Andre Ward vs Michael Spinks @ 175

Discussion in 'Mythical Matchups' started by Xplosive, Apr 13, 2020.

  1. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  2. puerto rock

    puerto rock WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    12,425
    Likes Received:
    1,567
    Spinks convincingly.

    I think Foster would be the worst match up for Ward, though. It would be ugly.
     
  3. Jesus of montreal

    Jesus of montreal WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,353
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    I think that his inside style and mauling could trouble both Foster and Spinks for a few rounds. H'es getting blasted midrounds though
     
    Xplosive likes this.
  4. Dog Jones

    Dog Jones WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,222
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    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
     
  5. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  6. Ugotabe Kidding

    Ugotabe Kidding WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    17,162
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Home Page:
    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
     
  7. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    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
     
  8. Ugotabe Kidding

    Ugotabe Kidding WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    17,162
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Home Page:
    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
     
  9. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    Uh yeah I’ve said as much

    so you match 168 Jones with 175 Spinks... voila
     
  10. Double L

    Double L Book Reader

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    28,868
    Likes Received:
    1,877
    "Son of Judges"

    :D:D:D
     
  11. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    Even with the difference in weigh-ins, Spinks was a bigger man than Ward.
     
  12. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  13. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    Taller that’s it
     
  14. Double L

    Double L Book Reader

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    28,868
    Likes Received:
    1,877
    And heavier boned.
     
  15. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  16. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  17. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2020
  18. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    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
     
  19. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  20. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    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?
     
    Ugotabe Kidding likes this.
  21. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    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
     
  22. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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?
     
    Jesus of montreal likes this.
  23. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    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.
     
  24. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    Probably not because he’s not 6’2 with really long limbs

    But yes, 160 pounds is bigger than 145 pounds last I checked
     
  25. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    It's not just "long limbs." Hearns is a big guy. A much bigger frame than Crawford, on top of being way taller.
     
  26. Ugotabe Kidding

    Ugotabe Kidding WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    17,162
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Home Page:
    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
     
    cdogg187 likes this.
  27. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    YOU'RE IN THE BAG! Both of yous are IN THE BAG!
     
    Ugotabe Kidding and cdogg187 like this.
  28. Double L

    Double L Book Reader

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    28,868
    Likes Received:
    1,877
    Can anyone imagine Ward bulking up and taking on Larry Holmes? And not looking out of place?
     
  29. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    56,690
    Likes Received:
    13,754
    Location:
    Your girl's crib
    Forget size, Ward had trouble with KOVALEV'S jab.

    Larry Holmes? Dear God Almighty.
     
  30. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    90,394
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Occupation:
    SUCK MY BALLS!!
    Location:
    Beyond The Pale
    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
     

Share This Page