I think it might be a case of exaggeration. He picked good shots, seemed to have all the punches in the book, but I've always found him to be one paced, and he's very hittable, despite often exhibiting the ability to slip and counter. He's not particularly fast, especially with his feet, and a lot of his single shots and combination's seem to lack snap or velocity. I think Julio Cesar Chavez was a better composite puncher, who cut off the ring every bit as expertly as a Carlos Zarate. I also think he was incredibly accurate on the offensive, and probably slipped punches better, too. I think Alexis Arguello was a better puncher.
Those are the groups I would part them. They can be ranked in any order inside those groups. Eder Jofre Alexis Arguello Carmen Basilio Julio Cesar Chavez Roy Jones Jr. Thomas Hearns Michael Spinks Larry Holms
:huh I think that that's a myth. Zarate did a lot of subtle defensive work that seems to get overlooked, often blocking or rolling with shots that may appear to have landed. Any offensively orientated fighter who forces the pace is going to get hit at some point. Check out Round 5 at the start of this video, particularly from 1.30-2.30 roughly, and count the number of punches that are ducked, slipped, rolled with or blocked. It's amazing how little he gets hit despite being in some pretty violent exchanges. That's true, but he makes up for it with feints and disguising his movements, never becoming predictable, or by waiting for his opponent to lead and taking advantage. He may not have been fast physically, but his reactions were second to none and he never failed to exploit the slightest opportunity to find the counter. In what sense? Not that there's any shame than being worse than Chavez. That's just false. Chavez slipped punches very well but was much more reliant on his guard for defence than anything else. I'd bet Zarate slipped two or three times the number of punches per round than Chavez did. In terms of power, perhaps, but certainly not in terms of skills/completeness.