Who ranks higher P4P Michael spinks or Mike Tyson?

There's a lot to look at.

 

That's nothing to do with who ranks higher overall, historically.

There's many things to look at.

 

That's a terrible take.

Also, Spinks would rank higher on a LHW ATG list, than what Mike would on an ATG HW list.

 

Not sure how to answer.

Spinks had a better career overall, but Tyson actually was pfp 1 and had a higher peak. Two different bell curves.

 

MW sized HW v HW sized LHW. MW sized HW wins. And they fought. MW sized HW won.

"Also, Spinks would rank higher on a LHW ATG list, than what Mike would on an ATG HW list"

This is only if you ignore the sheer volume of amazing LHWs in the early 20th century and stick to lineal champs. Spinks's era at LHW while better than the previous 30 years compares poorly to the rest of the timeline. His list of opponents just does not move the needle historically at all.

I am not a member of the Mike Tyson defense league. I'm not going to pretend he's this unstoppable juggernaught or didn't have severe limitations. But P4P he's a 5'10 guy who made speedrunning superheavys a viable career path.

 

Unless I’ve read the thread wrong and misinterpreted things, I thought that we were being asked on who we believe ranks higher.

If it’s who was the better fighter in their prime, then that’s a different question.


Who ranks higher would take some thought.

We would have to look at many factors with a certain criteria.


Regarding your first paragraph, that has hurt my brain.

We have weight classes for a reason.

We didn’t have a HW sized WW in Tommy Hearns.


Mike was a small, but exceptional HW.

Spinks was a tall, exceptional LHW.


As we saw, Mike was clearly the better HW.

But Spinks was one of the greatest LHW’s of all time.


Mike was also one of the greatest HW’s of all time.

However, he ranks outside many people’s top 10, simply because he had no real longevity as a great fighter.

H2H ability is different.


Yes, there were stronger LHW divisions than what Spinks was apart of. But that applies to Mike at HW. And when they were both prime, you could argue that Spinks’ weight class was better.


The TS will have to clarify, but if we’re looking at who should rank higher, we need to be looking at their resumes, wins and accomplishments etc.

 

The poster you’ve quoted believes the only factor that determines natural size is height (hence the "but p4p he's a 5ft 10ins guy" comment).

He's told me that the 5ft 11ins 112-122lbs Panama Al Brown, was naturally bigger/heavier than the 5ft 9ins 225-245lbs David Tua.

He believes that body composition is naturally identical, relative to height, for all men and as such has a unique perspective on the concept of p4p (and indeed on most things boxing related).

 

Bizarre.