Fighters that lost on the cusp of greatness ??

Thinking about chris thread on bantams and I remembered Jeff Chandler.............WBA Bantam champ with ten or so defences.........Four or so years at the top......Just started to become touted for HOF status when he lost his crown..........

Often think had Curry moved up to 154 after Rodrigues..even If he'd lost he'd have been a great welterweight........

Micvhael Nunn ???............Riddick Bowe....maybe come close..........

Meldrick Taylor, what a sad sad ending against Chavez that was.

A great idea for a thread, can I bring up Spinks without it turning into a brawl?

If he'd have beaten Tyson, or at least came back and done something along the lines of rack up some good wins while he was in Prison - maybe taking on Bruno, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe he could have entered a top 5. Think he had the style to beat Holyfield, he'd have beaten Bruno fairly easily, think Bowe would have been a challenge, and the early 90's version of Lewis would probably have been too green to deal with him. If he'd have done that, waited for Tyson to come back out of prison half the force he went in, beat him - we'd be talking of an ATG top 5 in my eyes.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:A great idea for a thread, can I bring up Spinks without it turning into a brawl?

If he'd have beaten Tyson, or at least came back and done something along the lines of rack up some good wins while he was in Prison - maybe taking on Bruno, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe he could have entered a top 5. Think he had the style to beat Holyfield, he'd have beaten Bruno fairly easily, think Bowe would have been a challenge, and the early 90's version of Lewis would probably have been too green to deal with him. If he'd have done that, waited for Tyson to come back out of prison half the force he went in, beat him - we'd be talking of an ATG top 5 in my eyes.

Spinks was a great fighter.

Quit when he lost.

Although I guess Jeffries did something similar, but he'd had a longer career.

My point is, he can't be regarded as an ATG heavyweight, he was on the verge of it though. Showed all the signs, but instead of carrying on, he just...quit. ATG Light Heavy for sure, but this would have propelled him into top 5 heavy and even a top 20 p4p.

Not in the league of Spinks, but I'll throw in Herol Graham here. If he had won against Mike McCallum, then this would have set up some interesting UK fights with Benn, Eubanks, Watson et al. It would have been more difficult to avoid setting up these fights as he would have come in as champ. They could have been stinkers though!!

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Quit when he lost.

Although I guess Jeffries did something similar, but he'd had a longer career.

My point is, he can't be regarded as an ATG heavyweight, he was on the verge of it though. Showed all the signs, but instead of carrying on, he just...quit. ATG Light Heavy for sure, but this would have propelled him into top 5 heavy and even a top 20 p4p.

Michael Spinks is an ATG LHW - top 5 in many people's eyes.

I'd give him an extremely slim chance of beating Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, or any 90's version of Tyson.

Think you're being incredibly tough on Spinks, jabby. As gentleman says, he's a clear top 5 light heavy who did something that very few have managed and stepped up to claim the heavyweight title (and that from a possible top 5 heavyweight).

No one claiming him to be heavyweight great and that defeat from Tyson (who was showing absolutely no signs of the weaknesses that would later emerge and who looked like he would dominate the division for a decade) would have discouraged many others from continuing to try their hand at heavyweight.

I'm being tough not calling him an ATG heavyweight? If you read my post, you'll see I champion him for ATG Light Heavyweight status, my point is that if he remained after his loss to Tyson and chalked up some victories as he was capable of in my eyes, we'd talk about him in a very different light to how we do now. That was my point. Not to rubbish him, at all.

Regardless of him not being a great Heavyweight though, Jabby, surely Spinks' career overall makes him a shoe-in for all time great status? A top fiver in one of the very greatest divisions in terms of quality and depth across the eras - some might even say the best division - and became the first champion from that weight class to step and and take the Heavyweight crown.

Fair enough, it was an ignominious rout that he got off Tyson, but when a great little'un fights a great big'un (even if they've had some success against lesser fighters at the higher weights) it happens sometimes. Look at Duran-Hearns, Napoles-Monzon etc.

When someone like Hamed quit after one defeat, there was a sense of hope that he'd return, as he hadn't yet reached his absolute zenith or written his name in to the upper echelons, and also we all felt that there was still a chance he could conceivably right the wrongs of the Barrera fight. I don't think either really applies to Spinks, however, hence his retirement sits a lot more comfortably than Hamed's.

Not sure what is wrong with quitting when you're beat....

Most greats go out on a loss..

I can't bloody win can I? You're all almost bullying me into believing something I genuinely can't. Spinks is an ATG Light heavyweight, who stepped up and took the heavyweight title against the great Larry Holmes. This is a remarkable achievement. However, he lost against Tyson in such a manner I hold it against him. He obviously didn't continue, and I felt he should. If he had he would be in my eyes one of the top 20/30 ATG's P4P. I can't shoe him into a heavyweight list inside a top 30, yet I would if he'd have gone on after Tyson and beaten people like Bruno, Lewis, Holyfield, rematched Tyson etc. In my eyes (lets remember this is subjective please) an ATG gets back on the horse after losing. Spinks quit. He didn't even go back down to Light Heavyweight, he just...quit. I'm entitled to that opinion, and feel i defend it well. I've watched a lot of Spinks (due to Truss' defense of the man) and I saw a great fighter, an ATG Light Heavyweight, but who has a very limited Heavyweight resume besides Holmes. His accomplishment is amazing, but not worthy of ATG status in the p4p sense in that he lost against Tyson and called it quits. Beating Larry Holmes was great yes, as he was undefeated but very much in the twilight of his career - he was given the match with Tyson and instead of dusting himself off and coming back strong - he wimpered out.

I never said he was a heavyweight great.....I just said his championship career at heavy is as good as Tunney's...

If he quit good luck to him...........He'd done it all...so What !!

You mark a guy on his career not whether he should have carried on..

I mark Hamed on his CAREER!!!

His career was very short given he retired at 31, its a shame.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:His career was very short given he retired at 31, its a shame.

Why mark him down though ??.......You mark Marcel Cerdan down for finishing early ?? and Salvador Sanchez ??

I don't think anyone disagreed with your stance that Spinks is clearly a great, great Light-Heavy but not a great Heavy, Jabby. 99% would agree with that.

What we were questioning is whether or not, taking weight divisions out of the equation and looking purely at his overall career, you considered Spinks to be a great fighter in general, pound for pound. I may have missed something so forgive me if I have mate, but until that post of yours just now I don't think you'd disclosed that either way, which is what people were questioning.

Nobody will want to deride you for opining that Spinks isn't a pound for pound great and nor should they, even if it's a minority opinion, but rather I think we were all just trying to figure out if that's exactly what you meant when you said you don't consider him a great, or if you were talking solely about him being a Heavyweight great or not.

Well, that was what confused me, anyway!

Think he quite because he really had nowhere to go. Had nothing more to prove at light heavy and as Jones went on to prove dropping back down can be a dangerous old affair. Also have to remember at the time Tyson was considered likely to absolutely dominate the division with a rod of iron for at least the next five years and probably more. Anyone saying his subsequent fall from grace was inevitable is doing so with nothing but hindsight, as this was very much not the view at the time.

Given Spinks had been at the top of the tree in two of boxings original eight divisions and had banked a shedload of money, particularly against Tyson I can fully understand him not wanting to continue, having been top of the tree it is hard to go back to contender or also ran contender and for as long as Mike was about that was all he was fated to be because if there fight proved anything it was Spinks was never turning over Tyson.

Given the hiding he got, I don't see spinks having anywhere to go after Tyson. No doubt an ATG light heavy, and a great achievement to win the heavy title from Holmes. His ATG status is pretty secure from that.

However, having said that, from a p4p ATG perspective, the Tyson performance knocks him back for me. No shame in losing to Tyson, no shame in getting knocked out by him, but spinks was just abject.

But Hearns and no mas means sack all to Duran...

Consistent as usual milky..

Spinks does get judged very harshly for that fight; too harshly in my opinion. Duran, however, did come back and fight again on both occasions. Probably because he needed the money, but he did fight again.

To steer things away from Spinks, think Tito Trinidad fits the bill. Almost untouchable at welter and had managed to unify the division and hand Oscar his first loss (albeit controversial) went up and won a good portion of the light middle title beating Olympic Gold medalist David Reid and Fernando Vargas in the process. Then beat Joppy for a portion of the middleweight title.

All was set for him to be crowned a three weight champion including having unified two of the classic divisions only for Hopkins to put paid to them plans and then some. Tito was arguably never the same and when discussed now seems very much to be cast in the very good rather than the great mode. Can only think a Hopkins win would have ensured that was not the case.

Duran never fought Hearns again...

As for Trinidad thought he lost to Oscar...........who was stupid.....But think he is regarded as great by most..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran never fought Hearns again...

As for Trinidad thought he lost to Oscar...........who was stupid.....But think he is regarded as great by most..

Stop mis-quoting. I said he fought again. Not that he fought Hearns again.

Can never quite make up my mind whether Trinidad belongs in the truly great class or the very, very, very good one personally, Rowley. Good shout because as you say, a win over Hopkins would have removed any doubts.

His left hook was absolutely chilling. I've said it before, but I'll never forget the expression on Vargas' face when he took that first Tito left about ten seconds in to their fight before he went to the canvas. He'd been in with some excellent fighters in Wright and Quartey, but his face and the way his legs went to jelly told you that he'd never experienced anything even close to that before.

Unifying Welter in 1999, unifying belts at Light-Middle in 2000 and then contesting a unification fight at Middle in 2001 is the very definition of testing yourself against the best, too. He didn't muck around and considering that he was still only 28 when Hopkins brought him back down to earth, you'd have to say he did cram a hell of a lot in to a relatively short space of time.

I think, though, that if I had to lean on one particular side I'd be inclined to say he fell short of absolute greatness, just about. The best name on his record, Whitaker, was very much a diminished force when they fought, he got lucky in my eyes against Oscar no matter how many times I watch it or how many different ways I slice it, and Hopkins didn't just beat him, but also exposed him as a little bit of a one-paced fighter with no real plan B.

I think you've made the perfect shout, to be honest.

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran never fought Hearns again...

As for Trinidad thought he lost to Oscar...........who was stupid.....But think he is regarded as great by most..

Stop mis-quoting. I said he fought again. Not that he fought Hearns again.

Where have I quoted you..

You said Duran never fought Hearns again. I only said Duran fought again. You didn't quote me, you mis-quoted me. I will now let you have the last word, as we know how important that is to you.

I know what you said....

I said he never fought Hearns again......Never implied you said otherwise....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But Hearns and no mas means sack all to Duran...

Consistent as usual milky..

Ha, coming from captain consistent the king of selectivity! I've never said hearns doesn't count against Duran, no mas counts against him too. I just rate Duran higher than you, and don't write him off because of it. Just as i rate spinks highly but think his tyson performance was embarrassing.

I'd say hearns Duran and spinks Tyson are comparable bridges too far each fighter, albeit in different ways. Seems like you're giving spinks a free pass, where Duran gets pilloried. And frankly, given the sizes of the respective opponents Duran probably has a better excuse fir being rolled like a drunk than spinks in my opinion.

I was never that convinced by Tito even when he was felling trees. I guess his record says he was on the cusp of greatness but just one if those fighters who never totally convinced me.

I agree there was not something quite there with him milky, although that is probably said with a good deal of hindsight. However his record does look pretty good. Whitaker, Joppy, Reid Vargas and DLH represent a pretty decent cross section of the welter to middle division at the time and had he added Hopkins to the list, especially as quickly as he was fighting them would have been a pretty tough argument to deny him his place amongst all but the most exalted of company.

Depends on your definition of great. If you rate Oscar as great (and a good many do on here) then Trinidad is right alongside him.

I think Trinidad could be considered a great fighter. I mean if Wilfred Benitez is considered an all time great by many then I can't see why Trinidad isn't.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But Hearns and no mas means sack all to Duran...

Consistent as usual milky..

Ha, coming from captain consistent the king of selectivity! I've never said hearns doesn't count against Duran, no mas counts against him too. I just rate Duran higher than you, and don't write him off because of it. Just as i rate spinks highly but think his tyson performance was embarrassing.

I'd say hearns Duran and spinks Tyson are comparable bridges too far each fighter, albeit in different ways. Seems like you're giving spinks a free pass, where Duran gets pilloried. And frankly, given the sizes of the respective opponents Duran probably has a better excuse fir being rolled like a drunk than spinks in my opinion.

When have I been inconsistent..

Ike Ibeabuchi? Lost his sanity.

Naseem Hammed? I remember watching the documentary leading up to the Barrera fight and Manny Steward was touting him to go on to be the greatest featherweight of all time.

Bowe is probably the biggest one for me actually. Had all the attributes physically & could box could jab & was one of the best inside fighting big men.

For me he completely sums up the old saying that boxing is 10% physical 90% mental.

If he had the mental side he'd have gone on to be one of the greatest ever.

He was involved in some classic fights during his time at the top, particularly the Holy ones, & he would've beaten Lewis at the time (pre Steward) I think