MICHAEL SPINKS - BOXING'S GREATEST AMBASSADOR!!!!

Michael Spinks never got the due he deserved..One of the top 3 175 pounders of alltime maybe higher if Hagler hadn't stayed in his comfort zone....Very few would have given Marvin a chance....Mustafa, Qawi, Pops Johnson just some of the names on his record...

Became the first reigning 175 pounder to win the linear heavyweight title by beating the main man....

Never was disrespectful to anybody....Never ducked anybody...

Fought the best......

Shamefully remembered for Tyson by many.......

Dignified in victory and defeat....

Never felt the need to seek attention and even retired without a press release...

True gentleman, bonafide great and for me Boxing's greatest ambassador..

Nice article Truss, agree with most of what you've said. Wonderful technician, certainly has a record at 175 lb to make him a serious candidate for a top five spot in that division, and as you say it's a shame that some can't look past the way he was (excuse me) rolled like a drunk against Tyson.

Oddly enough, I was pondering the other day why so many are happy to proclaim Tunney as a top fifteen Heavyweight of all time (or thereabouts), while Spinks doesn't even get touted for a top thirty spot most of the time, despite Tunney's achievements north of 175 lb not being as far superior to Spinks' as some would have you believe.

Anyway, always seemed a good bloke did Spinks, and obviously a magnificent fighter, too.

Certainly one of them, Truss, and nice to see him get a rare moment in the Sun.

Great fighter, and as you say, one of the true elite at lightheavy.

88Chris05 wrote:Nice article Truss, agree with most of what you've said. Wonderful technician, certainly has a record at 175 lb to make him a serious candidate for a top five spot in that division, and as you say it's a shame that some can't look past the way he was (excuse me) rolled like a drunk against Tyson.

Oddly enough, I was pondering the other day why so many are happy to proclaim Tunney as a top fifteen Heavyweight of all time, while Spinks doesn't even get touted for a top thirty spot most of the time, despite Tunney's achievements north of 175 lb not being as superior to Spinks' as some would have you believe.

Anyway, always seemed a good bloke did Spinks, and obviously a magnificent fighter, too.

Would say because Tunney was undefeated and retired as champ at heavy whereas Spinks was completely destroyed by Tyson.

Tunney lost to a middleweight didn't he??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tunney lost to a middleweight didn't he??

Greb.

Have a lot of time for Spinks - never devasting, but extremely good at what he did. As Truss said he is sadly remembered mainly by the casual fan for his disastrous fight with Tyson.

The man was a true ambassador for the sport and should get the recognition he deserves.

manos de piedra wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Nice article Truss, agree with most of what you've said. Wonderful technician, certainly has a record at 175 lb to make him a serious candidate for a top five spot in that division, and as you say it's a shame that some can't look past the way he was (excuse me) rolled like a drunk against Tyson.

Oddly enough, I was pondering the other day why so many are happy to proclaim Tunney as a top fifteen Heavyweight of all time, while Spinks doesn't even get touted for a top thirty spot most of the time, despite Tunney's achievements north of 175 lb not being as superior to Spinks' as some would have you believe.

Anyway, always seemed a good bloke did Spinks, and obviously a magnificent fighter, too.

Would say because Tunney was undefeated and retired as champ at heavy whereas Spinks was completely destroyed by Tyson.

That's the obvious point, Manos, and as I said while I agree that Tunney does rank higher as a Heavyweight, his record at the weight is a lot more comparable to Spinks' than some seem to think. Both stepped up for twice defeat an all-time great Heavyweight (both of whom were perhaps on the wane a little bit, it has to be said), both making one further defence after that before the title was either vacated / stripped from them (although obviously Spinks remained the lineal champion).

I rate Tunney's defence against Heeney higher than Spinks' against Tangstad, but at the same time I rate Holmes above Dempsey. Take out the Tyson mauling and there's little in it. As I say, Tunney ranks higher, but it's interesting that nobody ever considers Spinks even in the same stratosphere as him as a Heavyweight, when in reality it's only one defeat for Spinks which separates them.

I know I was being sarcastic but some people could have an argument that a bulldozing 220 pound Tyson for a natural lightheavy can be just as dangerous as a great middleweight....

Out of interest Truss, and not wanting to cause a ruck; what makes Spinks being rolled by Tyson different to Duran being done by Hearns? Just curious, 'cause I know you like to remind people of Hearns-Duran.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tunney lost to a middleweight didn't he??

He lost to once in his career to one of the best middleweights of all time. And avenged that defeat several times.

He never lost at heavyweight and beat Dempsey twice. Spinks was demolished by Tyson. I dont think its all that unreasonable that Tunney is rated as a better heavyweight. If you lose as decisely as Spinks did then its going to have a bearing on your standing in comparison to someone like Tunney.

Yes but Greb was a middleweight and Tyson was 60 pounds heavier and a great heavy.....

Now if I'm a natural 175 pounder personally I'd rather fight Greb....

Just replying to you suggesting being slammed by a peak Tyson is somehow unforgivable...

Spinks was a natural lightheavy and Tyson was a natural 220 pounder...

Bit like Sanchez putting on weight and getting destroyed by Hagler...

Bit of perspective..

88Chris05 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Nice article Truss, agree with most of what you've said. Wonderful technician, certainly has a record at 175 lb to make him a serious candidate for a top five spot in that division, and as you say it's a shame that some can't look past the way he was (excuse me) rolled like a drunk against Tyson.

Oddly enough, I was pondering the other day why so many are happy to proclaim Tunney as a top fifteen Heavyweight of all time, while Spinks doesn't even get touted for a top thirty spot most of the time, despite Tunney's achievements north of 175 lb not being as superior to Spinks' as some would have you believe.

Anyway, always seemed a good bloke did Spinks, and obviously a magnificent fighter, too.

Would say because Tunney was undefeated and retired as champ at heavy whereas Spinks was completely destroyed by Tyson.

That's the obvious point, Manos, and as I said while I agree that Tunney does rank higher as a Heavyweight, his record at the weight is a lot more comparable to Spinks' than some seem to think. Both stepped up for twice defeat an all-time great Heavyweight (both of whom were perhaps on the wane a little bit, it has to be said), both making one further defence after that before the title was either vacated / stripped from them (although obviously Spinks remained the lineal champion).

I rate Tunney's defence against Heeney higher than Spinks' against Tangstad, but at the same time I rate Holmes above Dempsey. Take out the Tyson mauling and there's little in it. As I say, Tunney ranks higher, but it's interesting that nobody ever considers Spinks even in the same stratosphere as him as a Heavyweight, when in reality it's only one defeat for Spinks which separates them.

I think its the manner of defeat really. Would agree that the reflective rankings is not really representative of the difference beteen them but Spinks display against Tyson is a pretty crippling defeat in that respect.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yes but Greb was a middleweight and Tyson was 60 pounds heavier and a great heavy.....

Now if I'm a natural 175 pounder personally I'd rather fight Greb....

Just replying to you suggesting being slammed by a peak Tyson is somehow unforgivable...

Spinks was a natural lightheavy and Tyson was a natural 220 pounder...

Bit like Sanchez putting on weight and getting destroyed by Hagler...

Bit of perspective..

Where did I suggest losing to Tyson as unforgiveable? I merely said its a good reason to rate Tunney higher than Spinks and probably the primary reason.

It was a poor display by Spinks that night and consdering Tunney beat Dempsey twice and was unbeaten at heavyweight I think its valid that he rates higher at heavyweight.

Spinks was past his prime and ring rusty....You are also right in your assessment that he bottled it....like Walcott and Baer did in their twilight...

One defeat shouldn't rebutt everything that came before it...

For me a top 3 lightheavy......

Like reading your stuff Manos but you are over-substantiating the Tyson defeat in my opinion

Did Spinks beat Tyson on 3 other occasions? I don't remember Tunney being knocked out in the 1st round by two meaningful punches. Spinks was a more than decent heavyweight, but how would he fair against the bigger punchers? Certainly, a great fighter at light heavyweight.

Maybe we should rate Holmes in the lower echelon then as he got blown away by Tyson and Willard didn't..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Spinks was past his prime and ring rusty....You are also right in your assessment that he bottled it....like Walcott and Baer did in their twilight...

One defeat shouldn't rebutt everything that came before it...

For me a top 3 lightheavy......

Like reading your stuff Manos but you are over-substantiating the Tyson defeat in my opinion

Where are you getting this assumption? I was responding to a question from Chris which was pondering why Tunney gets substantially rated higher as a heavy than Spinks, despite holding similar level wins. All I am suggesting is that Spinks poor display and decisive defeat to Tyson is probably the main reason Tunney ranks higher. Which I think is a legetimte argument.

Its nothing to do with the rest of Spinks career in which I would agree with most of your points.

I'm saying Tunney never fought the animal that was Mike Tyson...

Who was one of the most lightning fast and devastating of all heavyweights........

Think Tyson blows Tunney away too......

Give Spinks a great chance of dethroning a 200 pound Demsey too..

Goalposts aren't the same..

Looks like my little bit of wondering has taken us off topic! Back on to the subject of Spinks being an ambassador and a fine example for any boxer to follow, will add that in 1978-1979, after his brother briefly won the Heavyweight title and found mega fame world-wide, Mike selflessly put his own career on hold to help with his brother's, despite the fact that he too was in high demand. Another testament to his nice guy persona.

Thought his superb performance against Qawi,,just weeks after his Wife popped it... was 175 defining and his best career win..

Qawi went on to do good things at 190..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm saying Tunney never fought the animal that was Mike Tyson...

Who was one of the most lightning fast and devastating of all heavyweights........

Think Tyson blows Tunney away too......

Give Spinks a great chance of dethroning a 200 pound Demsey too..

Goalposts aren't the same..

They never are when you compare across eras TRUSSMAN. We can only speculate on the ifs, buts and maybes. However Dempsey was the equivalent "animal" of his day and Tunney passed the test twice. Had Spinks lost and given a good account of himself then I think the two would be rated closer at heavyweight. However as you say yourself hes often remembered for a pretty whimpering display against Tyson and this damages his credentials at heavyweight. Especially compared to a Tunney who was unbeaten at the weight and beat the best heavyweight of the day twice (one with a reputation as fearsome as Tysons).

I dont see Tunney putting on as poor a show as Spinks did against Tyson but we could speculate all day. However the facts on paper support Tunney over Spinks at heavyweight and as a result I think hes rated higher.

Interestingly, the Fighting Marine himself could also rival Spinks as one of the games greats ambassadors. Served his country with distinction, was respectful, took on all comers, moved up to heavyweight to take on the best and had a phenomenal record at lightheavy. How do you view him as one of the sports potential great ambassadors?

I knew you were going to say the equivalent animal of his day Manos.....

A super quick, prime, bobbing and weaving, devastatingly combative 220 pound style..kind of makes an interesting comparison to a charging fading Dempsey...

But fairplay.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I knew you were going to say the equivalent animal of his day Manos.....

A super quick, prime, bobbing and weaving, devastatingly combative 220 pound style..kind of makes an interesting comparison to a charging fading Dempsey...

But fairplay.

Im talking about their styles and reputation. Im not a massive Dempsey fan myself and think hes remembered overly kindly in history but back in the 20s he was seen as Tyson was in the 80s. Devastating puncher, explosive from the opening bell, fearsome reputation, lethal finisher. Many of the same things associated with Tyson.

Even if you think Tyson is far more formidable do you see Tunney putting in as tame a performance?