I heard that Butch Lewis(Spinks manager at the time) try'd to get under Tyson's skin and made objections about how Mike's hands were wrapped. Sufface to say, it backfired
Ridiculous post. Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, etc. beat much better any way more good HW´s than Spinks (who beat only a not peak Holmes twice, one time viá robbery, Cooney, who fought 2 times in 3 years and was shot, and Eklund, who wasn´t even in Europe one of the best), once again a very bad comparison, but nothing new from you...
I don't think there's ever been a superfight where pre-fight predictions were so one-sided. One or two went for Spinks but it was very much in the "you'll remember me if Spinks wins" vein, like when Mike Katz called Leonard over Hagler. I hoped Spinks would win at the time but always thought he'd get mashed. I think anyone who predicted a Spinks win was letting their heart rule their head.
Agreed, I think that a 1971 version of Joe Frazier might have done the same thing to a 1988 Spinks that Tyson did. Michael was not up to the test for Tyson. He had only fought once in two years, and as you say had only fought a total of 4 fights in the division. His wins over Cooney and Tangstad didn't show us much, and the Holmes fights were way too close to decisively claim that Spinks was the lineal champion, especially with multiple fighters running around with alpha fragments at the same time. Spinks desire to prove himself as a true heavyweight champion was questionable, given that he renounced his title in 1987 for failure to face #1 contender Tony Tucker. His signing to fight Tyson was an obvious attempt to get one last bif payday while silencing the critics. Tyson's win over Spinks was impressive, but not an accurate measure of what he'd do to other all time greats.
I think we can all agree that it's a shame that Spinks' whole career got totally overshadowed by that Tyson fight, though. Not that he's the only person to suffer from that.
True, and what's worse is that throughout his career, people were constantly confusing him with his brother Leon.
That´s not the topic, but I´m just curious, I wanna hear your opinion, where do you see Leon? I think a motivated and well-trained Leon would have been a very good fighter, a shame IMO that after beating Ali he "sank" in his old lifestyle, don´t you think he had also talent? I´m asking because I don´t like it when people say he was a total bum...
Well, I don't think that he was a total bum, and yes I believe he had potential that went unfulfilled. He had some decent wins, but could never capitalize on some of the bigger opportunities. A lot of people feel that his first meeting with Ali was a fixed fight, and a plan for Ali to win an easy rematch. I don't know if it's true, but I don't think its impossible either. His fight with Coetzee in 1979, made most people give up on him, figuring that his career was a fluke. He later tried to win a title at cruiserweight which turned out to be a flop. I suppose if Leon was more disciplined and surrounded with better people that he might have flourished enough to be an 80's alpha champion or repeat contender. I personally don't think that he had the talent to be in the same category as Holmes though.
Agreed. I also don´t think he could have been in Holmes league or so, but he was more talented than the likes of Berbick, Page (who´s getting very overrated today IMO), etc., like I wrote a shame that he didn´t have a real managment who took care of him. With the Ali-fight I don´t believe it was a fix, he really was in good shape, the rematch has shown that this performance was a kind of nine-days wonder. But we don´t know for sure...
The point is ****** that Spinks may have been better than any of them, its called speculation. Tyson may have ko'd Walcott, Schmelling, Charles in 1 round too. And all of them may have lost to Holmes Holmes is better than anyone Walcott/Charles/Moore beat for example
But Holmes was shot when Tyson beat him, so it doesn´t count that much. You´re the one who speculates always. Btw, aren´t you a bit too old for such childish "jokes"?
I personally think that a 1985 Holmes who lost to Spinks was still a bit better than the versions of Walcott, Moore and Charles whom Marciano defeated. Holmes was a natural heavyweight by modern standards with exceptional boxing ability, which he acquired from sparring with Muhammad Ali. In addition, he could still take a good punch at age 35 as shown in his fights with Boncrusher Smith and David Bey. His jab was a little tainted by then, but still one of the best in history. What's more, he was still capable of going a full 15 rounds in a fast paced contest. If a 1985 Holmes fought a 1955 Rocky Marciano, Holmes would likely have been the best opponent that Rocky ever faced.
Well, that´s a matter of opinion. Holmes came from 2 losses against a small, average and unproven HW in Spinks, and didn´t fight for 1,5 years. Walcott came from 2 great wins over Charles and was the champion for example, for me this Walcott would beat Holmes comfortably...
