Tony Tucker and the Tall Trees...

In his day he was not treated very well by the boxing reporters who thought of him as dull and unproven but on hindsight I'd say he was a bit better than they said he was. Obviously falls short of the Klitschko brothers and Lewis as I don't think he quite possessed the ability that they did. He was skilled to an extent but lacked what is required of a truly dominant super heavyweight, such as a strong jab, control of distance, physical strength and fight-ending power.

He could potentially do well against some of the men on the list but the problem I have with Tucker is that I never saw one truly impressive performance of his that would make people take notice. He grinded out a win over Buster Douglas but I doubt he left anyone in awe with his effort.

Considering how he won most of his big fights, he might get the edge in decisions list but never truly dominate.

 

Tucker's claim to fame is going 12 rounds distance with both Tyson and Lewis.
He was also one of Don King's pet heavyweights and was three times gifted his place as 'mandatory challenger', in each of the 3 sanctioning bodies (he later went on to get a WBO shot too ! But I think that was after King had disposed of him).

He proved a decent opponent for Tyson in 1987, but I'd put him at the lower end of the numerous alphabet champions of the 1980s. He really didn't achieve much and the vast majority of his fights were uninspiring performances against utter non-entities.

I wouldn't make him a favourite over any of those fighters on Seamus' list. But I wouldn't make hm a clear underdog against most of them either.

 

Even against Cleveland Williams? :blood

 

Cleveland Williams was about as good as Tony Tucker.
Maybe he was better. Their records are comparable - two LONG lists of tomato cans !

 

I think he did better against Kid Dynamite than Wlad would.

 

Tucker, imo, had it all, he didnt seem to have the hunger to be a great champ though.

He was big, mobile, decent chin, maybe a little lacking in power and not a very dominating jab.

His claim to fame is lifting Tyson with an uppercut in the first round

 

prime Tucker was possibly ernie terrells equal. No more than that. I place terrell quite low in the scheme of things, ATG things anyway -still a very capable world class winner.

Tony fares equaly well against the guys ernie could beat. I place ernie just above big cat williams on merit.

terrell v bugner is a 50-50 fight so I would say terrell, tucker and bugner are pretty equal.


Jess Willard beats tucker on points
Harry Wills beats tucker on points
Primo Carnera beats tucker on points
Buddy Baer loses on points
Big Cat Williams loses on points
Earnie Terrell -pick em
(young) George Foreman wins by KO
Joe Bugner -pick em
Gerrie Cooney wpts

 

True.
Also, a young Tony Tucker turned down a fight in 1985 with Larry Holmes for the IBF championship.
Carl Williams accepted the fight instead.

 

at people picking Willard to UD Tucker, Tucker could do something Willard couldn't, it's called boxing

v Jess Willard - Tucker wide UD or KO
v Harry Wills - don't know
v Primo Carnera - Tucker wide UD or KO
v Buddy Baer - Tucker UD
v Big Cat Williams - Tucker UD
v Earnie Terrell - Tucker
v (young) George Foreman - Foreman
v Joe Bugner - Tucker
v Gerrie Cooney - Tucker

 

Tucker was black and wore slick jheri curls and had a sequined robe. :good

 

And making Spinks run for the hills, and making Foreman run for the hills and beating Douglas who beat Tyson and going 34-0 and stunning Tyson and probably being Tyson's best win

 

It is worth noting that he was denied two shots at the lineal title, against Spinks and Old Foreman. Hardly beyond comprehension that he could have won one of these fights, had they gone ahead.

I think that he would have had sucess against the group you have listed, but would probably have lost to the best of them.