Just for shits and gigs. I reckon Ward does well for a couple rounds while Spinks warms up, but once that warm up period is over... it's all downhill for Dre. First he'd get outjabbed, then he'd get blasted out.
I think that his inside style and mauling could trouble both Foster and Spinks for a few rounds. H'es getting blasted midrounds though
For Ward to win this, he'd have to out-muscle Spinks, and the only time there was ever any evidence of him being out-muscled was against a 21-year old HEAVYWEIGHT Mike Tyson. So that's out of the picture. He'd have to attempt an Eddie Davis and I don't see that happening either
Yeah, Spinks was extremely physically strong at 175, which is something that never gets mentioned. He was also a great infighter. Son of Judges would be fucked in every way.
Also, Ward was at his best at 168 lbs which leaves him with a significant disadvantage to start with. Ward makes a good fight with his smarts and craft but there is only one winner
Ward at “168” was at worst the same weight class in the ring as Spinks at “175” ... I see zero evidence of some disadvantage This fight would make for hideous viewing
If we accept this premise, then we must also note that 175 lbs Roy Jones was about ten pounds heavier than Spinks at light heavy and that might be decisive
No need, cause Jones never put on a lot of weight. When he fought at 175, he was coming INTO the ring at like 177-178, which is nothing. Spinks probably put on more, even with the same-day. Spinks was probably walking into the ring at 180-182. Shit, probably even MORE, cause Spinks was walking around between fights at over 200. He was a much bigger man than Roy and Ward. Taller than Roy and Ward, and heavier boned than Roy and Ward.
Bullshit! Absolute bullshit. Ward fought as low as middleweight coming up as a prospect. Spinks would have to chop off half his body to EVER make 160. There's absolutely no argument you could mount to support Andre Ward as a bigger man than Michael Spinks. It's just untrue. Spinks was both taller and bigger. You really get wacky about the weigh-in thing. Truth is, Spinks was bigger than any current light heavyweight. Even with the same-day weigh-in. He was HUGE at the weight, for ANY era.
Bob Foster was a much bigger man than Ward also. You know that because Foster as an older man was walking around at like 240-250 and didn't even look outta shape. Only difference is, in the 70s strength training wasn't as advanced, nor was it as emphasized as it is today. If Bob Foster was around today, he wouldn't be a middleweight - he'd be a light heavyweight built like a brick shithouse.
The problem with your weigh-in logic is that weight doesn't always correlate with size. In other words, Terrence Crawford comes into the ring at like what? 158-160? That's more weight than Tommy Hearns was probably coming into the ring as a welterweight. But is Tererence Crawford a bigger man than Tommy Hearns? FUCCCCCKKKKK NO! Crawford is smaller than Leonard, let alone Hearns. Crawford probably is closer in build to Benitez, only Benitez was like 2 inches taller than Bud. Brandon Rios comes into the ring HEAVIER than Ray Robinson. Robinson was a much bigger man. Same thing with Ward/Spinks. Michael was a much bigger man.
Neither Foster nor Spinks look any bigger than Ward, just taller ... Foster, especially had narrow shoulders ... part of the reason he had such trouble trying to gain fighting weight Only pictures of Spinks where he looks definitely bigger than Ward are at heavyweight Ward is the size of a typical Lt Heavy in Spinks and Foster’s time
Ward would HAVE to be a light heavy in the old days because there was no 168. He sure wasn't a natural middleweight. I just don't think he was bigger than Spinks. Spinks was both tall and BIG as a lightheavyweight. Certainly a bigger man than Ward.
Hearns weighed in at 145 day of the fight against Leonard ... When’s the last time Crawford weighed 145 the day of a fight? His pro debut?
Ward fought at “168” because “175” is actually “190” Bob Foster would just as likely be at “168” if he was around today ... he couldn’t even bulk up to 190 to fight heavyweights
Now you're being ridiculous. Are you now trying to argue Crawford as being as big/bigger than Hearns? Tell me, could Crawford carry moving up to light heavyweight and look BIGGER than Virgil Hill?
Matter of fact, I'll take myself as an example. I'm 5'10 with an above average build. I'm about 195 (gotta drop some pounds) but with my build, if I fought as pro boxer, I think I'd be best suited for 168. I'm definitely not naturally AS big a man as Michael Spinks. If we fought eachother, and after the weigh-in I came into the ring heavier, it still wouldn't make me a bigger man.
Probably not because he’s not 6’2 with really long limbs But yes, 160 pounds is bigger than 145 pounds last I checked
It's not just "long limbs." Hearns is a big guy. A much bigger frame than Crawford, on top of being way taller.
Yeah, I don't get it how 175 lbs guy is actually bigger than 190 lbs guy, unless we are talking about height, reach or such. And even if he were, how would size like that (that doesn't include muscle nor bone, since they both weigh) be helpful in any way? How is this larger frame filled with air an advantage, as we know bigger muscles are? Spinks grew in size when he grew his muscles, before that he was smaller, and the mental image of him being a bigger lt heavyweight than the 15 lbs heavier guys is just that, a mental image
But this doesn’t mean anything really... can you imagine Esteban Dejesus slugging it out with Iran Barkley? Ernesto Marcel going 13 plus rounds with Aaron Pryor? Some guys can remain effective at higher weights while others can’t