Was there anyway Tyson vs Spinks could have been more competitive?

No,,, Spinks had a speed and quickness advantage over an aging Holmes who I thought won the second fight . Tyson's quickness and speed negated that and he was helpless. This is like Liston Patterson, no matter how many times they fought the outcome is preordained.

 

In my humble opinion Spinks shouldn't have been there anyway, Holmes beat him in the rematch. Of course, it only would have changed the time frame, Larry would have lost to Mike either way

 

I'm wondering if Saad would out of sheer courage and heart...

 

By 1988 Spinks was too plagued with injuries, was inactive, and no longer had any hunger to fight anymore, so Spinks did the best he could at the time, which was to show up for a monster payday and get steamrolled.

A healthier, younger, and active Spinks from 2-3 years before likely would’ve put up a much better fight.

 

Like many have already said here. Spinks was at the end, didn’t want the fight but couldn’t turn down the payday. His knees were done and he was very intimidated. Something that would’ve always been a factor, Spinks was a notorious slow starter. A “Thinker” in there. He always took a round or two to take a look at his opponent and try and figure them out, that would always be suicide against prime Mike Tyson. See his rematch with Larry Holmes he was shook badly at either the end of the first or second round with a right hand high up on the head. Spinks was an All time Great Light Heavyweight, but at Heavyweight though tricky, sensationally conditioned and awkward he was always up against it up there. I think he would’ve matched up well against many past and future heavyweight champs, but Tyson was all wrong for him. He boxed in his wonderfully awkward herky-jerky manner to break the rhythm of Larry Holmes in the first fight granted it was an aging Holmes. But I’m not sure he’d ever fare well against 1988 Tyson, many wouldn’t. I feel like at this point he is still massively underrated at the weight based on the effort vs Tyson. He was still able to run at least close to even in 2 fights against a 35 year old Holmes (I think he won both fights I know many don’t) Holmes showed years later that he could still beat top contenders like Ray Mercer at the age of 43 and give Oliver McCall a tough fight when he was clearly an old man at 45!! Point is Spinks wasn’t a bum at the weight as many seem to think but Tyson would probably always squash him.

 

I don't see it, but great point, Rules. Cheers

 

Nope Spinks didn't want to be anywhere near Tyson

 

The counterargument is right.

 

I think Conn would last longer too.

 

Fight the older post prison Tyson ! or put the 86 version of Spinks in the ring that night with some devil in him . He had skills defence and the Jinx to trouble mike. Tysons life was such a mess personally who knows what the man with a dream could do in the latter rnds

 

Maybe. But we will have to agree to disagree

 

Short of a time machine, back a year, or better two, no way - even if he'd stuck to his original game plan of moving and taking it to later rounds, he had no answer for Tyson's speed, power, and most of all, aggression. As has been said before, very few HWs in history would have dealt better. It was Mike's night, not Michael's -

 

So perhaps **** scared every fight but impossibly so v Mike? Jk., LOL.

 

For Michael’s maximum benefit, which arm gets tied or is it a much a muchness? If Mike can still throw those lightning fast combos with just one arm I’ll be gob smacked. Like Neo, I would have to say he is THE ONE.

 

Michael would get notably more benefit if the left was tied, i think. It would also open up the closer left side of Tyson face. Having the left would give him more offensive variety i reckon!!! Maybe, possibly lol