1980's Heavyweights Rank 1 to 5

I would agree with you:good

Mine top-3 are the same, and then it's debatable, but those two deserve it (Page's prime was too short, as was Thomas and Tucker, Dokes, Tubbs too inconsistent, Spinks - only 5 HW fights).

 

Excactly. Tucker's resume is relatively thin - he lost 3,5 prime years due to drugs, and he was managed very carefully in his 1st 30+ fights, having only fought a couple of ranked fighters prior IBF title shot.

 

I just reasoned it there.
The loss to holmes was due to a thumbing and a cut.
Smith also seemed to follow a role in a script in that one, as long as Holmes remembered not to steer too far away from the script himself. When Holmes forgot about the script, Smith reminded him.
The loss to Broad might had been due to a low blow/dive and was in his debut anyway. Remember that Smith, Broad and Marvis Frazier were all trained at some point by Joe Frazier.
Which leads to the loss to Marvis was probably a dive in which Frazier went down anyway, so I doubt this loss as it is even if it was not a dive.
Smith was the most punchers proof heavyweight in history until Tucker maintained his durability into the 1990s and might have broken Smith's record.
Smith's record is very rich and he did beat most of the big punchers he fought.

 

Appreciate the kind words and thank you.. As for your opinion about Tucker ranking over Berbick, I respect your position. But for me, Trevor Berbick has the better wins. He beat Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, John Tate, David Bey, and Mitch Green which in fairness is a lot more than can be said for Tucker. Of course Berbick also had more defeats, but then he was also constantly fighting better comp. I guess it depends on one's criteria.

 

Having the right people running your career is definitely key. Although Tucker was a fighter in Don King's stable and did manage to become title holder so he wasn't without backing.

 

I wouldn't use Tyson's 'youngest champ' achievement as a barometer in ranking him #1 for the 80's crop of heavyweights. With that logic Foreman should then be ranked #1 in the 90s since he became the oldest.

Also, how can Holmes NOT be your number #1 when he defeated your number 3, 4, and 5? And don't hand me that 'controversy crap' about Witherspoon defeating Holmes. Larry clearly outlanded 'Terrible Tim' and controlled the tempo of the fight. Spoon' was not aggressive or busy enough; the one exception being a minute time-frame when he hurt Larry. Don't let the biased commentators fool you too.

The only real 'iffy' decision Larry had was against Carl Williams. Indeed, two of the three judges were way off target, but 144-143 in Holmes favor was perfectly acceptable as the tide of the fight turned to Larry's favor following a body shot which hurt Williams in round 9.

As for Tyson unifying the titles, unlike Holmes. Well, Holmes beat a number of them who later had a round-robin with these splintered/offshoot organizations in James Smith, Tim Witherspoon, Trevor Berbick and Mike Weaver.

Tyson didn't beat any great Heavyweight in the 80s who was in his prime. I find it more impressive that Larry was 35 beating guys who were 25 than Tyson at 20 beating up Larry Holmes left-over and a fat, poorly conditioned (Tony Tubbs), ancient Holmes, blown up light-heavyweight, scared-to-death, collect-a-check (Michael Spinks) and then drug addicts (Tubbs, Pinklon Thomas, Tyrell Biggs).

1980's Heavyweights Rank 1 to 5 > Holmes #1

 

Those are all good points and an argument can certainly be made for Tyson and Holmes being interchangeable for the #1 spot. I mentioned Tyson's being the youngest champion because it was an achievement that he accrued during that time frame along with also being a unified champion and never losing in the decade, while Holmes never set any records of note, although reaching 48-0 was admirable. Holmes indeed fought and defeated a lot of the top contenders of the 1980's, but a lot of them were either very green or unknown at the time he took those challenges, got away with some iffy decisions, even side stepped a few of them, and was stripped of a title at one point. Holmes record in the 1980's is 16-3 while Tyson's is 37-0. Of course Larry had 16 title fight wins and Tyson only about 10. Nevertheless, Tyson flattened an entire division, unified the crown, and dominated.. Holmes didn't. But I can see other factors which would favor Holmes at #1.

 

It goes....
1# Larry Holmes
2# Mike Tyson
3# Tony Tucker
4# Tim Witherspoon
5# Pinklon Thomas

 

Personally I don't find Holmes beating up Zanon, Cobb, Rodriguez, Leon, Frank, Marvis, LeDoux, Jones, Bey and a sick old Muhammad Ali especially impressive. That's over half Larry's 80s title defences right there. Tyson would get hammered for defending against opposition of that calibre, but Holmes seems to get a pass for it. Spinks is the same blown-up light-heavy that Holmes picked to chase Rocky's record against rather than, say, a more dangerous opponent like Pinklon Thomas, and somehow lost to him.

Who was the best heavyweight that Holmes beat in the 80s? Probably Cooney or Spoon, yet Cooney was always more hype than substance, while Spoon was 15-0 and a 6-1 underdog, and many would say Larry didn't really beat him anyway. You may dismiss that as 'controversy crap', yet there is a reason why this bout invariably crops up in discussions of bad decisions. Boxing Monthly called it one of the the 10 worst heavyweight decisions. He never fought Dokes, Thomas or Coetzee or any of the WBA champs, trashed his belt rather than face Page, no rematch with Spoon or Weaver.

Tyson cleaned out the top guys in the division and all the other titlists, and beat them all in lop-sided fashion. No gift decisions against 15 fight greenhorns or going life and death with Bonecrusher or Cooney, or loads of gimme defences against Euro level opponents. BTW, Biggs and Thomas were not druggies when Tyson fought them. And just for good measure he KO'd Larry as well.

Tyson's #1 for me.

 

All of the above were basically my reasons for giving Tyson the nod as well.. Good post :good