Greater fighter: Michael Spinks or Joey Napoles

The Spinks vs Nap debate I'm cool ending it the simple agreeing to disagree.

They were both phenomenal fighters. Both among the 10 greatest fighter of the last 50 years.

 

I doubt it.

Knocked out, yes. They'd lose in the end, but I've no doubt they'd mount a better fight than someone like Tucker, or Tillis. Certainly better than what Spinks did.

But that's all I'm saying on it, because this thread isn't about Tyson vs Tunney, Conn & Charles.

 

Michael Spinks is a great fighter.

 

Again I have to bring up the Bob Foster example.

Most consider him to be about the same level as Spinks. Yet, you never hear Foster being belittled because he was wiped out by Frazier. Frazier was no Tyson.

Furthermore, Foster was a whipping boy for Terrel, Folley and Jones too. Spinks, on the other hand, did well in the heavyweight, apart from Tyson.

Had Spinks been KOed in his first hw bout against Holmes, nobody would remember it. Yet, he is actually PUNISHED for doing so well, because there were expectations for him after that against Tyson. To me, that makes no sense.

Thus, I don't think the Tyson fight should be held against Spinks. We should rather concentrate on his career as a light heavy and perhaps remember that he actually did remarkably well against the heavies

 

Foster was completely incapable of beating anyone of note at heavyweight. Spinks beat Holmes; therefore, they should be held to different standards. The reason for which Tunney and Charles were used is because they were also able to win heavyweight titles. And while it's besides the main point, but I disagree. I've long thought Frazier was a better fighter than Tyson.

What doesn't make sense about holding somebody better to higher standards? If you can beat Larry Holmes twice, you should do better than failing to last less than two minutes. The fact he did considerably worse than a guy like Napoles did against Monzon; or even somebody like Jose Ribalta or Mitch Green did against Tyson him.

It's a bad loss, and when compared to people on a near equal level to Spinks, it should absolutely be considered IMO.B

 

Before I get to more nuanced answer, tell me if I am getting this correctly. You rate Spinks far above Foster, correct?

 

Yes.

 

To me it makes more sense to rank a fighter based on his best weight class, especially if he has spent the clear majority of his career there. Otherwise it leads to the weird concept where a fighter gets punished for challenging himself.

Think of Hagler for example. He only fought at middleweight. Had he gotten up to 175, he would very probably have lost to Spinks, most likely in brutal fashion, and he might have done worse than some other of Spinks' contenders.

Now, if we use this similar logic, we would have to lower Hagler's ranking cos he failed to conquer the lt. heavyweight. In fact, we should lower it right now cos he couldn't win there (he didn't even try). Yet we never hear this.

Had Spinks retired as an undisputed lt heavy champ, nobody would hold it against him that he didn't challenge Tyson, just like nobody holds it against Hagler that he didn't take on Spinks. Yet now that he reached for bigger things (and achieved some of them too), it lowers his status

 

I don't see why that is, given that this is taking their whole career into account. And what makes a challenge is the risk. Spinks took that risk and lost. Part of that loss is it harms you're reputation. That's what this is; Spinks lost in 90 seconds. I hold that against him - not in a head to head sense, but in a 'ranking' sense. Especially when Napoles ALSO moved up while similarly past his best and did much, much better than Spinks did.

Hagler's ranking pound-for-pound should be knocked for only staying in one weight. It's one of the reasons he didn't make my top thirty. And personally, if Hagler had been knocked out in 90 seconds by Spinks, I'd hold it against him. I'd also hold it against Hagler if he moved up and beat Saad Muhammad or Dwight Qawi in a razor close fight; then retired and never fought Spinks.

 

That's an interesting take, although I can't agree.

Do you apply the same idea for continuing career for too long? Does for example the Joppy fight count against Duran's legacy, because he took the risk of going after another title and lost badly?

 

Well, no. But for reasons already outlined; if Duran had beaten a world class contender shortly prior to fighting Joppy I could see it being used as a negative. But he was so old and so far above his best weight that I just couldn't give a fuck about that fight to be honest. Spinks was a lot closer to his prime and proved he was a good heavyweight.

 

This is a real tough one for me since both are magnificent fighters at their best weight class and have ATG wins. Napoles has beaten Cokes and Griffith and Spinks has wins over Holmes, Qawi, Muhammad. You can make an argument for both, although I have to say beating a monster like Qawi and having 2 wins over Larry Holmes above your best weigh does sound a bit more impressive for me.

 

Here’s a question, X: was Mike Tyson that much better the night he beat Michael Spinks than the night he beat Larry Holmes? Both prime Mike, two fights apart. Would he have knocked Holmes out in 90 seconds had he fought Holmes that night instead of Spinks? I honestly don’t believe he would have.

I simply don’t think Spinks was mentally there for the Tyson fight and Tyson smelled blood. The first KD was a body shot, which was not Tyson’s most devastating punch. Now, a body shot from Tyson is not a nice thing to receive at any stage of a fight, but the way Spinks went down was as though he tasted Mike’s power and thought, ‘I don’t want this.’ It wasn’t the kind of punch that made Spinks incapacitated and unable to get up.

If we compare the two fights, one was a 38 year old former heavyweight champion who hadn’t fought in nearly 2 and a half years who kept getting hurt but kept going and kept getting up when he was knocked down until he was prevented from getting up - he was done but he never quit - against a 31 year old relatively active fighter who went down from the first effective punch he received, while fully conscious. Spinks simply wasn’t mentally there that night against a fighter who was at the top of his game. How much that is held against him is an open question but it is a fair one.

No-one holds the Tyson loss against Holmes, not only because Holmes was old but because he went out on his shield. I think there are plenty of fighters, including light heavies, who would have either lasted 90 seconds or more against Tyson or showed more fight in that space of time. Spinks didn’t even really try to defend himself because he wanted out of there and Tyson was only too happy to oblige.

 

Re who was better and greater, Spinks or Napoles, I’d have to say greater is Spinks but better is Napoles. It’s tight, though.

 

I think Spinks was a better fighter than Napoles simply because he had no glaring weakness like Nap had (skin).

Napoles had a beautiful style while Spinks had an ugly style. That may influence the perception of who was better.

 

Thats how i see it. Im a bit surprised many are saying Napoles.

But it's true that the tyson loss is embarrassing for Spinks

 

Mike Spinks was a great fighter, a truly great fighter as an amateur and greater as a professional, and should be remembered as the undisputed world champion. Mike Spinks is one of the most underrated boxers in history.

 

It’s a very good point. Napoles didn’t have any technical weakness as such, though, just that bloody layer of tissue cover.