Was Holmes-Spinks 2 a robbery?

I had it 144-142 for Holmes, so one has to determine whether that would constitute a robbery. I just felt Holmes deserved it, that's all.

 

I had Holmes winning it by two rounds - Larry deserved verdict but it was n't a robbery.

 

Controversial? Sure

Robbery? NO

It was close enough to go both ways. If Holmes wanted to make sure he was the undisputed winner all he had to do was to stop Spinks or beat the heck out of him in commanding fashion. He was unable, therefore the outcome was open to discussion.

Every fighter has his share of controversial episodes, such is the nature of boxing, and it works both ways.

Holmes got unlucky versus Spinks, but sure he got very lucky against Norton. I don't remember Holmes complaining then and If you ask me, Kenny could well have deserved the win.

Holmes is an ATG but sadly his attitudes outside the ring sometimes were detrimental to the sport and to himself.

 

That's it. Holmes should have got the decision, but nobody gave a ****, because of his utterly distasteful comments. Many people thought, "Good riddance."

 

IN a subjective split decision that also split the subjective ringside opinion in the most subjective sport, Michael Spinks maintained his reign as the International Boxing Federation heavyweight champion last night over 15 busy rounds. And with a second loss to Spinks after a 48-0 record, Larry Holmes walked off into the sunset in his white satin robe, growling and grumbling.

''I had the man hurt, the man was running,'' Holmes said in his dressing room. ''I know the man didn't win the fight.''

But two judges thought Spinks won. Jerry Roth of Nevada had the champion ahead, 144-142, and Frank Brunette of New Jersey had him ahead, 144-141. Joe Cortez of New York had Holmes ahead, 144-141. On my scorecard, Spinks was ahead, 144-142; in rounds he was ahead, 8-6, with one even. But other ringside spectators believed that Holmes had done enough to recapture the title he held for seven years until being dethroned by Spinks last September in a 15-round unanimous decision.

That difference of opinion about a close fight is the essence of boxing, the most subjective sport of all. It's also the beauty of boxing. But in The Ring record book, Spinks has the ''W 15'' next to his name. And that's all that matters.


On my scorecard, Spinks deserved the decision, earning eight of the last 10 rounds. Holmes opened with a rush, using his 223 pounds to fling the 205-pound former light-heavyweight champion onto the canvas in the first minute. And for five rounds he battered Spinks, who appeared tense and tentative. But then the champion took control, swatting Holmes with punches as the weary ex-champion plodded along.

....

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/20/sports/sports-of-the-times-the-subjective-split-decision.html

 

I watched both fights 2-3 times, but it is long time ago. I remember Holmes complaining a lot after the first fight and disrespecting Marciano, disrespecting Spinks' performance. I also remember Holmes boxed rather "unclean" in both fights with some holding, pushing etc. For me Holmes always was a little bit arrogant and indelicate towards other fighters. So i think bad stuff came back to him. Altough i really feeled his disapointment after the 2nd 2nd fight, wich was really close and for me it was rather a draw or + 1 round for Holmes.

 

I had Larry by two points. He probably deserved the nod but it was close enough Spinks could conceivably have won it - not by a 3 point margin, though.

 

One of the worst robberies I ever saw. No way, Holmes lost that fight

 

Not a robbery but I did think Holmes win the rematch. The first fight was a clean win for Spinks. Drives me crazy when folks say Holmes was completely shot when you look at how Holmes performed a decade later against Mercer, McCall and even Holyfield. He was not a shot fighter when he fought Spinks.

 

Holmes/Spinks II was not a case of "It could have gone either way."

Holmes deserved the win clearly enough for me and I don't think it would be unfair to call it a robbery.

 

A poll option should be YES it was a robbery,and Holmes deserved the decision. It wasn't the worst robbery, but it qualifies as a robbery. Holmes deserved the decision that night and the 2 of the judges score cards robbed him of it by scoring it for Spinks 144-141 and 142 -141 for Spinks.

The AP and UPI presses had it for Holmes and Harold Letterman the HBO unofficial judge had it for Holmes as well. 42 of 46 sportswriters polled after the fight scored it for Holmes. Holmes won it, they pretty much all agreed.

 

This goes to my previous point that there is no way Holmes lost the fight. Whether you believe that is by 1 point or by 5 points it does not matter. Even for those who thought it was a close fight, Holmes closed the show and there should really have been no doubt.

 

I agree. As I said 42 of 26 sports writers, the AP, UPI and tv Judge Harold Letterman said Holmes won it. Who had it for Spinks besides two official judges? Very, very few people. When you have by that much I call it a historically bad decision. Others use the term robbery. Holmes by three points was my card way back when.

 

The one judge who scored a 144-141 margin for Spinks qualifies it as a robbery to me

 

I had Holmes by three in the return. Spinks by 5 in the first. I think it’s fair to say Holmes deserved the win, but grossly unfair to say he won BOTH fights as some people try to claim. He got soundly defeated in the first fight.