I think greater is debatable. I would agree that Spinks was better. His style was a lot less "sexy" than Arguello's, but he was more versatile and effective.
Greater - Depends on what you place greater stock in. Arguello had more fights and depth to his resume, but Spinks had the greater individual achievement (beating Holmes). Better - I think Spinks' wins over Qawi and Holmes demonstrate that he was a more versatile and adaptable fighter.
I think Spinks was probably the more complete all-round fighter and technician. Arguello was off the charts in some areas - more so than Spinks - but also had a couple more visible weaknesses to his game. Only 'weak' in relative terms, of course, but you get my drift. I'm more interested in overall records and accomplishments, though, and based on that I'd rate Arguello as the greater fighter of the pair. Have talked at length before about how I've never really been convinced by Spinks above 175. Arguello had some shaky moments as a Featherweight - without splitting hairs I guess you could say that he at 126 and Spinks at Heavyweight are more or less comparable. But Arguello proved himself the greatest Super-Feather we've seen so far in terms of record and achievements at the weight, and then proved himself an only slightly less formidable force as a Lightweight, too. It's not as if he loses too many points for coming short against Pryor at 140, either - certainly a more meritorious defeat(s) than the way Spinks folded against Tyson. Not a huge amount in it, but Arguello gets the nod here for me.
Nice, post, Chris. My only disagreement would be the Tyson thing. It's a far more significant jump going from LHW to heavy than it is moving up from lightweight to junior welter. LHW to heavyweight is the most significant jump in all of a boxing. Spinks, as the much smaller man, getting blown away in 1 by arguably the most destructive force in the sport's history at the apex of his powers, is hardly anything that should affect his legacy. Tyson would have obliterated Charles and Moore as well. What's impressive is that he was able to beat Holmes, in a fight where he was the overwhelming underdog. When you factor in the Holmes win with his 175 dominance, I think you could make a case for Spinks as greater. And purely in terms of opponent quality, I would say that prime Qawi was better than anyone Arguello beat. Olivares was faded, and wasn't a great featherweight. Chacon, Escalera, Castillo, Watt, Boza Edwards, Mancini, all quality fighters, but not in the class of Qawi. Truthfully, out of that group, I don't think any of them were better than Eddie MM either. Spinks has a very strong argument in greatness.
Cheers, Xplosive. Good to see you keeping things going here and attracting new posters. No doubt that jumping from 175 to Heavy and winning a title there is more historically significant than a Lightweight moving up to Light-Welter (although of course Alexis already had titles at 126 and 130, too). But that's painting in broad strokes, and looking at Spinks' post-175 career in detail is where the odd little problem comes into play for me. I think he got Holmes at a very opportune moment, by his own admission losing motivation and complacently cruising to Marciano's 49-0. He'd had a couple of very close scrapes with Witherspoon and Williams and looked old & slow in that first Spinks fight, like he couldn't pull the trigger anymore. None of that is Spinks' fault, and he still had to go out there and win it. But I think the bookies might have underestimated how ripe for an upset Holmes was and made it look a slightly more improbable feat than it was for Spinks. I thought he lost the return to Holmes in any case, and Tyson was his only other fight of real significance at the weight. By that stage his move up from Light-Heavy was three years prior and he'd more than transitioned into being a Heavyweight, albeit a small one, so I don't know how much slack he can be cut for that showing. Losing to Tyson is one thing, no shame there at all. But to lose like that, looking like you never wanted to be there is something else. Although I will concede your point about Spinks having the two best single wins is a valid one. Possibly countered by Arguello having a deeper pool of very good wins underneath. Like I said I don't think there's too much in it but I still lean to Arguello on this, but you've set the opposite argument out very well as always.
There's no doubt that he caught Holmes at the right time. I would never suggest that Spinks could have beaten the late 70s/early 80s Holmes, because he certainly wouldn't. But purely on the fact that he made history greatly bolsters his legacy. It's close, I'll admit, in greatness. Do you value Arguello's deeper roster of wins over multiple divisions, or Spinks' better individual wins and more significant accomplishment? I don't think there's a wrong answer. Most of us seem to be on the same page that Spinks' versatility made him the better of the two.
On my pound-for-pound list, which I'm not in complete, 100% agreement with, but I do still largely stand by, I have about 20 places between these two. May sound like a lot, but it's not that much. Those twenty guys between them could be in any order and you couldn't really argue it was wrong. It's that subjective. I have Spinks higher, due to his key wins being better and him winning the heavyweight title impresses me far more than the way Arguello moved up. Arguello's resume is a lot deeper, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. I'll take the Davis bros, Eddie MM, Lopez, Pops, Qawi and Holmes twice over Arguello's list. Not to say Arguello's list is bad, obviously. By my count, Arguello is 13-4, which is seriously impressive. I think it's more debatable who was better, though. Both are near, or at, the top of their respective divisions. Spinks' is much deeper, but Arguello is near the top of three different divisions, two being classical ones. The first place I like to start with these guys is power. I think they're on pretty similar levels in terms of power, but perhaps Arguello at featherweight was a little rawer and more relient on it - he seemed more devastating there than Spinks did at light-heavy. Both were collosal punchers, though. Definitely can go either way, that one. Spinks probably had a better chin, although it's pretty close. In terms of punching form, Mike has always impressed me. Similarly to Sanchez, where it's pretty unorthodox, but you can't call it bad if he's generating power and not getting countered vs world level opposition. But I just can't go against Arguello here. Look at how perfect Arguello's one-two was, look at how he changed from that half-squat to get massive power in the left hook, and up on the inside, how he threw the left uppercut. It's brilliant, and definitely something you want to watch if you're fairly tall for your weight. Even if you're not and need to punch upward, it still works. Arguello has a really good jab, but Spinks has one of the best jabs ever at 175 - which is a division loaded with all-time great jabs. Arguello's jab was excellent at setting guys up though, which is what it was for. He relied on his power shots to win rounds. Spinks could jab your head off though, and he controlled fights with it in a way I've seldom seen. One of the most cultured leads ever, IMO. It made him a brilliant ring general when he started to get going. I think Arguello has the better defence, he was really good at picking off shots, parrying the jab and even getting under or pulling back from shots. Spinks was good at these two - I'm sure Futch made sure of that - but I think Arguello was better. The side-to-side dips these two used were elite as well. Footwork in an interesting one, because I don't think there's five guys with better puncher's feet than Arguello - but Spinks' footwork was definitely more functional. Arguello was great at keeping himself above his hips, transferring his weight as he threw and using those short steps to ensure he was on position to get the most amount of torque in his punches. Spinks on the other hand, strode across the ring when someone didn't wanna come to him. He was on top of them instantly, and when they came to him, as he showed vs Qawi, he was excellent at moving off and letting the other guy follow. I think he's got excellent footwork, which is serviceable in every aspect, whereas Arguello's wasn't. In honesty, the thing that really pushes it over the edge for me is that Arguello is more susceptible to certain guys. Spinks has many ways of dealing with a swarmer who can take his best, Arguello doesn't as seen vs Pryor. Spinks has many ways of dealing with someone who moves on him, Arguello doesn't as seen vs Torres, Ramirez, Castillo, Olivares, Fernandez, etc;. In a vacuum, Arguello's style and punching ability impresses me more, but I don't think it'd translate as well into fights with all the best fighters from 126-135. I vote Spinks for both.
It always pisses me off that Mike Spinks isn't revered and respected as an ATG the way guys like Hagler, Monzon, Chavez, Arguello are, when he's clearly in their class of greatness. I don't mean on Fightbeat, he's always gotten proper respect here (for the most part)... I mean in general.
THIS! Arguello was More PLEASING to the Eye, More REWATCHABLE and There Isn't a Huge Gap Btwn the 2, but Give REED Spinks... REED
agREED... To Mainstream Fans and Most YOUNGER Hardcore Fans, Michael Spinks is Reduced to the 91 Seconds He Spent in the Ring w/Mike Tyson... Tragic... REED
