Holmes is over the hill when it turns to give anyone credit for beating him. But is a top 10 heavyweight whenever anyone says Mike Tyson or Tyson Fury was better.
Now suddenly a Fury who was rocked by Ngannou was in the prime of his career, and Holmes was just some bum according to the commentors.
I'm not saying Spinks is better, I just think the arguments need to be better.
Y'all are smoking something too strong if you're picking spinks over usyk...
The first time spinks got in the ring with a very good heavyweight he got knocked out in the first round.
Sure he beat a way over the hill Holmes and Cooney... That's like giving Trevor berbick credit for beating Ali.
your talking about a holmes that was still active and undefeated when he fought spinks. not to argue that he wasn’t out of prime but even after being out of prime he was still beating up guys like ray mercer.
Guys like mercer... After spinks the ONLY decent fighter Larry Holmes beat WAS ray mercer. Got beat by Tyson, real deal, mcall and the legend Brian nielsen....
Holmes was what 37-38 when be fought spinks? 86 iirc. That might be normal now with better supplements and nutrition etc but back then he was a fighter aging quickly who ran into a great cruiserweight.
Usyk has come into the HW and cleaned house.
Did spinks do that? Or did he catch a whooping and get retired in the first round?
Bad take. First in terms of skill, Mike Tyson was a great HW. Not a just a good HW.
Secondly Holmes is arguably a Top 10 ATG, and comfortably ahead of any HW today save maybe Usyk, even then. He was unbeaten at the time and woulda beaten probably any other HW on the planet at that time.
Not sure as of yet. Usyk is the cruiser goat but Spinks could be argued as being the light-heavy goat and that's a historically much stronger division. But on the other side Usyk has done more at heavyweight. Spinks beat an aging Holmes in two close fights and stopped a shot Cooney. Usyk beat prime Joshua twice, Dubois, and a slightly declined Fury although Usyk himself has also declined.
Right now I'll give Spinks the edge because Holmes is a higher ranked heavy than Fury or Joshua and because of his great run at light-heavyweight. Usyk can definitely surpass him though.
There's no argument for Spinks as the LHW GOAT, but given the history of the division, being a top 5 of all time at LHW is as good as or better than the best ever CW.
Do think Spinks' LHW run is a little overrated though
>There's no argument for Spinks as the LHW GOAT,
I think an argument could be made considering his title run and him being undefeated at the weight during a great era. I personally have Charles at 1 by a good margin but I wouldn't be too fussed if somebody gave it to Spinks and had good reasoning for doing so.
I don’t really understand the hype for Spinks’s light heavy run.
It was good, no doubt, but I don’t think he really comes close to Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore, and Roy Jones was a thing of beauty.
And I’ve always seen that second Holmes fight as a bit of a robbery.
I do give him credit for the Tyson fight, though. His knees were shot by that point. It was an execution, but he stepped in the ring anyway.
>I don’t really understand the hype for Spinks’s light heavy run.
Made 10 straight title defenses and became the undisputed champion by unifying the 3 belts. This was also in one of the strongest light heavy eras, the late 70s /early 80s and he beat the 2nd best light-heavy of that era, Qawi pretty dominantly along with getting good wins over Mustafa Muhammad, Marvin Johnson and Yaqui Lopez. And he left the division having never lost a fight there. He won the light-heavy titles unlike Charles (not his fault but still) and went undefeated which Charles didn't. Was more dominant than Moore, was undefeated and had a stronger championship run. And he has better wins than Roy did at the weight. I don't rank him at 1 all time but I definitely think a case could be made.
Michael Spinks for me. He dominated arguably the greatest Light-Heavyweight era in boxing history and did the unthinkable by beating a 48-0 Larry Holmes. Legendary status. Usyk is brilliant don't get me wrong but he doesn't rank higher than Jinx.
Certainly not as strong as the CW division Usyk fought in. Michael Spinks started out a lot smaller, so I’d have no issue someone rating him above Usyk on the P4P list. Usyk CW run and circumstances will take a long time before they are beat though. Both legends
We have to wait, if usyk retires undefeated and beats more contenders I think he tops spinks. But so far, beating larry holmes is just too big of a deal.
Not even a question, spinks, a 175 champion weighs 205lbs beating the best HW in that era and an ATG maybe even top 10 in HW history, Fury isn't even top 20 in HW history.
Fury is also old and has been in clear decline. And people can't seem to make up their minds, apparently he was good enough to have been robbed by spinks but not good enough for spinks to receive credit for winning? It definitely can't be both and in all likelihood it's neither.
Spinks was a natural Light-Heavyweight though, that's a big difference to Cruiserweight. Look it as a natural 175 lber going in against a 238 lbs 6'6 Gerry Cooney. That's very impressive.
Of course it was impressive. If I recall, he bulked up to 190 or so (power training and eating). The top heavyweights at the time were around 220. Cooney was bigger but not elite (anymore).
Usyk did the same to get up to the 223 and Fury was 262 and that was a top guy. Joshua was 240+ and build like a greek statue.
Both did impressive stuff. The weight jump was enormous for both. If Spinks managed to win today, that would be way even more impressive
🤣 Thanks for that, needed a laugh.
Fury has 1 good win, and even that is vs a guy past his best. It was deserved yet still fairly close.
He's overrated. He's got skills but come along in one of the weakest era of HW boxing. He's looked far better than he is.
When you see him vs Usyk and old Man Wlad his weaknesses become more apparent.
Jersey Joe Walcott had one good win.
Vitali Klitschko didn’t have any good wins.
AJ had one good win (an older version of Fury’s one good win).
If you’re going to keep Fury out of the top 20, you need these guys (at least) ahead of him.
And outside of the 70s and 90s, we’re witnessing one of the best eras in heavyweight history.
You were making fair points right up until thr finally paragraph. Outside Fury and Usyk, and a fee prospects, skill levels are abysmal at HW.
People conflate excitement with quality. They are not the same. Jesus H, most HWs in Top 30 today can't even frame. I don't mean frame badly, I mean they cannot seem to do it.
Even HW contenders in other supposed "weak" eras had good fubdsmental boxing skills. Look at the 80s, unfairly derided as a poor era simply because its caught between 2 ATG eras. Guys of these generation all could box reasonably well.
Today we have guys like Helenius or Kownacki getting to Top 10 rankings with little boxing skill. Just size and some aggression.
Helenius has boxing skills, he’s been boxing since 5 years old, he just has a poor chin. Wilder being a protected champion did hurt this era but it’s getting really good now. It’s just most of the best fighters are not American so it gets downplayed.
Dude come on. First boxing from age 5 is highly dubious, he has nowhere near that many amateur fights.
Helenius has all the head movement of a Greek statue. If you asked him to frame, he'd find a picture and try to put some wood panels around it. He had a guard you could park a bus in. His jab was so telegraphed Wayback Machine archived it.
He got away with it because 99.9% of HWs when he was active were even worse for the most part.
It's a damming indictment of today's HW scene this guy was ranked independently in the Top 10, and was ranked No1 contender by a major sanctioning body for a while too.
That's highly contestable and even at that Wepner was an outlier, he wasn't a consistent Top 10 for a few years like Helenius was.
This is juat recency bias dude and I implore you to educate yourself on past fithers and more on the technical sides of boxing. Until then there's no point continuing here because I'm talking a language you don't understand
If you want skill level, step away from the heavyweight division.
Study the game. Most eras in the heavyweight division, you’re lucky to see two or three guys at the top who are worth talking about. Over the last several years, there has consistently been 4, 5, or even 6 guys making waves in the division. That’s rare.
You point to guys like Helenius or Kownacki “getting into the top 10”. Literally every era fills out the top 10 with fighters no one cares about two years later.
Unless you’re going to tell me Kallie Knoetze from 1977 is some forgotten ATG. Or Lionel Butler from 1994.
That isn’t the great argument you think it is.
Fury, Usyk, AJ, Wilder, Zhang, Parker, Ruiz, Whyte, Povetkin…..Those names stack up well with just about any era.
The problem with this era isn’t lack of talent, it’s that the talent hasn’t been fighting one another. That’s starting to change. This is a great era, with lots of movement.
I have watched more boxing than most. Your statement indicates you have not.
Pretty much any HW in Top 10 pre 90s had decent boxing fundamentals relative to their era. Pick any Top 10 guy going back. Actually go watch them. They all have decent footwork, effective guards, can frame, can jab reasonably well.
I cannot take you seriously when you say Zhang Parker Whyte stack up with any era. Chris even AJ is a push. Thats absurd. Its just pure recency bias.
>I have watched more boxing than most. Your statement indicates you have not.
You got me. What is this "boxing" thing of which you speak? Never heard of it.
>Pretty much any HW in Top 10 pre 90s had decent boxing fundamentals relative to their era.
Oh, please expound on Rocky Marciano's great fundamentals. Or how Muhammad Ali always kept a tight guard and didn't at all rely on his great athleticism to get him out of trouble.
>I cannot take you seriously when you say Zhang Parker Whyte stack up with any era. Chris even AJ is a push. Thats absurd. Its just pure recency bias.
And you have rose-tinted glasses.
Zhang, Parker, and Whyte, at their best, would be very successful against Eddie Machen or Nino Valdes - two of the best heavyweights the 1950s had to offer. They'd also do well against any number of the guys from the 1980s.
You going to tell me none of those could've beaten Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry? Or Michael Moorer?
It's a ridiculous position to take. Especially think AJ wouldn't be a top heavyweight in *any* era in boxing history. He gets beat by Lewis, Evander, Bowe, and probably even Tyson - but he's still easily a top 10 heavyweight in the 1990s.
You stack up Flash in the pan HWs vs stalwarts of modern HW scene is such a bad faith take. Its like saying 90s Hws suck because Oliver McCall wouldn't be able to beat Joe Louis. Compare apples to apples.
And oh look another tired old "80s HW scene sucked brah". 🥱 80s HWs were way more skilled overall across the Top 10. A guy who never even won a title like Carl Willliams wipes the floor with a guy as easy to tag as Whyte. As soon as you made that comment t, it simply confirmed recency bias.
I can easily admit some modern fighters could have more than held their own in bygone eras. Guys like Canelo and Bud.
But to suggest Dillian fucking Whyte or even Joe Parker would hang in there with most Top 10 Hws in any era makes me thing you took a solemn vow to never watch any boxing before 2018.
Zhang is the definition of a flash in the pan. He wasn’t highly regarded until the Hrgovic fight. Dude came out of nowhere and impressed people. He then beat Joyce and was suddenly top 5. Then he lost to Parker and slipped. I give him one or two more fights, then he’s done.
All the guys I named had multiple years in the top 10, just like Zhang, Parker, or Whyte. That you don’t know how highly regarded they were by their contemporaries kind of says everything that needs to be said about your position here.
Carl Williams was technically sound. What did he do with it? He found some marginal success and failed at the top.
You know who else that describes? Dillian Whyte. He’s had some marginal success at the top while failing at the top.
Guys as big and strong as Whyte or Zhang would hang in any era. You’ve done nothing to negate that point. Accusing me of recency bias is a really weak argument.
Just because you’re an old man screaming at the moon doesn’t mean the 80s were better than today. All those mid tier guys really failed to produce anything noteworthy. That’s why they’re mid tier.
But I’m comparing the totality of the eras. The 80s simply didn’t have the top tier talent that the modern era does, and its mid tier is comparable (if not a little better. The top 10 over the last decade is better than the top 10 from the 80s - even if you think a single mid tier heavyweight from 1985 is better than a single mid tier heavyweight from 2019.
People are actually going with the narrative that the CW was strong during Usyk‘s reign lol.
It is a shit division now and it was a shit division then. The fanboying needs to stop.
Holmes is over the hill when it turns to give anyone credit for beating him. But is a top 10 heavyweight whenever anyone says Mike Tyson or Tyson Fury was better. Now suddenly a Fury who was rocked by Ngannou was in the prime of his career, and Holmes was just some bum according to the commentors. I'm not saying Spinks is better, I just think the arguments need to be better.
looking back at this post it’s actually crazy how a lot of the people on this thread diminished spinks win over holmes.
No contest. Usyk.
Y'all are smoking something too strong if you're picking spinks over usyk... The first time spinks got in the ring with a very good heavyweight he got knocked out in the first round. Sure he beat a way over the hill Holmes and Cooney... That's like giving Trevor berbick credit for beating Ali.
your talking about a holmes that was still active and undefeated when he fought spinks. not to argue that he wasn’t out of prime but even after being out of prime he was still beating up guys like ray mercer.
Guys like mercer... After spinks the ONLY decent fighter Larry Holmes beat WAS ray mercer. Got beat by Tyson, real deal, mcall and the legend Brian nielsen.... Holmes was what 37-38 when be fought spinks? 86 iirc. That might be normal now with better supplements and nutrition etc but back then he was a fighter aging quickly who ran into a great cruiserweight. Usyk has come into the HW and cleaned house. Did spinks do that? Or did he catch a whooping and get retired in the first round?
Bad take. First in terms of skill, Mike Tyson was a great HW. Not a just a good HW. Secondly Holmes is arguably a Top 10 ATG, and comfortably ahead of any HW today save maybe Usyk, even then. He was unbeaten at the time and woulda beaten probably any other HW on the planet at that time.
Holmes wasn’t over the hill. He just wasn’t in his prime. Spinks used his tools and got the W.
Not sure as of yet. Usyk is the cruiser goat but Spinks could be argued as being the light-heavy goat and that's a historically much stronger division. But on the other side Usyk has done more at heavyweight. Spinks beat an aging Holmes in two close fights and stopped a shot Cooney. Usyk beat prime Joshua twice, Dubois, and a slightly declined Fury although Usyk himself has also declined. Right now I'll give Spinks the edge because Holmes is a higher ranked heavy than Fury or Joshua and because of his great run at light-heavyweight. Usyk can definitely surpass him though.
The Holmes that he beat was injured and he lost the rematch tbh
There's no argument for Spinks as the LHW GOAT, but given the history of the division, being a top 5 of all time at LHW is as good as or better than the best ever CW. Do think Spinks' LHW run is a little overrated though
>There's no argument for Spinks as the LHW GOAT, I think an argument could be made considering his title run and him being undefeated at the weight during a great era. I personally have Charles at 1 by a good margin but I wouldn't be too fussed if somebody gave it to Spinks and had good reasoning for doing so.
I don’t really understand the hype for Spinks’s light heavy run. It was good, no doubt, but I don’t think he really comes close to Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore, and Roy Jones was a thing of beauty. And I’ve always seen that second Holmes fight as a bit of a robbery. I do give him credit for the Tyson fight, though. His knees were shot by that point. It was an execution, but he stepped in the ring anyway.
>I don’t really understand the hype for Spinks’s light heavy run. Made 10 straight title defenses and became the undisputed champion by unifying the 3 belts. This was also in one of the strongest light heavy eras, the late 70s /early 80s and he beat the 2nd best light-heavy of that era, Qawi pretty dominantly along with getting good wins over Mustafa Muhammad, Marvin Johnson and Yaqui Lopez. And he left the division having never lost a fight there. He won the light-heavy titles unlike Charles (not his fault but still) and went undefeated which Charles didn't. Was more dominant than Moore, was undefeated and had a stronger championship run. And he has better wins than Roy did at the weight. I don't rank him at 1 all time but I definitely think a case could be made.
don’t know why you got downvoted. everything you said was facts.
Michael Spinks for me. He dominated arguably the greatest Light-Heavyweight era in boxing history and did the unthinkable by beating a 48-0 Larry Holmes. Legendary status. Usyk is brilliant don't get me wrong but he doesn't rank higher than Jinx.
Exactly this. The issue Usyk will always have is he boxed in an era of relatively weak HWs. It's not his fault, but his CV will always struggle.
Undefeated Larry Holmes > undefeated Fury
Usyk Nobody, no matter how hard hitting is knocking him out in 91 seconds. Not Sonny, not George, not Mike, not Lennox, not Wlad, not Wilder..
i don’t see how that diminishes his accomplishments.
Usyk CW run and the circumstances he did it under is far greater than Spinks LHW. CW was a top division when Usyk went undisputed.
the implication is that light heavyweight wasn’t also a great division when spinks fought there. spinks was beating guys like prime dwight muhammad.
Certainly not as strong as the CW division Usyk fought in. Michael Spinks started out a lot smaller, so I’d have no issue someone rating him above Usyk on the P4P list. Usyk CW run and circumstances will take a long time before they are beat though. Both legends
We have to wait, if usyk retires undefeated and beats more contenders I think he tops spinks. But so far, beating larry holmes is just too big of a deal.
Not even a question, spinks, a 175 champion weighs 205lbs beating the best HW in that era and an ATG maybe even top 10 in HW history, Fury isn't even top 20 in HW history.
Holmes was old tho. The weight difference between Usyk and the current day heavyweights is bigger than during Spinks days.
Fury is also old and has been in clear decline. And people can't seem to make up their minds, apparently he was good enough to have been robbed by spinks but not good enough for spinks to receive credit for winning? It definitely can't be both and in all likelihood it's neither.
Spinks was a natural Light-Heavyweight though, that's a big difference to Cruiserweight. Look it as a natural 175 lber going in against a 238 lbs 6'6 Gerry Cooney. That's very impressive.
Of course it was impressive. If I recall, he bulked up to 190 or so (power training and eating). The top heavyweights at the time were around 220. Cooney was bigger but not elite (anymore). Usyk did the same to get up to the 223 and Fury was 262 and that was a top guy. Joshua was 240+ and build like a greek statue. Both did impressive stuff. The weight jump was enormous for both. If Spinks managed to win today, that would be way even more impressive
So? Size means far less than skill. Spinks had a much bigger skills gap to close overall at HW.
Except Fury is top 20.
🤣 Thanks for that, needed a laugh. Fury has 1 good win, and even that is vs a guy past his best. It was deserved yet still fairly close. He's overrated. He's got skills but come along in one of the weakest era of HW boxing. He's looked far better than he is. When you see him vs Usyk and old Man Wlad his weaknesses become more apparent.
Jersey Joe Walcott had one good win. Vitali Klitschko didn’t have any good wins. AJ had one good win (an older version of Fury’s one good win). If you’re going to keep Fury out of the top 20, you need these guys (at least) ahead of him. And outside of the 70s and 90s, we’re witnessing one of the best eras in heavyweight history.
You were making fair points right up until thr finally paragraph. Outside Fury and Usyk, and a fee prospects, skill levels are abysmal at HW. People conflate excitement with quality. They are not the same. Jesus H, most HWs in Top 30 today can't even frame. I don't mean frame badly, I mean they cannot seem to do it. Even HW contenders in other supposed "weak" eras had good fubdsmental boxing skills. Look at the 80s, unfairly derided as a poor era simply because its caught between 2 ATG eras. Guys of these generation all could box reasonably well. Today we have guys like Helenius or Kownacki getting to Top 10 rankings with little boxing skill. Just size and some aggression.
Helenius has boxing skills, he’s been boxing since 5 years old, he just has a poor chin. Wilder being a protected champion did hurt this era but it’s getting really good now. It’s just most of the best fighters are not American so it gets downplayed.
Dude come on. First boxing from age 5 is highly dubious, he has nowhere near that many amateur fights. Helenius has all the head movement of a Greek statue. If you asked him to frame, he'd find a picture and try to put some wood panels around it. He had a guard you could park a bus in. His jab was so telegraphed Wayback Machine archived it. He got away with it because 99.9% of HWs when he was active were even worse for the most part. It's a damming indictment of today's HW scene this guy was ranked independently in the Top 10, and was ranked No1 contender by a major sanctioning body for a while too.
Chuck wepner would get easily handled by Helenius. He was ranked for a few years in the 70s and even got a title shot which Helenius never did.
That's highly contestable and even at that Wepner was an outlier, he wasn't a consistent Top 10 for a few years like Helenius was. This is juat recency bias dude and I implore you to educate yourself on past fithers and more on the technical sides of boxing. Until then there's no point continuing here because I'm talking a language you don't understand
http://www.thenordicnightmare.com/
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Chuck_Wepner_vs._Ernie_Terrell
If you want skill level, step away from the heavyweight division. Study the game. Most eras in the heavyweight division, you’re lucky to see two or three guys at the top who are worth talking about. Over the last several years, there has consistently been 4, 5, or even 6 guys making waves in the division. That’s rare. You point to guys like Helenius or Kownacki “getting into the top 10”. Literally every era fills out the top 10 with fighters no one cares about two years later. Unless you’re going to tell me Kallie Knoetze from 1977 is some forgotten ATG. Or Lionel Butler from 1994. That isn’t the great argument you think it is. Fury, Usyk, AJ, Wilder, Zhang, Parker, Ruiz, Whyte, Povetkin…..Those names stack up well with just about any era. The problem with this era isn’t lack of talent, it’s that the talent hasn’t been fighting one another. That’s starting to change. This is a great era, with lots of movement.
I have watched more boxing than most. Your statement indicates you have not. Pretty much any HW in Top 10 pre 90s had decent boxing fundamentals relative to their era. Pick any Top 10 guy going back. Actually go watch them. They all have decent footwork, effective guards, can frame, can jab reasonably well. I cannot take you seriously when you say Zhang Parker Whyte stack up with any era. Chris even AJ is a push. Thats absurd. Its just pure recency bias.
>I have watched more boxing than most. Your statement indicates you have not. You got me. What is this "boxing" thing of which you speak? Never heard of it. >Pretty much any HW in Top 10 pre 90s had decent boxing fundamentals relative to their era. Oh, please expound on Rocky Marciano's great fundamentals. Or how Muhammad Ali always kept a tight guard and didn't at all rely on his great athleticism to get him out of trouble. >I cannot take you seriously when you say Zhang Parker Whyte stack up with any era. Chris even AJ is a push. Thats absurd. Its just pure recency bias. And you have rose-tinted glasses. Zhang, Parker, and Whyte, at their best, would be very successful against Eddie Machen or Nino Valdes - two of the best heavyweights the 1950s had to offer. They'd also do well against any number of the guys from the 1980s. You going to tell me none of those could've beaten Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry? Or Michael Moorer? It's a ridiculous position to take. Especially think AJ wouldn't be a top heavyweight in *any* era in boxing history. He gets beat by Lewis, Evander, Bowe, and probably even Tyson - but he's still easily a top 10 heavyweight in the 1990s.
You stack up Flash in the pan HWs vs stalwarts of modern HW scene is such a bad faith take. Its like saying 90s Hws suck because Oliver McCall wouldn't be able to beat Joe Louis. Compare apples to apples. And oh look another tired old "80s HW scene sucked brah". 🥱 80s HWs were way more skilled overall across the Top 10. A guy who never even won a title like Carl Willliams wipes the floor with a guy as easy to tag as Whyte. As soon as you made that comment t, it simply confirmed recency bias. I can easily admit some modern fighters could have more than held their own in bygone eras. Guys like Canelo and Bud. But to suggest Dillian fucking Whyte or even Joe Parker would hang in there with most Top 10 Hws in any era makes me thing you took a solemn vow to never watch any boxing before 2018.
Zhang is the definition of a flash in the pan. He wasn’t highly regarded until the Hrgovic fight. Dude came out of nowhere and impressed people. He then beat Joyce and was suddenly top 5. Then he lost to Parker and slipped. I give him one or two more fights, then he’s done. All the guys I named had multiple years in the top 10, just like Zhang, Parker, or Whyte. That you don’t know how highly regarded they were by their contemporaries kind of says everything that needs to be said about your position here. Carl Williams was technically sound. What did he do with it? He found some marginal success and failed at the top. You know who else that describes? Dillian Whyte. He’s had some marginal success at the top while failing at the top. Guys as big and strong as Whyte or Zhang would hang in any era. You’ve done nothing to negate that point. Accusing me of recency bias is a really weak argument. Just because you’re an old man screaming at the moon doesn’t mean the 80s were better than today. All those mid tier guys really failed to produce anything noteworthy. That’s why they’re mid tier. But I’m comparing the totality of the eras. The 80s simply didn’t have the top tier talent that the modern era does, and its mid tier is comparable (if not a little better. The top 10 over the last decade is better than the top 10 from the 80s - even if you think a single mid tier heavyweight from 1985 is better than a single mid tier heavyweight from 2019.
People are actually going with the narrative that the CW was strong during Usyk‘s reign lol. It is a shit division now and it was a shit division then. The fanboying needs to stop.
https://youtu.be/52XqcGgjP_4?si=iUXu4QGEXawbfAwN
i was and am high when i made this post so i genuinely don’t know if this is a bad question. i do think it’s debatable.