Top ten heavyweights of the 1980's

Lately I've been watching a lot of fights from heavyweights of the 80's especially some of the forgotten but very good fighters of the early 80's. I find its very difficult to rank them amongst each other especially those who contested for the WBA title because that title seemed to go from one guy to the next and many of the holders were inconsistent in there performances. I've come up with my top ten of the decade, I left Holyfield and Old Foreman out because though they both had some good wins towards the end of the decade I consider them more on the 90's heavyweight scene so if you'd like exclude them as well.

1# Larry Holmes- Obvious pick IMO, one of the better reigns in heavyweight history, when at his best he just knew how to win one way or the other.
2# Mike Tyson- An obvious second as well, he was a phenom in the later 80's.
3# Tony Tucker- I doubt most would rank him this high but when he was at his best I feel he was very very good and proved it in his fights with Buster Douglas and Mike Tyson. I think if he was more dedicated and didn't choose to get into drugs he could've had a far better career which is saying something cause he had a good pretty good career overall.
4# Tim Witherspoon- Another guy who at certain stages of his career was great but issues with Don King and what not made istdifficult for him to reach his full potential
5# Pinklon Thomas- For most of the 80's was a very good fighter. Excellent jab, good power in the right hand. A bad loss to the awkward and strong Trevor Berbick really seemed to get to him. Apparently he developed a drug problem, he would come back and IMO look pretty good against a prime Mike Tyson before being destroyed. After this he never seemed to have much when entering the ring
6# Michael Dokes- A very talented fighter but like many of the 80's fighters drug problems really held him back. He had some good wins though early in the decade and showed how good he was taking Holyfield to his limits in one of the better heavyweight fights you'll ever see when he was well passed his best in the ring.
7# Michael Spinks- Spinks certainly much more affective as a light heavyweight but he proved to be a legitment threat as a heavyweight. Two wins over the great champion Larry Holmes though Larry Holmes was passed his prime he still was a very good fighter at the time Spinks beat him. He also had a dominate KO victory over Gerry Cooney. Of course what comes to many peoples minds when they think of a heavyweight Michael Spinks is Tyson walking right through him but on that night Tyson could've walked through many great heavyweights in a similar manner.
8# Tony Tubbs- Tubbs was a very talented fighter with some of the fastest hands for any heavyweight. He beat a few solid heavyweights through the decade highlighted by winning the WBA title from Greg Page. After that fight he never really seemed to have the same desire and from what I've heard he too had a very bad drug problem which certainly must have held him back. Still his only losses in the decade were too Tim Witherspoon in a competitive 15 round fight and being knocked out by Mike Tyson during his peak. Tubbs is the kinda guy you gotta wonder how good he could've been with more dedication and discipline.
9# Mike Weaver- Weaver was a beast and won most of his fights on determination and strength. He had some of the better wins of the decade but on the other hand he had a number of bad losses. Weaver was the sorta fighter who could be beaten by fighters who weren't great but was a threat to any fighter on any given night. A lot of people would rank him higher in the decade because of some of his big wins but overall I feel though he was a legitment threat to any fighter because of his power and determination he was very limited.
10# Frank Bruno- The number 10 spot was very difficult to decide but I went with Frank Bruno. I feel though he only had a few big wins in the decade I'd bet on him over the fighters who I left out. Through the first 1-7 rounds of a bout Bruno was one of the hardest guys to deal with but he lacked stamina due to lack of composure and having to much muscle. Also Bruno was very tight because of his excessive muscle. But he did have extraordinary power in pretty well all his punches and this made him a threat to anyone in the early rounds.

HM: Greg Page, Gerrie Coetzee, Trevor Berbick, James Smith, Gerry Cooney, Carl "The Truth" Williams, Buster Douglas

 

You are right no real impressive wins for Bruno in the 80's aside from against Coetzee. But his only real bad lose was to Bonecrusher Smith who in his own right was a good fighter and Bruno had dominated the fight up to the point he was knocked out. He fought well for most of the bout with Witherspoon, even against Tyson he did alright though that was the first fight where Tyson began to show diminishing craft if you ask me. Bruno had many short comings there is no doubt but overall I feel he was a bit more of a force then any of the guys I ranked him above.

Coetzee at times looked very good but he like Bruno had a lot of short comings as well and had a few bad losses including being beaten badly by Greg Page and destroyed by Bruno.

Greg Page looked very good early on in his career but gradually diminished into a pretty ordinary fighter and lost to some very lack luster competition. His prime was to short to really rank him on it and he was very inconsistent. If he was to fight Bruno I could see him on a good night winning but overall I'd have to bet on Bruno because of how very inconsistent Page was.

Bonecrusher Smith was a very strong dude with power and was a threat to almost anybody but on the flip side could be beat by very ordinary fighters. He had a few big wins in the decade including toppling Bruno and a couple good performances but also had a number of less then impressive losses.

Trevor Berbick is similar to Smith in that he was very strong and was very awkward which is what I believe led him to his biggest victory against Pinklon Thomas. Berbick's great strength and awkward attack made him a difficult opponent for some very good fighter but much like Smith he was very beatable by fighters especially ones with good boxing skills. Again if Berbick and Bruno were to fight I think Bruno would have a decent chance of stopping him early but if the fight would drag on to 10-12 rounds I think Berbick would take over and have a fair chance of pulling out a late round knock out.

Gerry Cooney was one the more devastating punchers of all time but aside from that was very limited. He looked to be a top notch fighter early in the decade but his big wins were all against older fighters, he looked very good and fought hard in what was probably the biggest heavyweight fight of the decade against Larry Holmes. But he ended up on the losing end and from that point on it was downhill for him. He was totally out classed by the smaller Michael Spinks later on in the decade when making a comeback would be crushed by an Old George Foreman at the very beginning of the 90's raising doubt about how good he really was in his prime. I do think it is possible he may have been at his best early in the decade and at that time might have been a top of the line fighter but really it hard to say how good he was because he never defeated any good fighters when they were in their primes. If him and Bruno were to fight it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Cooney knock out Bruno in the early or late rounds but on the other hand it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Bruno destroy Cooney.

Carl "The Truth" Williams looked excellent early in the decade. I thought he edged Larry Holmes in their championship fight and if I had been alive at the time I would've certainly expected him to go onto be a great heavyweight after watching that fight. But Williams had one fatal flaw which was that he kept his hands to low which left him open to power punches and this was exploited first by Mike Weaver and then by Mike Tyson. After the Tyson fight Williams really seemed to lose interest and went on to become more of an opponent rather then contender.

Finally Buster Douglas, Douglas when motivated and in shape was a lot better then Bruno and a lot of the other fighters I have ranked in my top ten but the problem was it was rare to see him motivated and in shape. He had a number of losses that he shouldn't have had and also had a number of victories where he looked less then impressive. Douglas's inconsistency is what keeps him out of my top ten.

To conclude any of the fighters I touched on I could see put in that number 10 spot but overall I had to go with Bruno. As I said Bruno had some very big flaws but so did all the other fighters I mentioned and overall I'd probably slightly favor Bruno against each one of them. Bruno was more consistent in that you knew he'd be a very tough early in the fight but late in the fight he'd likely slow down especially if pressured enough the others I talked about were all very inconsistent for the most part in that certain nights they'd be great but sometimes would look awful.

 

If you ask me Bonecrusher was a big over achiever an overall a pretty ordinary fighter aside from his great power. Bonecrusher did have 3 very good wins in the 80's one of which was against Bruno, the other two being first round knock outs against Weaver and Witherspoon. But he also got beat by Marvis Frazier and Adilson Rodigruez. Marvis Frazier was a good fighter but more of a cruiserweight then a heavyweight I think Bruno would be able to take him out if they fought. Adilson Rodigruez wasn't a world class fighter at all and I'm sure Bruno wouldn't have had any trouble disposing of him in the early rounds. The fact that he was able to go the distance with and win in what I understand was a close fight against Bonecrusher speaks a lot about how limited Bonecrusher's boxing skills were. Two of Bonecrusher's big wins in the decade were a case of him catching a good fighter early with his great power and being able to finish, I wouldn't have given him much more then just a punchers chance in those fights. I feel Bruno not only had a punchers chance against any opponent but could potentially win fights against good fighters with his jab and boxing skills. When Bruno and Bonecrusher fought Bruno completely dominated up until the final round where Bonecrusher rally'd and knocked him out. This was a very good win for Bonecrusher and showed great reserve but if you ask me if him and Bruno were to fight five times I'd expect Bruno to win four of them. Overall I feel Bruno had more tools and was the better of the two.

 

I will give you this Smith did have the more impressive wins of the decade then Bruno. But just when I watch the two fighters overall I feel Bruno is the more effective of the two. By no means am I singing Bruno's praises he was an under achiever as said and had many flaws but I still feel overall he was a better fighter then Bonecrusher even in the 80's. As I said in an early post the number 10 spot in the list is pretty much a toss up I can understand why you'd feel Bonecrusher deserves to be ranked above Bruno as well as I'd understand the argument for any of the other fighters I mentioned who I didn't include. But in my honest opinion I feel Bruno was the better of the two though Smith did win their only fight I feel I would still favor Bruno any day in a match up against Smith and that Bruno overall had more ability in the ring.