Micheal Spinks/Tunney: Heavyweight accolades

[billeau2]

Good answers from all the above. So here is another question.......if Spinks had retired after the Cooney win, would his status be elevated? I believe he was the best lightheavy of his era as was Tunney, and both beat men who are regarded very highly on most ATG heavyweight lists. I also believe arguments can be made both fought in the greatest era of lightheavyweights.

A lot to unpack but it seems feasible. Regarding Spinks vis a vis Cooney. I ask myself this question. In another timeline where the Tyson fight does not happen, and someone made a thread "Spinks could he have challenged Tyson?" I do think many of us would think Spinks could win that fight. In that time line I would be conflicted. I saw so many Tyson casualties, but I might still pick Spinks.

Both guys are top of the line, no question about it and both fought in very competitive eras. I have to think about it more as far as determining the most competitive.

As Slugfester suggested, there are a lot of great light heavies. I tend to think very highly of Tunney because he imo was watershed: He had skill sets from pre and post classical boxing. If you look at Tunney he is aware of sword's length distance (3 feet) but also throws all punches. Very hard to duplicate that fiat.

[joseph5620]

Lol. The "Color Line argument" is not an "Elite" argument, and is therefore "Overrated".

But Gene Tunney fought and beat better fighters than Michael did. Is there an overused phrase for that?

It's only overrated to those that approve of it. You're trying to trivialize the color line. That doesn't work with me.


Harry Greb fought everyone regardless of race. What was Tunney's excuse?

The only thing here that's overrated is Gene Tunney. You're rating him based on only beating white fighters. Whether he beat better fighters than Spinks is subjective. Larry Holmes would have beaten anyone on Tunney's resume even at 36.

If Tunney fought prime Mike Tyson he would have been smashed too.

[JAB5239]

Uh, he is neglected because he was not a great heavyweight. He was a great light heavyweight.

Ive only responded to this because the rest in my opinion is conjecture. But i do think what you said here is fair. That said, what makes Tunney a great heavyweight?

[JAB5239]

- - Both are ranked highly at LH by IBRO. For some reason for Heavy they rate Tunney in the lower teens in spite of only two defenses that included the blown KO by the ref of the 2nd Dempsey fight.

Charles is ranked #1 at LH, made 9 or so defenses at Heavy and strangely below Tunney.

Spinks was stripped of his IBF single Tubby Lar belt and only had his Ring belt where he made 4 Defenses, whooping Cooney easy compared to Lar struggles with Cooney.

Spinks deserves to be in, so if the other LHs are are going to be ranked at Heavy, I'd have Ez/Spinks/Tunney in that order.

That is what I noticed and why I made the thread. Both beat highly rated champions for the heavyweight title, yet one doesn't get the same praise. Just seemed odd to me.

[JAB5239]

It's only overrated to those that approve of it. You're trying to trivialize the color line. That doesn't work with me.


Harry Greb fought everyone regardless of race. What was Tunney's excuse?

The only thing here that's overrated is Gene Tunney. You're rating him based on only beating white fighters. Whether he beat better fighters than Spinks is subjective. Larry Holmes would have beaten anyone on Tunney's resume even at 36.

If Tunney fought prime Mike Tyson he would have been smashed too.

He did draw the color line, so that in my opinion is a strike against him. But his resume even so shows his greatness at lightheavy. As far as heavyweight goes, neither he nor Spinks belong in a conversation of ATG heavies in my opinion. That Tunney is so often included baffles me.

[joseph5620]

He did draw the color line, so that in my opinion is a strike against him. But his resume even so shows his greatness at lightheavy. As far as heavyweight goes, neither he nor Spinks belong in a conversation of ATG heavies in my opinion. That Tunney is so often included baffles me.

I agree. Neither are an ATG in the heavyweight division.

[kara]

I agree. Neither are an ATG in the heavyweight division.

I agree, too.

[Slugfester]

Michael spinks is very underated considering who he beat the circumstances around them. He ranks higher than Tyson imo for sure.

Now I've heard it all.

[Slugfester]

Ive only responded to this because the rest in my opinion is conjecture. But i do think what you said here is fair. That said, what makes Tunney a great heavyweight?

What about my post yesterday counting every single rabbit punch Fullmer landed on Robinson That wasn't conjecture. Hell, it is just your conjecture that says Spinks is underrated and ignored in the first place. But I appreciate your contribution. Nor is it speculation that Spinks drops his jab to his waist or lower on the return every time, unless it is a double jab. Yes, a lot of speculation, but also more fact than you like to admit.

The list was in this thread because one of our Willies said something about list makers.

[JAB5239]

What about my post yesterday counting every single rabbit punch Fullmer landed on Robinson That wasn't conjecture. Hell, it is just your conjecture that says Spinks is underrated and ignored in the first place. But I appreciate your contribution. Nor is it speculation that Spinks drops his jab to his waist or lower on the return every time, unless it is a double jab. Yes, a lot of speculation, but also more fact than you like to admit.

The list was in this thread because one of our Willies said something about list makers.

But the thread isn't about Spinks mechanics nor skill set, and its not conjecture that Spinks is not mentioned amongst all time great heavyweights while in many cases Tunney is. That is a fact my friend. I'm just asking the board for their opinions why. Maybe it's nostalgia because Tunney beat the iconic Dempsey. Maybe it is because Spinks was starched by Tyson, I don't know. But there wins at heavyweight are very comparable in my opinion.

As far as the Robinson-Fulmer post, I must have missed that. I've been on vacation and have had very little time to post.