Michael Spinks not number 1 in 1985/86 ...The biggest ranking injustice of all ??

Spinks won the light heavyweight title in 81 a year after Hagler.............He beat the respected Mustafa Muhammad.........Then beat the future 175 pound champion Marvin Johnson (great ko)..........Unified the title against Dwight Qawi another highly thought of 175er who had interrupted a showdown between Conteh's conqueror and the Jinx !! (who went on to become a respected cruiserweight champion).........Went on to bag the IBF crown against Davis and defended his title ten times completely dominating the division.....

He then moved up and beat the number 1 at heavyweight Holmes to become the first reigning 175er to win the linear heavyweight title in a huge upset...in 9/85......

Yet he was rated third behind Curry and Hagler............

Lot's of respect for Hagler and I thought the world of Curry but geez what does someone have to do.......

Spinks not being Boxing's premier fighter in 85/86 has to be one of Boxing's biggest injustices for me..

It's an interesting point, Truss.

Spinks was never a great money spinner as 175 lb champ, which he's fairly open about in saying that money was his primary reason for skipping Cruiserweight and taking a chance at Heavy, and of course money was the reason he decided to give up the IBF belt to fight Cooney rather than defend against Tucker. Being (or not being) an 'attraction' shouldn't be a reason to be too kind / too harsh when rating contemporary fighters, but rightly or wrongly it has been used as one from time to time and there's an argument to be made that the same applies to Spinks in this case. Hagler's fight with Duran gave him that first big platform to try and transcend, and of course two years later the Hearns showdown was one of the most anticipated of all time. The fact that it was a thriller helped, too.

A case of timing, too. Ray Leonard cast a massive shadow over the sport until his first retirement in '82, and after unifying against Qawi in '83 Spinks' opposition as Light-Heavy champion took a bit of a dip. Not becasue he was dodging anyone, but simply because he'd taken care of all the really outstanding operators there. Spinks hitting a wall at 175, with no more outstanding challengers or potential big fights left there to wet the appetite, coincided with Hagler's profile going through the roof thanks to his fights against Duran and Hearns, while at the same time Curry had the likes of Starling and McCrory to wow against, which he did.

Not really fair that, at that time, the boxing public perhaps were putting Spinks to the back of their mind a little bit in favour of the more exciting duo of Hagler and Curry whose peak performances and wins were fresher in the memory, but I guess it's half understandable.

Also have to remember that not everybody thought Spinks deserved the nod against Holmes. If the first one was mildly disputed, the second one seemed to cross the line over to being a wee bit dubious, so again while Spinks was winning, he wasn't winning in the same sensational manner that Curry or Hagler were. If you were in the camp which thought that at least one of the Holmes verdicts was dodgy, then I can see why you wouldn't be putting Spinks at the top of the pile.

Seems to me that there was only a relatively small window, between Leonard retiring in 1982 and Spinks beating Qawi in 1983, that Michael could really have hoped to be seen as boxing's premier fighter. No sooner had he unified at 175, other factors beyond his control conspired against him a little, it seems.

Isn't this point scoring getting a little silly now?

Isn't there at one other "Bash Hagler" thread running at the moment.

88Chris05 wrote:It's an interesting point, Truss.

Spinks was never a great money spinner as 175 lb champ, which he's fairly open about in saying that money was his primary reason for skipping Cruiserweight and taking a chance at Heavy, and of course money was the reason he decided to give up the IBF belt to fight Cooney rather than defend against Tucker. Being (or not being) an 'attraction' shouldn't be a reason to be too kind / too harsh when rating contemporary fighters, but rightly or wrongly it has been used as one from time to time and there's an argument to be made that the same applies to Spinks in this case. Hagler's fight with Duran gave him that first big platform to try and transcend, and of course two years later the Hearns showdown was one of the most anticipated of all time. The fact that it was a thriller helped, too.

A case of timing, too. Ray Leonard cast a massive shadow over the sport until his first retirement in '82, and after unifying against Qawi in '83 Spinks' opposition as Light-Heavy champion took a bit of a dip. Not becasue he was dodging anyone, but simply because he'd taken care of all the really outstanding operators there. Spinks hitting a wall at 175, with no more outstanding challengers or potential big fights left there to wet the appetite, coincided with Hagler's profile going through the roof thanks to his fights against Duran and Hearns, while at the same time Curry had the likes of Starling and McCrory to wow against, which he did.

Not really fair that, at that time, the boxing public perhaps were putting Spinks to the back of their mind a little bit in favour of the more exciting duo of Hagler and Curry whose peak performances and wins were fresher in the memory, but I guess it's half understandable.

Also have to remember that not everybody thought Spinks deserved the nod against Holmes. If the first one was mildly disputed, the second one seemed to cross the line over to being a wee bit dubious, so again while Spinks was winning, he wasn't winning in the same sensational manner that Curry or Hagler were. If you were in the camp which thought that at least one of the Holmes verdicts was dodgy, then I can see why you wouldn't be putting Spinks at the top of the pile.

Seems to me that there was only a relatively small window, between Leonard retiring in 1982 and Spinks beating Qawi in 1983, that Michael could really have hoped to be seen as boxing's premier fighter. No sooner had he unified at 175, other factors beyond his control conspired against him a little, it seems.

I'll ignore the very silly time wasters..

Chris two points Mate...

1. The Holmes fight in 85 wasn't viewed as contentious...

2. Excellent summation........But If Spinks and Hagler's records were similar at 160 and 175 then surely Holmes puts him over the top..

Whilst I agree that being exciting helps and you are right to point it out.........You and I know Whittaker wouldn't have been p4p number 1 had it been a criteria..

Cheers.......

Too be fair Spinks is one of the few true ATGs of the last 30 years just too many people dont seem to realise it. He has never really been given the respect his talent deserved, lets remember we are talking about and Olympic Gold Medalist and one of the greatest light heavyweight champions in history who went up and took an acknowledged (although slightly on the slide) ATGs heavyweight title. When i read people telling me that Roy Jones (who i am a massive fan of by the way) could have beat him at light heavy i just have to shake my head in the lack of knowledge to just how good Spinks was his power was lethal for a light heavy and was able to carry it up pretty well to the big boys as well, he was highly skilled, had great handspeed, iron chin, possessed a great engine and moved well. It is hard to find a weakness in him at light heavyweight and for me he was the finest fighter P4P in that period. Sadly in most younger fans eyes he is remembered for getting starched by Iron Mike, not for his great achievements.

You're right Pal..The most under appreciated fighter of his generation.......

I think after Holmes he deserved the number 1 spot...

Cleaning up 175 and then beating the number 1 heavy is an amazing feat.......

Unfortunately he is remembered for Tyson........You're right

You don't think Roy has a chance at light heavy? Hard to call, because I don't think spinks ever fought anyone faster than him. Naturally bigger man than Roy, and would be favourite for me but no gimme.

You're right about how people remember him and it is unfair. However, I think its the nature of the capitulation against Tyson that so many hold against him.

I remember waiting up to watch it, and then basically realised what a waste of time it was as soon as I saw him walk to the ring. Spinks was always nervous before fights and used his fear as an adrenalin kick but that's the most terrified I've ever seen anyone in a ring. And the performance was rabbit in a headlight. Not the only guy that Tyson did that to, but its hard to get that image out of your head when you're talking ATG p4p.

Truss will point out that duran is cut some slack for hearns and that spinks should be too. Its a fair point, but it's an emotional reaction I think. Duran just got outgunned and knocked out. Spinks just put his head in the block and waited for the axe.

Out-gunned makes it sound like a war....

He got outclassed and was made to look completely stupid.......

The thread is asking If Spinks deserved to be number 1 after Holmes..

We all agree the Tyson fight was pathetic.........But so was Holy losing to Toney...

For me their legacies were secure by then....though.

Truss, I was answering hogey, and explaining why I believe people (myself included) struggle to give him his fair dues.

But if we're sticking on topic. Yep. Damned unlucky not to get the nod after Larry 1. I say unlucky, it's a subjective fairly meaningless and arbitrary ranking so I doubt he lost much sleep over it.

The p4p rankings don't mean a lot, the greatest compliment you can pay Spinks is that he's a guaranteed top 5 man at light heavyweight. That means more than any mythical pound for pound ranking system, in the most stacked division of them all and it's a relative toss up between him and Foster for the greatest title reign in the division.

What harms his legacy ever so slightly is his heavyweight career, I think he deservedly won the first Holmes fight but should have lost the rematch. A semi retired Cooney and Tangstad add very little then we have the matter of the Tyson capitulation. It seems odd to suggest that moving up in weight to win the heavyweight title does more harm than good but it's what he's remembered for. Do two close and contentious wins over Holmes add more than the Tyson fight takes away?

When we talk about the greatest boxers of all time Spinks and Foster both get overlooked somewhat but their contemporaries of Monzon and Hagler almost always get mentioned.

Good topic TRUSS

I agree with what you say. Spinks is a sort of forgotten fighter but remembered for his poor showing against Tyson.

People expected Spinks to be the real test for the wrecking machine that was Tyson but lets be honest he was scared and his fear leapt off the screen.

Still he had an outstanding career. I think his record outshines Floyds at this present time Spinks has a top win that far outshines anything on Floyd's resume and long-term dominance of an excellent division. Floyd's been able to sustain elite success for a longer span of time and has greater depth of resume to balance out the difference in quality at the top.

Spinks cleaned out a very tough LHW era then moved up to knock off Holmes, who was aging but certainly still highly formidable

Spinks lacks Floyd's longevity Onetwo...

But he certainly wouldn't be amiss at 15/20 on any list for me......

Hugely underrated..

Thanks for the compliment Matey.