Heavyweight talent in the mid eighties..

:huh Snipes underrated? I think that really is pushing it...

 

They are starting to look good now! Watch Thomas versus Weaver and tell me they wouldn't give the Klits a fight.

 

Tucker could have/should have had a much better career.

This is a guy who fought both a prime Tyson and prime Lewis and was stopped by neither of them

Between them Tyson/Lewis stopped Bruno, Ruddock, Botha, Golota and Biggs

 

I actualy think that Mike Weaver is a bit under rated these days.

 

So do I. Genuine puncher and decent boxer.

 

But that does not make up for the shocking lack of consistency and soft chin. A fun fighter, but the era was ordinary, and even with rose tinted glasses of three decades of time, it still smells a bit...

 

Maybe, but this era is dire!

 

I have always been a huge Witherspoon fan, and have several Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Tubbs, and Tucker fights. Greg Page is one that I know, but really don't have much experience with. That said, this isn't the first place I have heard how much potential he had.

What fights are there where Page is at his best to check out? Are the thoughts on his potential based on these performances or something else?

 

To me it would be Pinklon Thomas and Michael Spinks because they were the lineal champions

 

Was Pinklon considered as such? He beat Witherspoon who beat Tubbs, etc. I think it ends up with Tate vs Coetzee for the vacant title (vacated after Ali-Spinks).

 

I think he ended up being so, I'd have to double check but from memory, I recall him being it but losing it at some point.

 

No, Thomas merely won 'alphabet rubbish'.

The Linear of the time went: A Holmes 'claim' after Weaver beat Tate. Holmes confirmed the claim by beating the comebacking Ali, who retired undefeated Champion. Holmes lost to Spinks, who lost to Tyson.

 

No Holmes was not the lineal champion for some time. In fact When Ali vacated the WBA title (lineal title) after the spinks fight it was a face off between John Tate and Gerry Coetzee. Tate won making him lineal champ. Holmes would not have been the lineal champ by beating Ali because Ali VACATED the title before he fought Holmes. Tate then lost to Weaver in his first defense and weave beat Coetzee and quick tillis but lost to Dokes. Dokes drew with weaver and it goes on and on like that.

In hindsight there is a good argument that Holmes never actually became the lineal champ because he never won the title from the succession of title holders since Ali. While he did beat Ali, it was after Ali vacated or gave up the title, meaning he bet a guy without a title. You cannot win a title from a guy who has given it up. I believe Tyson would have become the champ when he acquired the wba not the ibf (or whatever baloney title holmes was holding at the time) from James Bonecrusher Smith. The WBA title since the end of ali has been the de facto lineal title.

 

So all the WBA champs post-Ali would be Lineal based on your last response. That would make Michael Spinks not a lineal champ, as I believe he only claimed the IBF title.

 

I think the general consensus is when a 'linear' title is vacated, it can be won when the generally considered top two fighters fight. Arguably Norton/Holmes were the two best fighters of that time. If not, when Weaver beat Tate, then the two best fighters were Holmes and Weaver, and because Holmes already had beaten Weaver he had a claim for Linear. That was further established when Holmes beat Ali, Muhammad being the last 'generally recognized' linear champ.

The WBA champion did not have a claim until Tyson as champion beat Spinks.

But this just shows how pointless 'Linear' champions are, as 'rules' are spun to suit.

The reality is in 1978 after beating (Leon) Spinks, Ali was THE generally recognized Heavyweight Champion of the World. If you choose not to credit Holmes' victory over Ali as a transfer of 'THE' title, then there was no Generally Recognized Heavyweight Champion of the World until Tyson flattened (Michael) Spinks...