tyson v spinks myth?

With hindsight (I thought at the time Spinks would win ), Spinks only was there for the money. If he really thought he could win, the least he would of done was sort his bum knee out, and then actually trained. He was so soft going into that fight, that was very little difference weight wise between them.

But credit must be given to Tyson as well, it was arguably the last time he could withstand all his demons and show us his genius in the ring.

 

Spinks did not come to compete, it's that simple.

But I don't think there are many who would have enjoyed fighting that night's version of Tyson. His final prime appearance, IMO.

 

I wish Michael Spinks wasn't remembered so heavily for that fight. He was really a great fighter.

It didn't seem like he came to win, but either way, Tyson was just too much. Bad physical match-up as well.

 

He was scared, but he had no chance anyway. Mike was a mean mother* that night.

 

Why is Mike Tyson chastisized for his ability to instill fear in his opponents yet Muhammad Ali is praised for waging psychological warfare by getting his opponents psyched out?

From 1985-1988 any time an opponent walked into the ring scared against Mike Tyson it was because of the highlight reels that preceeded the scheduled bout. He didnt go out of his way to scare opponents or come up with any elaborate act to get them pertrified. Yet if he fought someone who was clearly nervous or scared in the fight and he beat them very decisively his win is undermined.

Conversely if Muhammad Ali fights an opponent, he starts out his elaborate scheme that includes a prediction, a nickname for the opponent and all the name calling and what have you all so that he can frustrate or infuriate an opponent. If he puts up a dominating performance he's praised.

What gives?



BTW Spinks was 31 years old, undefeated linear Heavyweight Champ who had previously cleared out the LHW Division and twice beat Larry Holmes. For him to step into the ring "just for the money" is an insult to his integrity. He was in against one of the biggest punchers the sport has ever seen who happened to be at the height of his powers.

 

Good post...
I agree that many say that Spinks was shot on that night (just like people say Frazier was shot when he fought Foreman in 1973) but we must remember that both of those guys, though not at their peaks, were certainly formidable. Spinks was coming off two relatively unimpressive wins (his 'win':-( against Holmes in their second fight and his KO of a rusty Gerry Cooney). Frazier was coming off of two less than stellar fights against the lightly regarded Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. Despite the aforementioned facts i don't think either of them was 'shot'.

For the record, i feel as though Spinks gave a good effort, but was quickly overwhelmed by Tyson's ferocity (Tyson hit Spinks with a HUGE left elbow to the jaw within the first 45 seconds) and then began landing body shots. Spinks also threw a hard right hand a mili-second before being KO'd by a huge Tyson right hand.

 

no myth imo.great performance by mike but really it ought to have been.

 

I knew a man who knew both spinks...I use to make boxing bets with him...he said both were to dammed stupid....and he favored Tyson.....I lost the bet...
But that angry right of Spinks did him in...There was no thought process goin gon inside any mroe than there was with Patterson vs Liston.
Had that right landed, Tyson would definatly have seen s few stars.
Like the guy said, at the time Spinks was the Real champ.
Arthitus of the knee can't be sorted out....

I'll have to watch the fight again..in I'd not noticed him being soft.

 

For me its hard to guage how good a Heavyweight Michael Spinks was.

Imo Spinks was just an average Heavyweight who had the style to trouble an aging fighter in Larry Holmes.......and add that most people I know thought Holmes beat Michael Spinks in their rematch.

In reality Spinks only claim to fame in the Heavyweight division is beating an aging Larry Holmes and a never was in Gerry Cooney.
....thats why I dont understand why such a big deal is made and jaws drop when they talk of Tyson's destruction of Spinks.

Yes, Spinks was the linear champ, but so what? Its not like Spinks had a history and had established himself as a prime Heavyweight.

Personally I would hold the Tyson demolition of Spinks in higher regard had Spinks fought and dominated a string of top Heavyweights as Evander Holyfield had done in his rise to a title shot against Buster Douglas.

.....but Spinks did'nt do that, all we have to guage Spinks as a Heavyweight is two razor close fights against an old Larry Holmes and and never was shot Gerry Cooney!

A great KO for Tyson yes, but to say that that version of Tyson demolishes any heavyweight in history like alot of posters around here like to insinuate.......I'm sorry, but I'm not even close to envisioning that scenario.......not based on beating a fighter who was'nt an established Heavyweight!

 

Great post. :good

 

Cuts both ways though.

I know some Tyson critics use it as an excuse, and some Tyson fans get infuriated at the mere mention of Tyson's opponents being scared. People get wound up both ways.

In my eyes, Mike's ability to use his body language, look behaviour, his whole persona to intimidate opponents is a strength, not an excuse for any of his victories. It's an asset. Any boxer craves that image of being an indestructible fighter. It's as valid a part of a fighter's armoury as any jab or big right hand.

A few opponents would always stand up to Mike and not be afraid. But When Douglas took that aura away from him, other opponents took chances that they would've been afraid to do back in Tyson's pomp.

Post-prison it looked like Mike might be able to regain that aura, in fact you could argue the lay-off due to prison kinda helped all that, but Holyfield derailed it.

Spinks was scared, Tyson was highly pissed-off according to rumour as well, and that combined for a quick devastating victory. All utterly legit.

 

You have really been out of luck, predicting Patterson to beat Liston, Frazier to beat Foreman, Spinks to beat Tyson.
Very interesting stories though!

 

The fact is the only reason Spinks is looked on as scared or as a weak HW Champ is because of the way Tyson destroyed him.

Spinks is an ATG, possibly the greatest LHW ever and had 2 wins over the great Holmes. Perhaps he was a better HW than Charles/Walcott/Tunney/Schmelling. No one here will agree with that but its a possibility he was that great and Tyson was just too sensational for him. Why did Spinks lose? Was he scared, was he just outgunned or was Tyson too good a boxer? Well the majority of fighters may have a slight fear, fear can help you perform. I would say it was a combination of factors and the speed, power, intensity of Tyson got to him. If Spinks wanted to take the money and run he needn't have got up after the first KD. Tyson can finnish the vast majority of fighters in a heart beat if he gets the openings. If he wins he tends to make world class opponents look like bums and no one else manages this like Tyson