I disagree. Butler had power and he just happened to land early. He was never a boxing sensation who drew 70,000 fans or for that matter even in good shape.
I think it's easy to forget Tucker was unbeaten when facing a PRIME ATG in Tyson. Tucker had just beaten a certain Buster Douglas After the Tyson loss ( survived prime Mike with a bust hand) he then took 2 -3 years out at his own prime This was largely due to seeing 28k ( his words) out of million dollar payday. After inactivity the road back to the title was slow but aged 33 , 6 years after Tyson he also went the distance with prime Lewis. Any fights after that it's fair to say he was past his sell by date. I dont think we really saw the best of him, but at 33 years old his only defeats were Tyson and Lewis.
And started his comeback @ 246lb, and barely made it 23X afterwards. And was better on his feet than Lewis even at this stage imho.... I don´t know for what he´s brought up here after the Tyson-layoff. He couldn´t comeback to his former level.
Yeah his career was stop start. A classic example of too many people wanting to get rich from one guy creating a “too many cooks spoil the broth” syndrome. His management was a joke. Everything that could go wrong did. So he was doomed really. We can only go by what there is to go on him. Tucker really never got the right fights at the right time so we never found out about him. He was either involved in appalling mismatches or world level guys. Nothing In-between. And the world level guys always beat him. The trajectory of a career should be a very carefully balanced thing. And the fighters know this. It took too long to step him up and when they did everything was set against him. there just wasn’t room for him. Tucker missed a few windows. The business was set around other guys by the time anyone could move him or there was an opening for him. Let’s face it, When he fought Douglas, that was a regional level fight suitable for a USBA level title. Douglas had no currency at that time. He did allow Tyson to look a little more human, but he didn’t win that fight. And that could just be because he could emulate Mitch green even if I know the business relied more on Tyson being a superstar than anything else. And then as time went on i he just never Delivered. Lewis, Norris, seldom etc. And unfortunately that’s the only way to measure Tony Tucker.
Another way we could look at it is, TT took a prime Tyson the distance and never looked really in trouble. Yes he fought mainly to survive but so did others and they got ko'd. I'd rate Tucker as one of the most durable heavyweights from the 80 s. Lewis dropped him twice but couldn't finish him. Now if we put Tucker in Norton s shoes and vice verse what would be the result s? I can't see Tucker beating Ali but he lasts the distance every time imo. Tony v Foreman? Tucker doesn't get blown away in 2,, im certain. Not sure he's as good against Holmes as Norton was tho. Now Norton V Douglas, I believe we'd have a same sort of fight, Buster leading then Ken getting him late. Norton V Tyson?? I'm not even going there. Ken v Lewis.? Norton does well for a few round before Lennox slams him to the floor.
Norton had longevity over Tucker, which basically makes no sense putting him against Holmes that stage. Tucker went over the hill quickly, so I see him get beat up against Shavers and Cooney too. In contrast of Norton, Tucker gives Foreman a fight. And does against Ali or any Frazier too. On the other hand, prime Norton gets slapped all over the place against Lewis or Tyson. Tucker could simply match those guys. Doesn´t mean he wins a decision over Norton, but you simply can´t hide the fact that he did go 24 against ATG puncher beasts, while Norton went two (of course didn´t have a chance to show in another meeting). Due to his movement and durability alone prime Tucker gives Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Norton a good fight. The Larry Middleton comp. of course is finest choklab troll work, no need to argue on that.
Largely agree. If he hadn't had those years out and had management who helped him be more centre stage
This is an important point. Tucker was a good boxer. With a sound amateur pedigree. I guess he was able to box with Tyson. And keep it to a strategical engagement. He did this without using his size. It was simply because he could operate with him without letting things descending into an actual battle. Whilst I do credit Tucker for being able to do this, in the scheme of things, shouldn’t more of Tysons opponents have been able to do this? Tyson was a massive talent but also a lot less experienced than everyone else and simply a kid in real terms. Most of Tyson’s fights hadn’t really been fights. Most ending within a few rounds. Practically a handful of competitive rounds really. He got to Berbick early. And it probably flatterers Tyson really. We have to remember All the money in boxing was invested in Tyson becoming a huge star. But in the run of things what was Berbick really? A solid contender at best. Thomas had declined quickly allowing Berbick a belt. Bonecrusher was also an unlikely champion. He’d already lost to marvis Frazier for Petes sake. Sure Smith won a belt in the ring but bonecrusher was the recipient of this after Witherspoon (a man who had previously given smith a beating of a lifetime) provided an unusual resistance indeed. Quite literally a broken man when smith beat him. And yet Tyson was unable to deliver smith such the domination Witherspoon and Holmes had. Taken on face value. Was it any surprise in hindsight that Tucker can lose admirably on points to a guy who could only beat Smith in an ugly hug fest over the distance? The majority of Tyson’s title opponents were deliberately lined up for him giving the new star every advantage. Yes Tyson delivered but just look at how most of them were served up. Inactive. Retired. Years away from facing respectable opposition. You could say one way at looking at is this: For Tuckers points loss to Tyson to be impressive you have to believe Tyson only beat title opponents who all had a real chance of beating him. And really almost none of them did. Holmes, Spinks, Bruno, Tubbs, Thomas.. were all horribly disadvantaged going into fights with Tyson because of lack of suitable ring activity.
Yer I get that choc, but do you reckon that Tyson was up more for the TT fight probably than say Smith, Holmes, Thomas etc? It was after all the unified belts so quite important and Tucker was unbeaten so that maybe had Tyson having to go all out a bit more. Perhaps this version of Tyson was one of the best but he just couldn't put his man away?
You´re talking some rubbish it hurts. Berbick was a durable fellow who, beside very young age, never got ko´d again, fighting until the age of 45. James Smith and Mitch Green barely opened up for two ugly nights, winning like 1 round out of 22. Tillis got down and took a whalloping against the 19y old Tyson, with some scoring it 8-2. The rest got poleaxed until that night in Tokyo. We´ve had a thread about numbers, with only Foreman and Wilder coming close to such KO-runs. Thomas chin got him out of 2. Tubbs crushed in 2. Spinks in 1, Williams in 1, Bruno, Holmes and Biggs did a little longer before falling without much chance. Beside Tucker. Who the majority in another thread rated as Tysons best opp. Who seemed to be the only making 12 and trying to win. But sure, Tyson wasn´t that difficult at the time I guess....
yes what title eliminator did Thomas win? yes what title eliminator did Bruno win? yes what title eliminator did Holmes win? yes what title eliminator did Tubbs win? yes what title eliminator did Biggs win? Since Spinks was last in a ring Tyson had fought 4 times. How fair is any of this for the challenger or rival (or retired) champion? Yes Tyson was a magnificent fighter. And the guys facing him deserved better preparation. I don’t understand why people want to see their hero’s have every possible advantage in their favour. That’s not sport. Its like giving the biggest guy a bat to hit a little guy tied to a chair. I am sorry if the facts hurt. But they really shouldn’t.
I understand that conclusion and it can be true of course. However there is other evidence that dosnt support this so much. It has also been documented Tyson was on the verge of quitting before the Tony Tucker 'Ultimate' fight. A month before one of the most famous fights in his career, in 1987, he almost quit altogether. Tyson says he disappeared from training camp and partied in Albany for two weeks straight. In a nightclub, he told friends he was going to retire. But his manager, Jimmy Jacobs, called him and said that they would be sued if he backed out of the fight, talking him out of it. He says: "I should have retired then but I didn't have control of my own life." He went on to beat Tucker to become undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. Tyson was heavier for this fight and some of his hair had been falling out. He was under a lot of stress. But I dont think any of this was out of character for Tyson. His personal life was always crazy.
It's a pity Tucker went off the scene when he did. If he'd kept fighting, maybe a fight with Bruno, rematch with Douglas, even Berbick, and maybe got another Crack at Tyson around 89 or 90, well who knows.. Maybe he gets him at the right time?
If money was no object, and the right people handled Tucker, he should have been fighting guys like Tillis, like David Bey, or Spinks or Gerry Coetzee or recent ex champs like Page. He needed guys like that to become a better fighter. Three of those guys in one year and he should have been ready for Holmes or Thomas before Tyson even turned pro. Had he done this I think potentially Tucker beats Thomas maybe Holmes. I have long believed potentially Douglas, Tucker and Tyson were the best “future heavyweights” of the tail end of the lost generation... but all the investment went into one guy. Tyson. I think if Tucker could have won a belt in 1985 he could have been the one defending his title to Carl Williams which would have been a high quality fight and made him a better fighter.
