Why was Michael Spinks known as the greatest light heavyweight ever? Was he really ?

lol at comparing tarver and tunney it is one of the most out of this world parallels ever drawn on this forum, and that is saying a lot. Hi there mute! ;)

lol at comparing tarver and tunney it is one of the most out of this world parallels ever drawn on this forum, and that is saying a lot.

Yeah i can see that, he didnt stay at 175 long enough to be ahead of foster or a few others like conn but he's still one of my favs. By the way, bert disses spinks cuz he lost to tyson and doesnt consider him top 100 of all time. Thats why i say bert proly has hate towards certain fighters.I do sometimes disagree with Mr. Sugar, but, I don't really steam over his choices.

I'm close to where you're at. I have him at 7th. Yeah i can see that, he didnt stay at 175 long enough to be ahead of foster or a few others like conn but he's still one of my favs. By the way, bert disses spinks cuz he lost to tyson and doesnt consider him top 100 of all time. Thats why i say bert proly has hate towards certain fighters.

Spinks is top 5 easily, he beat everyone at 175 and they pressured him to move up, he did and won the heavyweight strap.I'm close to where you're at. I have him at 7th.

Your words: "...he didn't accomplish much." The fight game is about accomplishments. There are many who think Emmanuel Augustus is one huge talent. But not even his most avid fans would dream of talking about his accomplishments. It may be true that Bowe can beat many of those in the Hall. But because he did not meet them, nor shall ever meet them, everyone's guess can only be as good as the next guy. As such, all guesses should be respected. I remember the three Bowe-Holy fights, though. I also recall how he dumped his belt after the first meeting and refused to face mandatory challenger Lennox Lewis. Lewis-Bowe has been consigned, it seems, to eternal guesswork, also. I do not know too many idiots, so I am afraid that nobody can tell me with certainty that Bert Sugar "has a bias." All I can say is that each person has his/her own biases. And that's as obvious a fact as any. Bert Sugar is a person, as far as I can tell, so I assume he should be entitled to his own bias. As far as I can recall, this thread is not about who beats who. It is about how good Michael Spinks was. My first post was in response to that question. Spinks is top 5 easily, he beat everyone at 175 and they pressured him to move up, he did and won the heavyweight strap.

Dude riddick bowe is fuckin awesome man, he wont make it cuz he didnt accomplish much. However, when it comes to head to head matchups, he's a nightmare for many former champs. I am gonna name the guys he would knock out badly. jack johnson floyd patterson joe walcott ezzard charles- hes way too small for big daddy ernie terrell jimmy ellis ken norton primo carnera jack sharkey schmeling baer jeffries leon Hell bowe would have beat 85% of the champs from the 20th century. If you are a hall of famer, it doesnt mean you would beat the other guy. Get my point. If i become a sports writer 20 years from now, am i gonna say the new cat in town would have killed b-hop or roy, hell no. I would be up thier cocks, cuz thats who i grew up watching. Any idiot can tell u bert sugar has a bias, its so fuckin obvious.Your words: "...he didn't accomplish much." The fight game is about accomplishments. There are many who think Emmanuel Augustus is one huge talent. But not even his most avid fans would dream of talking about his accomplishments. It may be true that Bowe can beat many of those in the Hall. But because he did not meet them, nor shall ever meet them, everyone's guess can only be as good as the next guy. As such, all guesses should be respected. I remember the three Bowe-Holy fights, though. I also recall how he dumped his belt after the first meeting and refused to face mandatory challenger Lennox Lewis. Lewis-Bowe has been consigned, it seems, to eternal guesswork, also. I do not know too many idiots, so I am afraid that nobody can tell me with certainty that Bert Sugar "has a bias." All I can say is that each person has his/her own biases. And that's as obvious a fact as any. Bert Sugar is a person, as far as I can tell, so I assume he should be entitled to his own bias. As far as I can recall, this thread is not about who beats who. It is about how good Michael Spinks was. My first post was in response to that question.

With all those names that are there that you think should not be there, don't you think you'll be doing the sport a favor if you propose the abolition of such Hall? If it serves no purpose other than be a mockery of greatness, then, it should be closed. As for watching films, a lot of people-- well known and highly respected boxing writers-- list old fighters higher than many of those recently retired. Are you saying then that they, just like me, have not watched films and are therefore ignorant of what they are talking about? If they are ignorant, then, thanks for putting me in good company. I have never said Greb had the superior technique. But technique is only one way to skin the cat. Greb got things done doing things his way. And getting things done is the bottom line. Dude riddick bowe is fuckin awesome man, he wont make it cuz he didnt accomplish much. However, when it comes to head to head matchups, he's a nightmare for many former champs. I am gonna name the guys he would knock out badly. jack johnson floyd patterson joe walcott ezzard charles- hes way too small for big daddy ernie terrell jimmy ellis ken norton primo carnera jack sharkey schmeling baer jeffries leon Hell bowe would have beat 85% of the champs from the 20th century. If you are a hall of famer, it doesnt mean you would beat the other guy. Get my point. If i become a sports writer 20 years from now, am i gonna say the new cat in town would have killed b-hop or roy, hell no. I would be up thier cocks, cuz thats who i grew up watching. Any idiot can tell u bert sugar has a bias, its so fuckin obvious.

Its harder to make hall of fame nowdays, no doubt about it. Tony tucker and riddick bowe will not make the hall of fame, if they boxed in the 20's, no doubt they would be in. Dude you have to watch footage and see the difference in techniques, if you can't then i cant help you anymore. Guys like carnera, walcott, jack johnson, sharkey, baer would have all gotten thier asses kicked by riddick bowe, i could guarantee it. Norton is in the hall of fame, bowe would have knocked him out in round 2 or 3. Jones was faster than greb, he had the better footwork and head movement. Greb was a guy with power, his technique isnt anything to brag about. There is footage of him training, then watch footage of roy training. Big difference.With all those names that are there that you think should not be there, don't you think you'll be doing the sport a favor if you propose the abolition of such Hall? If it serves no purpose other than be a mockery of greatness, then, it should be closed. As for watching films, a lot of people-- well known and highly respected boxing writers-- list old fighters higher than many of those recently retired. Are you saying then that they, just like me, have not watched films and are therefore ignorant of what they are talking about? If they are ignorant, then, thanks for putting me in good company. I have never said Greb had the superior technique. But technique is only one way to skin the cat. Greb got things done doing things his way. And getting things done is the bottom line. As for it being harder to make the Hall today, let us not forget that both Halls of Fame (Canastota and Los Angeles) are rather recent inventions. THe one in Canastota, which is older, traces its roots to only 24 years ago. Old-timers in the Hall did not get in there centuries ago, although some of them have been inducted for feats accomplished in the remote past. The current incarnation of the International Boxing Hall of Fame can be best pegged as having its international character only back to 1989, although it honors the likes of Greb and even earlier greats.

They have totally different styles. Jones was "sweet", Greb "The Human Windmill". Greb did what he did best and it worked. It worked well. What Roy did was what Roy was good at. And for a while-- a long, long while-- it worked. As for making sweeping statements such as today's fighters are better than those of the past, I am not the type who makes grand assertions such as that. Suffice it for me to ask these: are all-time greats not really "all time" because they were only good for their own time? If that is so, what's the point of a Hall of FAme when the greats of the past cannot even compete with average fighters of today? Shouldn't we therefore limit the Hall to people of the current crop? What's the point of a Joe Louis and a Marciano if the game has so evolved that what they used to do spectacularly cannot compare anymore to what ordinary fighters do today? Its harder to make hall of fame nowdays, no doubt about it. Tony tucker and riddick bowe will not make the hall of fame, if they boxed in the 20's, no doubt they would be in. Dude you have to watch footage and see the difference in techniques, if you can't then i cant help you anymore. Guys like carnera, walcott, jack johnson, sharkey, baer would have all gotten thier asses kicked by riddick bowe, i could guarantee it. Norton is in the hall of fame, bowe would have knocked him out in round 2 or 3. Jones was faster than greb, he had the better footwork and head movement. Greb was a guy with power, his technique isnt anything to brag about. There is footage of him training, then watch footage of roy training. Big difference.

The fighters are much more talented these days than compared to the 20's, its not even a comparison.The game has evolved greatly since those days. Have you even seen greb in sparring and witnessed his shitty footwork and technique before u think to compare him with roy. Or do you just go on sites and look up people that he beat in an era where promoters wouldnt let black people hold the world titles.They have totally different styles. Jones was "sweet", Greb "The Human Windmill". Greb did what he did best and it worked. It worked well. What Roy did was what Roy was good at. And for a while-- a long, long while-- it worked. As for making sweeping statements such as today's fighters are better than those of the past, I am not the type who makes grand assertions such as that. Suffice it for me to ask these: are all-time greats not really "all time" because they were only good for their own time? If that is so, what's the point of a Hall of FAme when the greats of the past cannot even compete with average fighters of today? Shouldn't we therefore limit the Hall to people of the current crop? What's the point of a Joe Louis and a Marciano if the game has so evolved that what they used to do spectacularly cannot compare anymore to what ordinary fighters do today?

The fighters are much more talented these days than compared to the 20's, its not even a comparison.The game has evolved greatly since those days. Have you even seen greb in sparring and witnessed his shitty footwork and technique before u think to compare him with roy. Or do you just go on sites and look up people that he beat in an era where promoters wouldnt let black people hold the world titles.

If you count roy losing out of his prime, why dont i count the 20+ losses many of the old greats had out of thier prime. Roy has beat b-hop, toney, mccallum, hill, griffen, gonzalez, woods, tarver, johnson, harding and several other fighters. The old guys padded thier records on guys with losing records, roy didnt. When you talk about boxing, longevity matters. Roy was invincable till he was 35 years old. Many of those old guys start losing to complete nobodies when they reach 30.Between 1925 to 26 (in his last two years of fighting), Greb won over the likes of Mickey Walker, Slapsie Maxie and Tommy Burns, and lost to Tiger Flowers and Gene Tunney. His eyesight was failing in his remaining good eye. A mere 7 months before calling it a career, Greb fought Milkey Walker in what many consider as among his best fights. He won. All those are in the Hall of Fame. Also in that period, Greb-- the last two years of his career-- won 32 and lost only three (twice to Flowers and his last meeting with Tunney). In none of those loses was he ever stopped. Greb left the fight game at age 32, after having fought 299 times. He fought Tunney, WAlker and Flowers when he was 31 and 32 years old. He fought Slapsie Maxie at age 30. He met Burns in a Heavyweight fight twice at the age of 31 and won both. Burns later held the record for the most number of title Heavyeweight defenses by KO. Their meetings however were non-title tiffs.

Nobody is proposing homecide much less murder. To you, losing to Tunney three times obviously is equal to losing to a Tarver twice. I'm sorry but I cannot see the parity. Funny that I cannot, hard as I try, see Tarver as a Tunney. I may be the only one who cannotg see a Tunney in Tarver. I cannot also see how it is that Greb not having been taken out by Tunney in the fashion that Roy was by Tarver makes the two comparable. Funny too is I cannot at the moment see why a victory over Clinton Woods can be taken as the same as any one of those victories by Greb over Tommy Loughran, for example. As far as understanding concepts, I confess that I cannot comprehend why lists of those people are biased while your obvious loyalty to Roy must not be see as such. That's a concept that truly speeds by me. If you count roy losing out of his prime, why dont i count the 20+ losses many of the old greats had out of thier prime. Roy has beat b-hop, toney, mccallum, hill, griffen, gonzalez, woods, tarver, johnson, harding and several other fighters. The old guys padded thier records on guys with losing records, roy didnt. When you talk about boxing, longevity matters. Roy was invincable till he was 35 years old. Many of those old guys start losing to complete nobodies when they reach 30.

Yeah when roy is out of his prime and losses the rematches to tarver its a bad thing, but when greb losses to tunney 3 times its okay lol. So what if clinton woods lost two other times, the guys in the old days lost 20 times and fought to many draws. Roy had everything except knockout power, u name it. Footwork, head movement, speed, combos. He was fighter of the decade, answer that buddy. How many of ur favourite light heavyweights got that honour. I dont care what those guys say, they favour the old guys.Its not a hard concept to understand. If we see a guy 30 years from now completely domiante, are we gonna say he would kill floyd mayweather, no cuz he have a bias towards him.Nobody is proposing homecide much less murder. To you, losing to Tunney three times obviously is equal to losing to a Tarver twice. I'm sorry but I cannot see the parity. Funny that I cannot, hard as I try, see Tarver as a Tunney. I may be the only one who cannot see a Tunney in Tarver. I cannot also see how it is that Greb not having been taken out by Tunney in the fashion that Roy was by Tarver makes the two comparable. Funny too is I cannot at the moment see why a victory over Clinton Woods can be taken as the same as any one of those victories by Greb over Tommy Loughran, for example. As far as understanding concepts, I confess that I cannot comprehend why lists of those people are biased while your obvious loyalty to Roy must not be see as such. That's a concept that truly speeds by me. Another concept that I fail to understand is when Jones loses he is declared mournfully as past his prime, but when Greb wins over a Hall of FAmer twice (Tommy Burns) while fighting only with one good eye and near to losing the sight of the other, it is not anything outstanding.

It means something, being fighter of the decade. That's why he's in my list. He had loads of talent, no one is saying he did not. Yes at the lower weight he beat Toney and Hop, and that speaks volumes. But Greb also beat many Middleweight Hall of Famers. Besides, the list is about LightHeavies. As for Levinsky being in the Hall and why, the question is best addressed to those who has him there. Last I heard, there has not been too much protest over it. Not as loud as a number of others. If you say Hill shall be in the Hall, okay, I'm waiting. As for having beaten Tarver, have we forgotten what Tarver did to him twice? And he beat Woods? Two others managed the same feat and Clinton had been beaten by someone named David Starrie in England before meeting Roy. I have Roy at 11th on my list. That has displeased you. It may even displease you more if you learn that Mike Casey has Roy at 16th in his top 20 All-Time LightHeavy greats. The International Boxing Research Organization also does not have Roy at the top on its list. It has ARchie Moore. Jim Amato picks Ezzard Charles. Strangely, Curtis Narimatsu thinks it's Floyd Patterson. Yeah when roy is out of his prime and losses the rematches to tarver its a bad thing, but when greb losses to tunney 3 times its okay lol. So what if clinton woods lost two other times, the guys in the old days lost 20 times and fought to many draws. Roy had everything except knockout power, u name it. Footwork, head movement, speed, combos. He was fighter of the decade, answer that buddy. How many of ur favourite light heavyweights got that honour. I dont care what those guys say, they favour the old guys.Its not a hard concept to understand. If we see a guy 30 years from now completely domiante, are we gonna say he would kill floyd mayweather, no cuz he have a bias towards him.

Would levinsky be a hall of famer if he fought today? The guy lost like 54 fuckin times. Virgil Hill will make the hall of fame, just watch. He also beat guys like tarver and woods, beleive it or not they are better than many of those old guys. Roy was a special fighter with loads of talent. The fact that he was fighter of the decade should tell u something, shouldnt it? At 160 and 168 roy has beat future fall of famers like b-hop and toney. He dominated from 93-2003, how long did greb actually dominate.It means something, being fighter of the decade. That's why he's in my list. He had loads of talent, no one is saying he did not. Yes at the lower weight he beat Toney and Hop, and that speaks volumes. But Greb also beat many Middleweight Hall of Famers. Besides, the list is about LightHeavies. As for Levinsky being in the Hall and why, the question is best addressed to those who has him there. Last I heard, there has not been too much protest over it. Not as loud as a number of others. If you say Hill shall be in the Hall, okay, I'm waiting. As for having beaten Tarver, have we forgotten what Tarver did to him twice? And he beat Woods? Two others managed the same feat and Clinton had been beaten by someone named David Starrie in England before meeting Roy. I have Roy at 11th on my list. That has displeased you. It may even displease you more if you learn that Mike Casey has Roy at 16th in his top 20 All-Time LightHeavy greats. The International Boxing Research Organization also does not have Roy at the top on its list. It has ARchie Moore. Jim Amato picks Ezzard Charles. Strangely, Curtis Narimatsu thinks it's Floyd Patterson.

As a LightHeavy Roy has victories over Montell Griffin, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill and Otis Grant. These were the only former champions on his LightHeavy resume and only Mike McCallum is in the Hall of Fame. I don't know if you think that Grant, Hill and Griffin shall be. Greb won over the great Gene Tunney in their first meeting, held Tunney to a draw once, and lost 4 times, one of them controversially (ringside reporters saw the fight differently and argued over the official results.) He has multiple victories over Hall of Famers such as Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, Jack Dillon and Maxie Rosenbloom. That's as a LightHeavyweight. At middleweight he victimized even more Hall of Famers, and beat Hall of Famer Tommy Burns twice at Heavyweight (non title fights). Burns was not a John Ruiz: for a while he held the record for the most number of successful heavyweight title defenses via KO. Greb fought a good number of his fightgs with one good eye. Would levinsky be a hall of famer if he fought today? The guy lost like 54 fuckin times. Virgil Hill will make the hall of fame, just watch. He also beat guys like tarver and woods, beleive it or not they are better than many of those old guys. Roy was a special fighter with loads of talent. The fact that he was fighter of the decade should tell u something, shouldnt it? At 160 and 168 roy has beat future hall of famers like b-hop and toney. He dominated from 93-2003, how long did greb actually dominate.

Yeah guys like burt sugar rank old guys ahead cuz they grew up watching those guys, they have a bias. For god sakes he ranks pernell 48 of all time, when an intelligent, unbiased person would rank pernell top 30 at minimum. Roy was fighter of the decade, and he was #1 pound for pound for 5 years, how many guys from your list can brag about that, lol not too many right. As a LightHeavy Roy has victories over Montell Griffin, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill and Otis Grant. These were the only former champions on his LightHeavy resume and only Mike McCallum is in the Hall of Fame. I don't know if you think that Grant, Hill and Griffin shall be. Greb won over the great Gene Tunney in their first meeting, held Tunney to a draw once, and lost 4 times, one of them controversially (ringside reporters saw the fight differently and argued over the official results.) He has multiple victories over Hall of Famers such as Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, Jack Dillon and Maxie Rosenbloom. That's as a LightHeavyweight. At middleweight he victimized even more Hall of Famers, and beat Hall of Famer Tommy Burns twice at Heavyweight (non title fights). Burns was not a John Ruiz: for a while he held the record for the most number of successful heavyweight title defenses via KO. Greb fought a good number of his fightgs with one good eye. As for Bert Sugar, I think you have to also refer to the likes of Mike Casey who puts JOnes Jr. at 16th of his list, just ahead of Rosenbloom, John Henry Lewis, Levinsky and Joey Maxim in his top 20 All-Time LightHeavyweights. You may also note that the International Boxing Research Organization does not rank Jones at the top of its list. Archie Moore is its best. Jim Amato thinks it's Ezzard Charles, while Barry Deskin thinks its Sam Langford. Curtis Narimatsu thinks its Floyd Patterson.

I'm not the only one who puts Roy lower than Greb. There are many highly respected boxing writers who rank Carpentier, Jack Delaney, Kid McCoy and Tommy Gibbons higher than Jones. And they don't even have to cuss to prove their point. Yeah guys like burt sugar rank old guys ahead cuz they grew up watching those guys, they have a bias. For god sakes he ranks pernell 48 of all time, when an intelligent, unbiased person would rank pernell top 30 at minimum. Roy was fighter of the decade, and he was #1 pound for pound for 5 years, how many guys from your list can brag about that, lol not too many right.