Michael Spinks is better than conn and foster

You guys should hear some of bob foester's interviews, the dude is so bitter. Either way, i like roy but spinks would have given him problems cuz futch trained him in the same way as he trained ken norton. The only difference, spinks has more skill. He is meant to beat boxer-punchers and slick boxers, his style of fighting would piss roy off.

I can't open it on this computer; but I presume that's the Cooney fight. If so, not a good example seeing as how Cooney was essential an inactive alcoholic by the time Spinks got him in the ring. He wasn't the 2nd best heavyweight from Larry Holmes at this point. In fact, the IBF had just stripped Spinks for making the Cooney fight and avoidiing their number 1 contender, Tony Tucker, which would have led to a showdown with Tyson by 1987, instead of 1988. Butch Lewis and Spnks made "The War at the Shore" because all of those white people who believed in Cooney would by the PPV and it would make Spinks and Lewis a buttload of money, even though Cooney hadn't looked anyting close to dedicated to the sport sense Larry Holmes beat him up back in 1982. Cooney was practically inactive by the time Spinks took the fight and the only reason he had a chance to win was because of his immense size advangate over the 208 Lb man and his left hook. Not a good example, though Michael's performance that night was impressive. Cooney was rusty, clumsey, and had not defense of which to speak. well cooney was coming off 3 wins and its still a good win to have on ur resume. More impressive than foreman's win over cooney for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLHHqW4DiU Now this is how you get inside a big man, spinks destroyed the 2nd best heavyweight from larry holmes's era. By the way, michael has an awesome style of fighting, i love it! I can't open it on this computer; but I presume that's the Cooney fight. If so, not a good example seeing as how Cooney was essential an inactive alcoholic by the time Spinks got him in the ring. He wasn't the 2nd best heavyweight from Larry Holmes at this point. In fact, the IBF had just stripped Spinks for making the Cooney fight and avoidiing their number 1 contender, Tony Tucker, which would have led to a showdown with Tyson by 1987, instead of 1988. Butch Lewis and Spnks made "The War at the Shore" because all of those white people who believed in Cooney would by the PPV and it would make Spinks and Lewis a buttload of money, even though Cooney hadn't looked anyting close to dedicated to the sport sense Larry Holmes beat him up back in 1982. Cooney was practically inactive by the time Spinks took the fight and the only reason he had a chance to win was because of his immense size advangate over the 208 Lb man and his left hook. Not a good example, though Michael's performance that night was impressive. Cooney was rusty, clumsey, and had not defense of which to speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLHHqW4DiU Now this is how you get inside a big man, spinks destroyed the 2nd best heavyweight from larry holmes's era. By the way, michael has an awesome style of fighting, i love it!

if you ask me ...and you are nobody beats slapsy maxie at light heavyweight ... the dude was the john ruiz of his day hahaha this is a joke obviously ...but the guy was awesome for his style Rosenbloom was a tough old shit. I'd have him in the Top 10 LHW, no joke.

if you ask me ...and you are nobody beats slapsy maxie at light heavyweight ... the dude was the john ruiz of his day hahaha this is a joke obviously ...but the guy was awesome for his style

^ I completely disagree, this is about who are the best at 175, not who were the best pound for pound fighters that occasionally fought at 175. Spinks beat lopez, sunderland and marvin johnson, then he got a title shot against mustafa and won, after that he defended his belt 10 times and then went up to heavyweight and won the linear belt. Conn and foster dont touch that type of legacy, neither do guys like john henry lewis, battling levinkys or victor galindez.

Billy Conn is considered a great Light-Heavyweight not because of his accomplishments at 175; but because he weighed around 175 and still beat the best and damn near beat THEE Best, Joe Louis, as he was leading when he got cocky and traded with Louis and got stopped. As a man who rarely weighed more than 171, he outboxed and beat suche ranked heavies as Lee Savold and Bob Pastor. And yes, he did beat Gus Lesnevich and Melio Bettina at Light-Heavy and as what would be considered a "Super-Middleweight by today's standards, he bested some great Middleweights in Teddy Yarosz, Young Corbett III, Solly Krieger, Fred Apostoli, and Tony Zale. The point is Conn defeated quality opposistion from middleweight all the way up to heavyweight based on his speed and incredible skill and who knows how far he might have gone if not for WWII. He weighed just a little over 168 Lbs when he fought Louis, unofficially. He was great and nothing to sneeze at. Maybe Spinks is better, maybe not; but it's close either way.

come on ...lets see those rankings ... conn went toe to toe with joe louis ..surely spinks woulda ko'd him huh?

I;ve only seen Spinks 3 times. Against Holmes. And when he was handed his ass by Mike Tyson. I havent got a clue how good Spinks is compared to other light heavyweights. Would RJJ have beaten him do u think? Or what about James Toney?

heres what we do ..since you guys are so sure that foster and conn are shit and would lose to spinks ...yes you fuckers are saying there shit so lets not get coy all of the sudden ...im callin your bluff find the rankings of all the title fights conn and foster and spinks had ...take down the rankings of there opp ... then lay it out for us to see ... dude all the people conn fought were welterweights and middleweights, he beat 2 legitimate light heavyweights, thats nothing to brag about.

heres what we do ..since you guys are so sure that foster and conn are shit and would lose to spinks ...yes you fuckers are saying there shit so lets not get coy all of the sudden ...im callin your bluff find the rankings of all the title fights conn and foster and spinks had ...take down the rankings of there opp ... then lay it out for us to see ...

Roy Jones and Spinks easily accomplished enough to be in the top 10, the only people that doubt this are haters. Roy Jones even beat better people at light heavyweight than foster did. Most of billy conn's accomplishments are at middleweight, at 175 he beat bettina and gus lisnivich, thats it.

Bob Foster's main wins at 175 were vicente rondon and dick tiger, spinks beat eddie mustafa, marvin johnson and dwight muhammad qawi.

Spinks would coldcock Conn and Foster quick. Wrong. It took Joe Louis 13 rounds and Conn trading freely with him to "coldcock" him; and Louis was one of the hardest puncheing heavyweights ever...and outweighed Billy by close to 30 Lbs. W-R-O-N-G ...and What Light-Heavyweight ever "coldcocked" Foster? WRONG.

Spinks would coldcock Conn and Foster quick.

this dude talks about light heavyweight and automatically brings up the holmes fight ... wtf? lets talk about the light heavyweights the 3 fighters beat before we get into the heavyweights they beat huh?

I have no problem if people think tunney, archie and ezzard are better. However conn and foster dont have a better resume than spinks does.

Whenever I see ATG LightHeavyweight lists, i usually see billy conn and bob foster mentioned in the same breath as michael spinks. I completely disagree, spinks is better than both of them. I dont care if you think holmes was robbed in thier fights, its not going to change the results that spinks got the W. Bob Foster is just a bitter old man cuz spinks dominated a better light heavyweight era and he was able to get the linear heavyweight title, while bob had many chances and failed. There is no shame in losing frazier and ali, but he lost to ernie terrell and zara folley, nuff said. I'm not saying you're wrong 'cause Spinks was damn good. He was just too awkward for my taste. However, Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell were damn good fighters and were heavyweights as opposed to Foster....so, that's nothing to sneeze at and in no way effects his Light Heavyweigth Legacy. Conn, on the other hand, never had an amateur fight and beat the best middles, light-heavies, and several damn good heavyweights, so I definetly think he's up there. Whether or not he was better than Spinks is up for interpretation. Spinks, IMO, fougth and beat some of the best Light-Heavies who have ever lived....tough era he fought and won in, (Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Dwigh Muhammad Qawi, Matthew Saad Muhammad, etc.) so an arguement can be made for him, though I still think Charles, Tunney, Moore, and Conn are better.