Nevermind that his only relevant win is a fluke KO in a fight he was losing every second of, Hasim could punch, so obviously he wins, right? :stir:
I rate Spinks rather low as a Heavyweight, personally. Of course, I rate Rahman rather low, period. He was an awful fighter, & nothing in his career ever convinced me otherwise. I don't think he beats the Holmes Spinks did, really. He probably doesn't even get by the Holmes of several years later --- the one who decisioned Ray Mercer. Now, with that said, Spinks --- even as a frail & carefully-matched HW --- was a much smarter, more gifted fighter than Rahman, but his size is no small problem. If Rahman arrived in shape (fat chance, in every sense of the phrase) it might work out for him. As it is, I have Spinks slipping past him on point, narrowly. Spinks had a very handy counter-punching game, & one of Rahman's (many) problems was his blend of weight problems & tendency toward committing to punches unlikely to land which would tip him off-balance repeatedly. Spinks capitalises just enough in the end. 6-5-1.
I agree with the caveat being that Rahman certainly has a puncher's chance to alter the fight dramatically
Rachman flat out fucking SUCKED. I think the fact that Spinks was quite simply a much better FIGHTER would overcome Rockhead's size edge.
I agree, but theres always the chance he can land a fight changing shot... old-ass Larry Holmes was easily 5 times the fighter the very best Hasim Rahman ever was, but Rahman hit a lot harder with a single shot... against a blown-up heavyweight it has to be a factor I mean, Spinks is 900 times the fighter Ernie Shavers was, but I'd give Shavers even money to knock him out
Thats different. Shavers had freakish power. Rockhead did not. KOing an untrained Lewis who left his chin in the air and actually jumped INTO the punch doesnt make him a big puncher. Spinks wouldnt be dumb enough to leap into Rock's right. I dont think Rachman had the power to KO Spinks, nor the skills to outbox him. Well... Rockhead did have some skills, but he was too retarded to know how to use them.
:: I agree, X, and I agree he isnt in that rarified class of power that Shavers existed in... I do think he hit hard enough to hurt Spinks, a small heavyweight, however... but overall, I agree with you, I think Spinks is too smart and too crafty to fall into the trap against a fighter of Rahman's "calibre"
By the way....everyone's lasting impression of teh heavyweight Spinks was him being blitzed in just 91 sec. Up to that point, however, Spinks had never lost...never been stopped..never close to being stopped. Rahman has heavy hands but he's not a killer puncher and he's pretty slow. I don't see "The Rock" stopping Spinks at all.
Spinks was very carefully-manouevred at Heavyweight, & rightly so. He did not transition to the weight at all well, IMO. He would prove vulnerable to lesser fighters than a peak Tyson, I feel.
In fairness there were times when old Cooney's size and power seemed to trouble him rather allot. But then Rahman isn't even as sharp or dangerous as an old Cooney for mine. I agree with your pick.
Agree to an extent...but Rahman is a FAR LESSER fighter than a peak Tyson. Tyson would have taken care of Rahman with ease also. Rahman was always slow and sloppy..albeit with heavy hands. Spinks was just so busy and awkward...I don't see Rahman getting to him.
Please don't encourage this. You're better than that. You should know that things tend to get ugly when I'm provoked. You really want to be in the middle of that? opcorn:
I'm sure there's some agenda to this thread that I'm missing out on (my guess is the 90's Foreman angle?)... but that aside, if you think that Rahman was losing every second of the fight up until the KO, then you didn't watch the fight at all.
you get so up in arms about such a silly, abstract joke, I get a kick out of it... it wouldnt be funny if you didnt dislike it so much... I mean calling a guy a horse is one of the strangest jokes I have ever heard, it should have been greeted with "huh???" and quickly forgotten, but no, it lives years later, its life fueled solely by your odd irritation as for me being in the middle of something, what in my history here leads you to believe being in the middle of shitstorms bothers me? you need to relax, own this horse thing:mj:
It's a principle thing with me. Can't have the entire site using this as a tactic whenever they disagree with me on something or are losing a smacktalk battle..or want to destory one of my threads
It may be too late for that since pretty much everyone knows it's an easy way to fluster you. You'd be much better off ignoring it.
Whatever floats your boat. I just think it's more trouble than it's worth. As much of a pain as you can be, i've never resorted to the horse thing because... 1. It's really stupid 2. It's too easy and I prefer kicking your ass with the facts.
:: ok buddy. Anyway I respect the fact that you haven't resorted to that tiresome nonsense. I'd rather debate properly that have my posts quoted with "neighs".
I get the impression that TLC hasn't watched all that many fights. ESPECIALLY those from more than just a few years ago.
this is the type of retort you always give when you disagree with someone. why not just bring "facts" as you say...and stop saying this type of annoying stuff?
First of all, I wasn't even talking to you. You ALWAYS need to stick your two cents (or is it pence??) into what I am talking about and make foolish claims. Second of all, what you said is not even close to being true. "This" IS what I say when someone doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time...TLC, for example. There are plenty of folks whose opinions I respect and it's obvious they know what they are talking about. Even you, for all your foolish blustering and biases, are somewhat knowledgable, but you usually ruin whatever point you are trying to make by having obvious agendas. Nice try at generalizing, but you, as usual, don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Now buzz off and don't make me have to call you horse names. ::
