Don't think a whole lot about Spinks, but he isn't as overrated as Tunney (yeah he beat Dempsey and went 3-1-1 vs Greb, but "The Manassa Mauler's" legs were gone by then and "The Human Windmill" was a naturally smaller man who was already half blind by their first bout).
In any event, this matchup favours Michael since he was a 6' 2" standup boxer-puncher and the 6' 1/2" Tunney's style of fighting was designed to fight shorter &/or crouching opponents (i.e. standing straight up to use his height, largely depending on his height and straight forward and straight back movement for defense, holding his hands chest high and firing his jab straight out from there, etc).
Also, Spinks may have had the power to hurt Tunney: if you watch the film of "The Battle of the Long Count", you'll see that the punch with which Dempsey initially concussed "The Fighting Marine" wasn't actually close to being his best shot and was more along the lines of the power of the "Spinks Jinx". (As was the case with Dempsey, when Tunney faced good hitters like Tommy Gibbons and Georges Carpentier, they were already past their best).
Hate to say it, but gotta go with Spinks in a dull bout wherein both try to force the other to lead.
At Heavyweight, it would be a close call, I think it could go either way, but Gene might edge it.Light Heavyweight, I could probably count on my hand the LHWs who could beat Michael, but Gene isn't one of them.Michael by close UD, or MD.
spinks was awkward, but tunney has the better all round style. i'd give it to gene by close ud at any weight.
spinks was overrated imo...he had skill but wasnt naturally gifted bodywise
Impossible to tell. Different times.
15 rounds at either light heavy or heavyweight
