JUYJUY
08-06-2005, 04:34 PM
at 168 in 1989?
|
View Full Version : Michael Spinks Vs Michael Nunn JUYJUY 08-06-2005, 04:34 PM at 168 in 1989? Parodius 08-06-2005, 04:46 PM Spinks was an heavyweight in 1989, Nunn was a middleweight in 1989. Nunn was not a good light heavyweight, he became a light heavyweight when he was washed up. Spinks was one of the best Light Heavyweights. They could've never had this fight in 1989. The light heavyweight Spinks would've destroyed the light heavyweight Nunn. JUYJUY 08-06-2005, 04:50 PM Spinks was a natural Light-Heavy and Nunn was a natual Middle, Spinks would of had to lose around seven lbs and Nunn would of had to gain around eight lbs. wmute 08-06-2005, 06:07 PM Spinks was a natural Light-Heavy and Nunn was a natual Middle, Spinks would of had to lose around seven lbs and Nunn would of had to gain around eight lbs. the last time spinks fought at 175 was in 85, so in 89, he would have serious trouble making 168 in 89 jabsRstiff 08-08-2005, 07:35 AM WORST FANTASY MATCHUP EVER ! Spinks.....at 168 ? Spinks was a large Lt.Heavyweight...& a GREAT one at that. He'd have been wasted by dropping down to 168. An absurd, nonsensical matchup. From the forum's most absurd & nonsensical poster. JUYJUY 08-08-2005, 07:37 AM From the forum's most absurd & nonsensical poster. Your just a Brit-hater ;) jabsRstiff 08-08-2005, 08:06 AM Your just a Brit-hater ;) I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you, invalid. JUYJUY 08-08-2005, 08:08 AM This one's a little better, click here: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42808 Kid_Diamond 08-08-2005, 10:16 AM ..d..r..a..w.. JUYJUY 08-08-2005, 10:20 AM Somebody remove jabsRstiff from this forum, he's scum of the earth and his behaviour and disrespectfulness to boxers just should not be tolerated any longer. |