Michael Spinks is better than conn and foster

**K-DOGG** · 01-22-2007, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by brownpimp88

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.

**brownpimp88** · 01-22-2007, 01:03 PM

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.

**joeytrimble** · 01-22-2007, 01:08 PM

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?

**Dynamite76** · 01-22-2007, 01:09 PM

Spinks would cold**** Conn and Foster quick.

**K-DOGG** · 01-22-2007, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Dynamite76

Spinks would cold**** Conn and Foster quick.

Wrong. It took Joe Louis 13 rounds and Conn trading freely with him to "cold****" 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 "cold****ed" Foster?

WRONG.

**brownpimp88** · 01-22-2007, 01:28 PM

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

**brownpimp88** · 01-22-2007, 02:04 PM

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.

**joeytrimble** · 01-22-2007, 02:29 PM

heres what we do ..since you guys are so sure that foster and conn are **** and would lose to spinks ...yes you ****ers are saying there **** 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 ...

**brownpimp88** · 01-22-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by joeytrimble

heres what we do ..since you guys are so sure that foster and conn are **** and would lose to spinks ...yes you ****ers are saying there **** 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.

Michael Spinks is better than conn and foster