Roy Jones Jr vs Carlos Monzon

[Michael Frank]

Mike Spinks got hit waaaayyy too much to be in the same league as Monzon. He could stay away from a midget (like Qawi), but against guys his own size or close to it, he seemed to take a lot of stick before coming from behind (check out the Johnson, Sutherland, and Davis fights, for instance). I can't remember Monzon ever soaking up such punishment during his championship days.

This is what I mean about some of the pro-Monzon posts here. Undefeated Spinks is "not in Monzon's league"? Spinks "soaked up such punishment"?

I have rewatched these Spinks fights more than once, and the Eddie Davis fight was a questionable decision, I'd admit--but that's not worse than a ton of "draws" on Monzon's record. Spinks got hit, but never significantly hurt or dropped in his entire light-heavy career, and he gave a cannon-load more than he got--to Sutherland, Johnson, and the others.

To say Spinks isn't in Carlos's league--an undefeated Spinks at light-heavy, who also beat all the heavies put in front of him except a prime Tyson--this I strongly disagree with. True, Monzon had nearly as many draws as Spinks had fights, but even prime to prime, Spinks was never dropped in his 175-pound career, and Rodrigo Valdes surely wouldn't do it.

Now, how would Monzon fare with a prime Qawi, whom Michael beat? I'd say the "midget" Qawi breaks Monzon in two, and it wouldn't take long. And had Monzon ever fought a wily, sturdy, tough, talented hombre like Qawi at 160--which he didn't--I'd expect at least a loss for Carlos, if not the decapitation I'd predict at 175.

[10-8]

Pete, considering that Monzon never even tested the waters in the light-heavyweight division it's a bit far fetched to suddenly start picking him over a proven ATG light-heavy like Spinks.

Monzon wouldn't have ANY of the physical advantages over Spinks that he commonly had over his middleweight comp. That's a big jump in size and calibre for Monzon. Who does Monzon have on his resume comparable to Spinks?

This is more wishful thinking than anything.

[hawk5ins]

That anyone is taking Monzon at 175 straight up agianst Spinks, although I could be wrong.

Pound for pound was also entered into this discussion. Pete thinks Monzon is superior to Spinks.

I would agree. However, I have Carlos only about 7 spots north of Spinks, so it's obvious that I would not agree that there are leagues of difference here.

The point about Spinks being reached by taller opponents is valid. Yet accept for the Davis bout, he always had that great equalizer with his power. With Carlos' chin (pound for pound), it may not be enough.

Pound for pound, I think the match up is indeed very difficult for Spinks, not unwinable, but I think it's a tough night for him.

Spinks is in my top 30. Monzon in my top 20.

Hawk

[hawk5ins]

That this is not the first time I have heard someone comment or insinuate that Micheal Spinks is over rated and ranked too highly among his fellow Light Heavies.

It's not a postion that I necessarily endorse or agree with as Spinks DOES rank among the top 5 at 175 for me and among the top 30 pound for pound. But I have heard such sentiments from those whose opinions I respect quite a bit.

It may very well be a case of Monzon not being thought of as Infalible again and more to the point of one thinking Spinks is vastly over rated.

Again. Not a position I agree with. But such positions don't ncesarrily mean Monzon was invincible. Rather it may infer Spinks is more falable in the opinion of the person who made the comment.

Something to think about before possibly overreacting.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

I'd like to see any light-heavy in history beat a prime Spinks. Not saying it's not possible, but no one comes to mind as automatically beating Spinks.

He was a great amateur and a great pro. The one thing he always did was win, and it was almost never close.

Other than an Archie Moore or Charles or Conn, none of whom is an automatic winner over Michael IMO, I can't think of anyone else. Moderns like Saad and Mustafa come to mind, but Spinks already beat Mustafa and the latter beat Saad.

BTW, I was speaking of Spinks and Monzon on a PFP basis.

[10-8]

BTW, I was speaking of Spinks and Monzon on a PFP basis.

That being the case I have no real issue with Pete's opinion, although we differ in our assesment of Spinks who I rate highly.

Head to head with Carlos moving up in weight was apparently a different matter.

Carry on....!

[hawk5ins]

Again, I have Spinks top 5 there, but based on how some may rank em, Spinks is among a slew of greats and may not be a high on the list as some, like myself have him ranked.

Consider the following:

Charles, Langford, Tunney, Moore, Foster, Loughran, Gibbons, Greb, Conn, Harold Johnson, Bivins and Rosenbloom among others.

Within this group of 12, I have Spinks towards the top. But it certainly is not outrageous to see Spinks hovering around 10 or 11 considering the depth here.

ANd if at Middle, one has Monzon among the top 3 or 5 all time, seeing how you could shore up your pound for pound rankings, having Monzon ahead of Spinks, as I do, although seperated by only a half dozen or so, and possibly significantly ahead of Spinks, again is not an outrage.

I would not agree with it, but I could see how it could be done, especialy having to consider all the greats in the other divisions as well.

When you are looking at say a top 100....Monzon being in the top 20 as he does on my list and Spinks falling outside of the top 50...is that so hard to fathom?

Again, Spinks makes MY top 30. But there are plenty of arguments to be made for placing at LEAST 50 fighter ahead of Spinks on such a list.

Hawk

[PeteLeo]

There's really not much left for me to add at this late date, is there? (But I've never let that stop me before.)

Yes, I was comparing Monzon and Spinks P4P, as an earlier comment had been made stating that Michael easily outclassed (paraphrasing here, because I'm lazy) Carlos in this manner of classification. I find that opinion to be . . . hmmm, "unsubstantiated" would seem a good description. I didn't deny that Spinks beat everyone he fought at the weight, but the video is out there, my friends and colleagues. He got hit a lot. He got hit flush a lot. If we take into consideration the ability to get one's face out of the way of an opponent's punches as a qualification for a higher berth among the P4P elite, I surely think Monzon rates higher. In this particular tangent, it's not about toughness, heart, or finishing power. I can't recall Monzon ever taking as much stick in the facial area over any random fifteen rounds as Spinks absorbed from a basically washed up Marvin Johnson in their aborted match.

It's probably true that Valdez couldn't have dropped Spinks at light-heavy. But it's definitely true that Spinks was nowhere near as old calendar-wise or in ring-wear when he left the division as Carlos was when Rodrigo floored him with what must have been one of the most powerful punches available at middleweight. It's also undeniable that Monzon was never dropped twice in the first round and savaged like ragdoll in the teeth of a bulldog. Was Spinks?

Guys I think could have/might have beaten a prime Spinks? In addition to the easy selections -- Moore, Charles, Rosenbloom (very unlikely that a wild swinger is going to stop Slapsie Maxie), and Foster (if Mike catches 3% of the punches Johnson hit him with against Bob, it's decapitation time) -- I'm going to throw out a name that might well mess with your mind: Joey Maxim. Big, strong guy with some class. He was stopped only once in a long career, figured out what he did wrong that time, and came back almost immediately to whip the man who had turned the trick on him. I really believe that Joey was miles better than the Davis brothers and would have a great chance to decision Michael. Conn may have been another "midget" next to the towering Spinks, but if he could avoid destruction from the hard-hitting, much more stylish Louis for almost thirteen rounds, yeah, I think he could deal with the cruder Spinks.

Michael Spinks was a hell of a lightheavy, possibly lower Top Ten alltime. But I can't see him as a Top Five candidate. Monzon's a Top Fiver on nearly everyone's card, so there's your difference. PeteLeo.

[Michael Frank]

Good post.

My disagreements: Johnson went on to win titles at light-heavy after Spinks beat him, so I'm not sure he was "washed up." Also, Michael got hit, but not hurt, by Marvin, who was a very active fighter against everybody and who landed on everybody. (How was theirs an "aborted match"? It was ended on a brutal KO.) Here again, Monzon never fought anyone of Johnson's style (or caliber). If Monzon fights a 160-pound version of Johnson, he gets hit a lot, too. Everyone got hit a lot by Marvin.

That Michael was never floored nor even took a backward step speaks to how ineffective Marvin was. That and the KO left Johnson received in the 4th round.

"It's also undeniable that Monzon was never dropped twice in the first round and savaged like ragdoll in the teeth of a bulldog. Was Spinks?" - This part of the above post makes no sense to me; Spinks never was dropped once at 175. Only a peak Tyson did this to him, at heavyweight. Is there the implication that Monzon wouldn't lose just as brutally to a prime Mike Tyson? How is this relevant?

Also, I think Spinks was more talented than Foster and like him over Bob in a head-to-head. I'd agree whoever lands the big one first wins, but Michael I feel had a better defense. Davis brothers aside (both of whom he still beat).

[hawk5ins]

"Monzon never fought anyone of Johnson's style (or caliber)."

Carlos Monzon, NEVER faced anyone the CALIBER of Marvin Johnson?

Really?

I am one of the Biggest fans EVER of Marvin Johnson. EVER.

But man......

I thought this thread was a bit full of hyperbole when I read:

"Because, to me, Monzon hadn't the skills or the anything of a Michael Spinks (an awesome, dominating light-heavy), yet Carlos ranks higher on every list I've seen."

and

"Mike Spinks got hit waaaayyy too much to be in the same league as Monzon."

Pops is Superior, Pound for pound, to: Benvenuti, Griff (yes the Griff who faced Monzon), Valdez and Briscoe?

Really? Or is that simply more hyperbole?

I'm being serious.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

Yes, H5, pfp I'll take Pops over Benvenuti, Griffith (the Griff who faced Monzon, not Griff at his peak a decade earlier), Valdez and Briscoe.

And I wasn't the one who wrote ""Mike Spinks got hit waaaayyy too much to be in the same league as Monzon." -- This is, of course, quite the opposite of how I feel.

Since you criticize anything I write with which you disagree, and in this case you disagreed with but one potent word in my post, "caliber", may I assume you agree with everything else in my post #219?

[hawk5ins]

I was citing hyperbole on BOTH sides here.

Everyone here knows who wrote the "Mike Spinks got hit waaaayyy too much to be in the same league as Monzon." Was it REALLY necessary to attribute EACH of those quotes to who spoke them?

I know PETE knows who wrote it.

Just as I know the other quote I used, ""Because, to me, Monzon hadn't the skills or the anything of a Michael Spinks (an awesome, dominating light-heavy), yet Carlos ranks higher on every list I've seen.", everyone knows who wrote that one.

And I was asking if you honestly beleived your comment about Marvin Johnson being better than the 4 I listed (and qualified as well).

I could Not disagree more with that comment.

And Yes. The Single word "calibre" stands out like a soar thumb in that post and IMO overshadows everything else written.

Sorry. Just the way it is.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

The point about Spinks being reached by taller opponents is valid. Yet accept for the Davis bout, he always had that great equalizer with his power. With Carlos' chin (pound for pound), it may not be enough.

PFP, Michael could KO Carlos, IMO, just as he kayoed nearly everyone else. Monzon was never hit by a puncher like Spinks, yes pfp still, and Valdez (whom you've brought in before) certainly ain't Spinks. His KO percentage is poor compared with Spinks's, it's not close. Spinks had 21 KOs in 27 wins at 175, or 78%. That record included phenomenal light-heavy chins Qawi and Mustafa Muhammad, or Michael's percentage would be higher. This excludes his heavyweight foray, which is not relevant pfp.

Valdez, conversely, had a 57% KO percentage at 160. Yet he's accorded "sledgehammer" status on this site (at least by H5) because he KOd Briscoe in 1 out of their 3 meetings. You, H5, constantly harp about how the "out of the blue," "once in a lifetime" KOs are not representative of a fighter's power, such as Nunn over Kalambay. I agree. Valdez is no Spinks, powerwise (or anything else-wise).

Monzon never tasted anything like Spinks's jinxes at 160 and his chin, IMO, won't be up to it. Valdez's punch was not the caliber (that word again) of Spinks's left to Marvin Johnson.

[Michael Frank]

And Yes. The Single word "calibre" stands out like a soar thumb in that post and IMO overshadows everything else written.

No, it doesn't overshadow everything else written. It's just your way of responding--always to disagree, never once to agree (at least with me), not that it makes a difference. Why not go ahead and address the rest of the post #219, and agree with either Pete or me as to the other parts, rather than ignore them only to disagree with one point?

[hawk5ins]

You want to argue that at his best, Spinks was superior to anyone Monzon defended agianst (pound for pound).....You are not getting any rebuttle argument from me.

And I certainly don't think I've ever intimated anything differently. Anywhere.

CONVERSELY, I don't think anyone Spinks Defended agianst, (pound for pound as well) was of the calibre of Carlos Monzon.

Let me take a WILD guess here: You are going to disagree with that comment becuase your opinion of Monzon is so completely nonexistant and/or polarized, I'm sure that you'll be able to come up with 2 or 3 Spinks victims, that you feel are superior to King Carlos.

You already have Johnson being better than ANYONE Monzon ever faced. I'm willing to bet that you have Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Qawi as Better fighters, pound for pound than Carlos as well.

Agian. Just a guess.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

Na.

My own wild guess was that you would respond to my request for your analysis of the remainder of my post #219 with something like, "I don't have to address anything I don't want to just because you ask, I only post about the points I feel like posting about."

So at least thus far I am wrong.

I wouldn't rate Eddie and Qawi above Carlos PFP, no. Each had the skills to rank above him, I feel, but Eddie was too uninspired too often--lacked Carlos's heart oftentimes--and Qawi didn't quite have the lengthy track record of Monzon (but heck, what an overachiever Dwight was in his prime!)

[hawk5ins]

"No, it doesn't overshadow everything else written."

Yes it does.

Like it or not, we ALL are judged on whatever we write.

I could write a flipping novel length post in which it included some of my finest assemblage of Boxing information ever, irrefutable to even my biggest critics.

But if I led with something akin to: "Tony Tucker, whom Tyson defeated in 1987, was superior to everyone Joe Frazier ever defended agianst", right off the bat, EVERYTHING ELSE I wrote is being judged on that single statement.

It is, the way it is. Like it or not.

If I wrote that and I beleived it......MY ass is being held to THAT candle, and I am being judged on that statement. Regardless of anything else I wrote.

And unless I either change my mind or come up with something that backs that position up that makes everyone reading my post, take pause and buy into what I am say, the rest of what I have written will fall on deaf ears and be taken with a grain of salt.

That's not being argumentative. That's having to take accountability for everything you write.

That's how it goes.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

"No, it doesn't overshadow everything else written."

Yes it does.

Like it or not, we ALL are judged on whatever we write.

I could write a flipping novel length post in which it included some of my finest assemblage of Boxing information ever, irrefutable to even my biggest critics.

But if I led with something akin to: "Tony Tucker, whom Tyson defeated in 1987, was superior to everyone Joe Frazier ever defended agianst", right off the bat, EVERYTHING ELSE I wrote is being judged on that single statement.

It is, the way it is. Like it or not.

If I wrote that and I beleived it......MY ass is being held to THAT candle, and I am being judged on that statement. Regardless of anything else I wrote.

And unless I either change my mind or come up with something that backs that position up that makes everyone reading my post, take pause and buy into what I am say, the rest of what I have written will fall on deaf ears and be taken with a grain of salt.

That's not being argumentative. That's having to take accountability for everything you write.

That's how it goes.

Hawk

That's ridiculous.

I often find what you write to be informative in spite of a point here or there that I may disagree with. There's no reason to write you off as uninformed, just because you think one fighter is better than another, if I feel the opposite.

The facts, my boy, are what counts; ... the opinions? Who can truly say that another's opinion is wrong? Well, how many experts picked Pavlick over B-HOP? Doesn't make them dummies.

[hawk5ins]

You ARE judged on what you write.

If 99% of the folks on this board think that your comment of Marvin Johnson being superior to everyone Monzon faced, is a RIDICULOUS position.....you WILL be judged on that comment.

I know ANYTHING I write, I expect to be judged on. ANd I will either FULLY back whatever I have written, or if I have stated something that has been pointed out as being incorrect, I will will admit to that mistake and retract that comment. I'm not going to try and pretend I didn't write it or attempt to deflect from that comment by asking that you focus on something ELSE I wrote.

You write something, readers form an opinion on what you wrote.

If something sticks out, like your Johnson Caliber, comment, THAT is what they make an association with.

This isn't a "rule" I made up. It's human nature. And if you think you are NOT judged on comments that YOU make....EVERY comment you make....YOU are deluding yourself.

Here's My advice: Don't write something that you are not willing to 100% back up.

It's pretty simple.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

You ARE judged on what you write.

If 99% of the folks on this board think that your comment of Marvin Johnson being superior to everyone Monzon faced, is a RIDICULOUS position.....you WILL be judged on that comment.

I know ANYTHING I write, I expect to be judged on. ANd I will either FULLY back whatever I have written, or if I have stated something that has been pointed out as being incorrect, I will will admit to that mistake and retract that comment. I'm not going to try and pretend I didn't write it or attempt to deflect from that comment by asking that you focus on something ELSE I wrote.

You write something, readers form an opinion on what you wrote.

If something sticks out, like your Johnson Caliber, comment, THAT is what they make an association with.

This isn't a "rule" I made up. It's human nature. And if you think you are NOT judged on comments that YOU make....EVERY comment you make....YOU are deluding yourself.

Here's My advice: Don't write something that you are not willing to 100% back up.

It's pretty simple.

Hawk

Glad to know you speak for the 99% who supposedly think my judgment of Johnson is "ridiculous."

And that EVERYONE is like you, all having your "human nature," all evaluating one word in a post to deride a poster and ignore everything else they might agree with in that same post.

No. What we know is that this is how YOU are. Wonderful.

I seem to recall you felt Sugar Ray Leonard "came down" in weight to fight Marvin Hagler at middleweight, though we know Ray had never in his career fought above jr. middle until Hagler. Something about his walking around weight prior to Hagler being well over 160, I recall you wrote.

Seemed absolutely ridiculous to me, and to others, but I respect many of your other opinions.

[hawk5ins]

If you DON'T think readers don't judge a poster for what they write.....I don't know what to tell you.

Consider this: Why do you think a "troll" is labled a "troll" on sites such as these?

Think it has nothing to do with what they write? And when they do write something new, readers of what they write automatically give them a clean slate every time out?

Or are patterns and themes of what they write, remembered and then such types are labled and then ultimately ignored?

Now you can take the extreme of what I am saying and then accuse me that I am calling you a troll. Or you can try and understand what it is I'm saying here.

You and I and everyone else on this site, is indeed JUDGED on what they write. If what you write sounds absurd, chances are what follows it, will be ignored.

Agian. Not my rules. It's just how it goes.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

Well, I do know there are but a few attack dogs who seek out the controversial remark in an otherwise uncontroversial post, and choose to address that comment and that alone. And who also comment about "trolls" and such (not necessarily referring to only your comment here, others have written of "trolls"). But I personally don't know or care what trolls are.

Call me crazy, but I believe most posters here at CBZ don't have a confrontational agenda and don't seek to argue or prove themselves right, rather, most seek to engage in stimulating conversation and appreciate other reasonable viewpoints. There is not just one or just a few good boxing minds here.

Also, it seems like those who bring up "ignoring" on this site are quite dishonest about that; they actually read every word, still. Which is amusing.

[hawk5ins]

Everytime someone mentions Carlos Monzon, YOU feeling the need to set everyone straight, by saying agian and agian and again that Monzon's skills are not that impressive. That his Chin isn't proven. That his power is over rated. That his competition is not that good.

That Marvin Johnson, at the stage of his career that he was in agianst 15-0 Micheal Spinks....As basically a stepping stone for a young turk rising through the ranks...That, THAT Marvin Johnson is superior to anyone Monzon ever fought.

Your comment about "caliber" was calculated and you know it. It wasn't some "throw away" comment in an otherwise, much deeper post and You SHOULDN'T Focus on that one comment and you REALLY should absorb everything ELSE I wrote. Deflection is always a nice defense mechanism.

You made a comment, that I feel was pretty ridiculous. I'm quite certain most others do to.

The Difference? I asked you about it. I asked if it was meant as hyperbole or were you actually serious.

You made your response and stated that you TRULY believe that comment and now are getting all defensive about it.

AGAIN, Comments made by all of us WILL stick with you. ANd you are indeed judged by the comments you make.

Absurd you say?

How many times have you quoted me and what I have previously posted? How many times? OBVIOUSLY you judge ME by what I write in a post.

I'm certain everyone who bothers to read my posts DOES judge me by what I write.

That's my Point.

You. Me. Pete. Gor. RockyIII. Whomever. What is written by posters is judged by others. And that judgement is associated with who wrote it.

You yourself went on a whine fest about everything you have read on Monzon on this site is all Pro Monzon and no one picks agianst him (something I have refuted and pointed out where that is complete malarky btw.)

YOU are judging posters on what they write about Monzon (while at the same time ignoring what OTHERS have written about Carlos.).

Again. Human Nature to judge one on what they have written.

You wrote that Marvin Johnson, who faced Micheal Spinks, was of a Higher caliber fighter than anyone Monzon ever faced.

Judgement. Human nature.

Now go get the last word in (or go cry to the mods that I'm being mean agian. You and I both know you will.). I'm just going to say: See previous post of mine.

I'm just repeating myself anywho at this point.

Hawk

[PeteLeo]

Stepping in from the wings for a moment . . . .

I believe Marvin Johnson could see his best days in the rearview mirror by the time he faced Spinks. Marv had a nice little run thereafter, but it was against a very select group of opponents (with only Leslie Stewart standing out as a substantial challenger). The KOs to the Muhammads (Saad and Mustafa) pretty much closed the book on his really effective period.

I called the Spinks-Johnson fight aborted because it ended so early (in the fourth, I think), though even in that brief span, Johnson hit Michael with a lot of clean punches. No lightheavy who valued his teeth or his brain cells would want to get hit by Bobby Foster that much. (I think the proper word I should have used would be "abortive.")

Look at the number of flush head shots Spinks took in his primetime and compare that total to the amount of facial punishment Monzon absorbed during the same peak period. I'll stand by my opinion that Mike was hit waaayyy too much to be in the same class, P4P, as Carlos.

For me, the Tyson fight retains merit in the assessment of Spinks' career. He had won four straight heavyweight title fights by that point, his weight was substantially over the light heavy limit (and he carried it comfortably), and he was still a relatively young man. Yet he was smashed in a most concussive way. Now, Monzon never ventured into the lightheavies, and I'm not going to extrapolate that he would have been as dominant there as he was at middle, but I will put forth the belief that his defense and boxing skills would have served him better against a Foster (or a Mike Spinks) than Spinks managed to fare against Tyson. Foster might have stopped him, but I really, really doubt that it would have been so swiftly and that Carlos would have gone as meekly as Michael.

Okay, that's my time, so back to the main event. PeteLeo.

[walshb]

"You made a comment, that I feel was pretty ridiculous. I'm quite certain most others do"

For the record, I do not!

Now, where are all these others?

I'm waiting! I'm waiting!

[walshb]

Stepping in from the wings for a moment . . . .




For me, the Tyson fight retains merit in the assessment of Spinks' career. He had won four straight heavyweight title fights by that point, his weight was substantially over the light heavy limit (and he carried it comfortably), and he was still a relatively young man. Yet he was smashed in a most concussive way. Now, Monzon never ventured into the lightheavies, and I'm not going to extrapolate that he would have been as dominant there as he was at middle, but I will put forth the belief that his defense and boxing skills would have served him better against a Foster (or a Mike Spinks) than Spinks managed to fare against Tyson. Foster might have stopped him, but I really, really doubt that it would have been so swiftly and that Carlos would have gone as meekly as Michael.

Okay, that's my time, so back to the main event. PeteLeo.

Carlos moving up 15 lbs to meet Bob Foster and Spinks moving up 30 lbs to meet Tyson. There's a distinct difference here IMO. I think Spinks' challenge is a whole different ball game than Monzon's. Tyson is a far more lethal opponent than even Foster. Pete, I don't think that's a fair comparison. I know Mike was campaigning
at heavy for while; but it still is different and more of a difficult 'ask'. Give Monzon a few outings at LH before
facing Foster and YES, I see him doing better.

Monzon was a big middle, Spinks was a big LH, but there is a difference in middle to LH as opposed to LH-Heavy. Just my view!

Michael was blasted out of it by a KO machine who was a true legitimate Heavy!

[hawk5ins]

Hawk

[PeteLeo]

Monzon was a big middle, Spinks was a big LH, but there is a difference in middle to LH as opposed to LH-Heavy. Just my view!

Michael was blasted out of it by a KO machine who was a true legitimate Heavy!

So beating an undefeated, Hall of Fame, long-term champion like Holmes means nothing in preparation for Tyson? Out-maneuvering a limited but explosive-hitting Cooney didn't provide Spinks with any hint of what was coming with "Iron" Mike? Spinks was not a lightheavyweight facing a heavyweight in that bout. Tyson-Spinks was a contest between two heavies, each of whom was claiming to be the best in the world in their class.

I'll add a few pounds to the Monzon "move up." I still can't see any cruiserweight of the time farting through Carlos the way Tyson punked Spinks. This, to me, anyway, indicates not so much a difference in chins as a disparity in effective defense. PeteLeo.

[hawk5ins]

With Spinks going into the Tyson fight, wasn't so much that he WASN'T a Heavyweight, becuase he had been one, since 1985.

It was more to do with the stupid bastard being inactive for an entire year going into that bout.

Re Spinks's defense. He WAS reachable and not jsut against Top tier opp.

The David Sears bout lasted 3 rounds. In rounds one and two, the number of times the Horrifically limited Sears landed on Spinks was very alarming. THis was Spinks in his prime. Was he not "up" for Sears?

Probably not. But there was a consistant pattern with his defense being porous.

Pound for pound, issues like this do not bode well for Spinks. One of the reasons I have Carlos ahead of, if not significantly so, Spinks.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

So beating an undefeated, Hall of Fame, long-term champion like Holmes means nothing in preparation for Tyson? Out-maneuvering a limited but explosive-hitting Cooney didn't provide Spinks with any hint of what was coming with "Iron" Mike? Spinks was not a lightheavyweight facing a heavyweight in that bout. Tyson-Spinks was a contest between two heavies, each of whom was claiming to be the best in the world in their class.

I'll add a few pounds to the Monzon "move up." I still can't see any cruiserweight of the time farting through Carlos the way Tyson punked Spinks. This, to me, anyway, indicates not so much a difference in chins as a disparity in effective defense. PeteLeo.

I respectfully don't think any of these named fights of Spinks's or a prospective outing against the greatest cruiser in history by Carlos, compares to Tyson in his prime. Entirely different planets. Spinks to me was never a real heavy, and thus his beating a handful of them is something I give him great credit for. But I don't think that means he was in a league with Tyson. Anyone who saw them both thought Tyson would kill him, and the odds reflected that way before the fight. A few "experts" knew Spinks was a helluva fighter PFP and maybe there would be a surprise, but the conventional wisdom was Tyson by blowout. I'd like to see Monzon in there against Tyson do any better. Or against a cruiser version of same, though there never has been one.

Spinks was a heavyweight titleist, true, but he was in no way likely to prove himself the top heavy against prime Tyson. Spinks simply had beaten some other heavies (old Holmes, old and drugged Cooney, weak Tangstaad) and so was next in line, though now a "champion." Nobody considered him the real champion when Tyson held the crown in spite of the fact that he was "lineal champ."

"This, to me, anyway, indicates not so much a difference in chins as a disparity in effective defense." - A legit point.