Spinks of 1st fight vs Ali of 2nd fight

I would take Spinks to winn easier this time. Ali had no timing that second fight and a well trained Spinks beats him easier and maybe stops him. And the Galindez of the second fight beats the Rossman of the first fight.:rasta

 

A really good question posed here. Leon took advantage of Ali's rope a dope in their first match by hammering his biceps and splitting the guard with uppercuts. Muhammad largely stayed off the ropes and on his toes for the rematch though, which would negate Sam Solomon's blueprint for the first match.

Ali's timing was clearly off in New Orleans, even with all the training he did in preparation. I thought at the time that the Spinks of the first match could have produced a second decision win in the Big Easy, but I'm not confident of that in hindsight.

Morlocks, you obviously had a good look at the rematch, but Ali had tremendous will, and had always been able to step it up when pushed, even late in the earlier loss to Leon. (Of course he wasn't pushed much at all in New Orleans.) Based on intangibles, I'd be inclined to give it to Muhammad, but I'm not prepared to back that up with a vote as yet.

 

You're right. who knows what Spinks could have done and withstood if he had the work ethic and took care of himself like a Larry Holmes.:rasta

 

And his brother from 1985 that beat Holmes, beats Ali also in New Orleans. And Leon in sept. in New Orleans.:rasta

 

The two Spinks fights displayed how much Muhammad had regressed in the three years prior to them happening. Ali fought the first one similar to the way he did Ron Lyle,who was a better fighter allround than Spinks was,back in 1975. Ali virtually did nothing and let his opponent pile on pressure,letting points go on workrate. Against Lyle,however Muhammad eventually stepped up the action,and with incredible bursts of handspeed,plus a classic right cross had Ron on ***** Street. By the time he got to Spinks,Ali could no longer produce these type of tricks. In the second fight he fought Spinks how he should have done the first time,and was helped by Leon fighting without a proper gameplan. Ali won easily. In conclusion,I see the Ali of New Orleans still beating the Las Vegas Spinks. It would be by a closer margin,though. Maybe nine rounds to six.

 

The Ali of 2 would beat the Spinks of 1 on a close unanimous decison.

 

The Ali of the second fight was worse than the Ali of the first fight ... watch it and see ...

 

Ali, fully prepaired, anytime up until 1979 would have too much class for Spinks.

Ps. you might have to guess who I voted for because its another hidden poll, oh yes, its true :verysad

 

Spinks never stopped a FAR FAR worse Ali in the 1st fight so stop talking ****, why not make a serious post instead of utter **** ?

 

You are wrong . Ali was far worse the second time. He was better conditioned and fought a smarter fight of jab and hold. However, his speed, accuracy and power were less. Spinks was in terrible shape, had zero training for the rematch and fought like the novice he was .

 

I disagree. Ali was no worse than he was in the first fight. His timing was off in both of those fights.

 

Funny thing is, both these men were fighting for the right to be called the best heavyweight in the world, yet neither of them were even top 3 in a lot of people's book by 1978.

 

Ali would lose to Spinks.Spinks' youth would be the factor.

 

Both were scared to death of fighting Ken Norton ..