Greater fighter: Michael Spinks or Joey Napoles

Gratest light heavyweight champion of are times vs. the guy that sparred with the Stinger

 

I presume you mean Jose Napoles.?

My big knock against Spinks is the Tyson loss. Not that he lost. How he lost. Guy was scared to death and whined afterwards.

90 seconds. Fuckin McNeely tried harder. Fat ass Botha and Nielsen did better as did Mike Jamieson and Sammy Schaff.

Spinks is a great but Napoles is greater.

 

Nap for sure. I’m a big fan of Spinks too but I don’t think this one is up for much debate.

 

I'd say its up for much debate considering I think the answer is easily Spinks.

I dont see what Napoles' argument would be, in all honesty.

Spinks has bigger wins. Spinks never lost in his prime. Napoles never beat a prime opponent as good as Qawi. And Spinks made history by becoming the first light heavyweight champion to win the heavyweight title.

Napoles was terrific, but yeah, im not seeing his argument here.

Spinks' style was less pleasing to the eye, but he was a greater and better fighter than Nap.

Spinks has an argument for beating any light heavyweight in history.

Nap is a clear underdog at 147 against Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, and probably Gavilan as well.

 

Knocked out past his prime by quite possibly the most devastating force in the history of the sport, at the very apex of his powers.

Or knocked out past his prime by John Stracey.

Perspective matters.

 

Jose Napoles has actually become a wee bit overrated imo. It's like boxing taboo to say that, but I think its true. He was great, truly great, and he was beautiful to watch; however, he's become just a tad overblown.

 

The thing about harping on June 1988 is... theres no light heavyweight in history who have done any better.

Charles, Moore, Tunney, Conn, Roy, doesn't matter... 88 Tyson would have destroyed all of em... very quickly.

That loss shouldn't be held against Spinks anymore.

 

I took Napoles and I took him quickly.

His win over Griffith is better than Spinks' over Qawi IMO - by virtue of Griffith being better than and much bigger than Napoles - and while he never beat anyone else in that calibre, his résumé is a lot deeper than Spinks' is. He just doesn't have said wins over to match 'two' over Holmes, but as a collection, his résumé is clearly more impressive IMO.

The head-to-head argument is flawed, because 1) Napoles wasn't a welterweight, he was closer to Mayweather and Duran's size than he was Leonard and Hearns'; and 2) Spinks' weight class isn't as deep as Napoles' is, historically. Spinks isn't getting extra points just for not being the same size as Roberto Duran.

There's literally not one argument at all for Spinks being a 'better' fighter than Napoles. That's just overrating Spinks.

Napoles' fight with Monzon is far more comparable to Spinks' with Tyson than Nap's with Strachey is, and Napoles did far better. In fact, literally every single one of Napoles' losses bar Monzon is single handedly down to either cuts or being extremely green. Let's not forget how much experience Spinks got in the amateurs rather than starting off young. Napoles' losses mean as little as Spinks' does.

 

For one, no. Outboxing a well past it Griff is not a bigger or more impressive win than unifying against a Qawi at the peak of his powers.

And yes, Spinks was a better fighter than Nap. Nothing will convince me otherwise. He was less aesthetically pleasing, but he was better.

Spinks had no true weakness. The same can't be said for Nap and his brittle skin. And while Napoles wasn't fragile, he also wasn't iron.

Also, you can't really compare fairing well for a few rounds against Monzon to fighting Tyson, as Carlos ALWAYS ALWAYS used the early rounds to analyze an opponent before breaking them down. Monzon was just as slow a starter as Spinks.

If they were the same natural size, I would have more faith in Spinks figuring out Napoles than the opposite. Ugly ass style, but one of the most effective fighters ever.

 

Last point, comparing Napoles fighting Monzon to Spinks fighting Tyson is truly a bad comparison.

Even if giving Nap the benefit of the doubt, and saying that he was a natural junior welter, that means he's essentially up against a guy in Monzon who's 20 pounds bigger than him.

Spinks was a natural light heavy up against a guy who was a natural 220 pound man. So, essentially a man who's over 30 pounds above Spinks' best weight.

It is NOT the same, and only a Nap groupie would try to compare it.

 

Griffith wasn't 'well past it' - he had a great camp for that fight and was still good , and even if he was, he was still better than Qawi. Not to mention the size difference being entirely comparable to Qawi-Spinks but it was in Griffith's favour rather Napoles'. What's more, is that makes up a small fraction of my point. Napoles' overall résumé is still better, regardless of which of these individual wins is better.

No, he wasn't. The "ugly on the eye" shit is a myth anyway. Spinks' style wasn't even ugly, he just wasn't as good as Napoles. And that's why never produced a performance like the one Napoles did against Cokes. Napoles was clearly of a higher class. He's in the top ten best fighters ever, Spinks isn't.

And Napoles did have an iron chin. I'd bet my life it was better than Spinks'.

I can compare winning four rounds against Spinks - which is more than anyone except Griffith - to going out in 90s - which is worse than anyone in Mike's title reign.

I don't do the "if they were the same size argument", but if they were, I'd put money on Napoles.

And Napoles never had trouble with anyone like Eddie Davis.

 

No, its a very valid comparison. 1), Spinks was an accomplished heavyweight; whereas Napoles did nothing at middleweight and wouldn't have even made the limit in today's era; 2), Tyson was closer to 215, and Monzon was a huge middleweight; and 3) the observable evidence regarding the size disparity shows that Spinks was not even close to at the same disadvantage Napoles was.

And that's not even touching the obvious point that as you get higher up in weight, it matters less due to diminishing returns. Spinks' actual career proves this on its own.

And it isn't giving Napoles the benefit of the doubt, he was a junior welterweight

 

Well yeah, this isn't about who would win if they were the same size. It's about greatness.

Spinks beating Holmes, however you feel about the decision, that accomplishment puts him over Napoles in greatness, if all else is close.

There's no accomplishment Napoles has that's as notable.

Spinks is the greater fighter.

 

I agree that Nap was a junior welter. I've said as much in previous threads.

But I feel you're putting too much weight into the success he had against Monzon.

Monzon was a notoriously slow starter. And he was powerful, but he wasn't Bob Foster.

Spinks was in with THE fastest starter in the sport's history, and one of the top 5-10 punchers in heavyweight history.

It's different.

 

I have no issue with you feeling Napoles is among the ten best fighters who ever lived; I've always been fond of Nap.

There was a time on here when Stinger, Cdogg, and myself were really the only three posters who ever discussed Napoles.

But I likewise would argue that Spinks at 175 is one of the 10 best fighters OAT.

 

But all else isn't close. The Spinks wins are the only thing which is keeping it close.

Without them, Napoles is MILES above Spinks in terms of greatness. His welterweight reign alone trumps Spinks' LHW reign.

He had more success - and won more rounds - than anyone bar Griffith and arguably Valdez; Spinks had less success than anyone who fought Tyson for a title except Carl Williams.

Fact of the matter is Napoles didn't embarrass himself against a better fighter, whereas Spinks did.

 

How did Spinks embarrass himself against Tyson? What exactly was he suppose to do?

He had bad knees to begin with. He wasn't gonna move on Tyson. He got pinned against the ropes, nailed with a left uppercut/right to the body and dropped.

Got up, tried to throw a right hand, and got countered with one of the all time great right hands thrown in a heavyweight fight.

It wasn't embarrassing. He wasn't blown out by Clifford Ettiene. He was blown out by a man who woulda blown away any light heavyweight.

 

Stop. Spinks shat his pants against Tyson, and everyone knows it. He did worse against Mike than Lorenzo Boyd did.

Depicting the action makes it sound even worse. He was timid, immobile, and offered as much resistance as a lead in a snow storm. He got annihlated.

Charles or Tunney aren't getting blown out in one, and even if they are, that certainly aren't gonna shit the bed like that. And no other junior welter bar Duran is having any success against Monzon. Definitely not sweeping the first four rounds.

 

Stinks losing to Mike Tyson and fat Joey Napoles losing to Monzon are both nothing to be ashamed about, i think in my mind

 

I don’t think Spinks choked or chickened out against Tyson.

I just think Mike punched too hard and too fast for him, and simply overwhelmed him.

He tried. He just couldn’t deal.

 

Same here, definitely Spinks

 

Tyson-Spinks was more of a flawless performance than a choke job.

No, Charles and Tunney would not have fared any better that night.

Neither one ever faced the size, strength, firepower, and speed that Mike had. And neither one had the power to phase Mike in the least bit.

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings about Spinks. This was sold as Tyson's biggest test at that time and turned out to be his easiest fight ever. It was reported that Spinks was so scared of Tyson he was refusing to get out of the dressing room when he was called to walk to the ring.

 

Spinks was better but he wasn't greater. Greatness presumes you don't feast off Tangstad and Cooney, then crap your pants, collect $15m and, for some reason, cry about Whitey after the fact.

If Spinks retires after the Holmes rematch, he gets my nod. But he didn't lose to Tyson in 90 seconds because his legs were gone or he was arthritic etc.

He lost the way he did because he folded mentally in a way that Mike Jamieson didn't.

That hurts his greatness, a lot.

I'm not arguing the loss. If he'd even gone a few rounds, showed some of the bottle FRANK BRUNO had, it might be a different matter.

If 35 year old Napoles found himself balls deep with a young Ray Leonard, he'd still not have frozen.

 

He got $15m in 1988. That's serious serious money. Then he said shit afterwards. It hurts his legacy imho. It's hard to look past Peter McNeely trying harder when considering how "Great" Spinks was. As I say if Spinks quits in 1983 he has a serious shot at legit top 20 of the century.

 

He got gift decisions against Holmes.

 

Sure Spinks performance against Tyson was terrible, but so was Duran's one against Hearns, when he was a bit younger, and most fans simply brush it off. I think it's quite unfair to claim it pushes him way down on the ATG list as, imo, this was an impossible matchup for him vs a bigger, younger, faster opponent.

 

As a Duran fan, I didn't wanna bring up Hearns, but I almost did...

There's basically no difference. Duran lasted about a round longer, that's it.

You can't even bring up Spinks being intimated, because Duran was shook of Hearns. And this is coming from Duran's biggest fanboy. Duran had a fear in his eyes during that staredown that he had never had before or after that fight.

It's a valid point.

People need to stop ripping Spinks for the Tyson loss. Spinks could have been THE most confident guy in the world that night... and he'd still have been gone in 91 seconds.

Mike was just totally locked in that night. One could make a reasonable argument that on that one night, no heavyweight in history could have taken him, much less a light heavyweight.

 

They would've done better than 90 seconds.

Anything else is either underrating them or overrating Mike.

Spinks shat the bed, and that loss is more embarrassing than Napoles.

 

Neither one would have been competitive, and both would have gotten blown out the water. Whether or not they last longer than 90 seconds, the results still would have been a wipe out.