Mike Weaver 1980's ranking

Weaver was a notoriously slow starter but once he was in championship rounds he excelled. I always wonder what would have happened had that Weaver - Cooney fight been made in October of 1981.

 

That could've been a fight for the ages if both men come in well trained. I could see it going either way, especially with both of them containing massive power in their rear and lead hands respectively. I'd make a bet but it is seriously too close to call. Cooney might rip apart Weaver early, but at the same time, he could get smashed by Weaver's right all the same, even in the early rounds- No different than similar scarecrow man Carl Williams.

 

We group fighters into decades to sort fighters into groups they are arbitrary cutoff and I think info from the early 1990s is relevant here. Tucker is 7 years younger than Weaver. He rose later and declined later.

1)This was a typical SOS for the 80s. Everyone was avoiding the best to some degree or fought them and took losses. But Weaver took losses against "nobodies" and "somebodys" alike. Weavers two wins over champs are the worst 2 of the decade in Coetzee and Tate. At least Buster Douglas and McCall

2)Lots of fighters had success against Holmes even if they usually lost in the end. Tyson and Lewis were more dominant champs and going the distance and winning some rounds stands out more because its not something commonly done. Weavers fought Pinklon and got beaten badly. He was old when he fought Lewis fair enough.

In terms of calling Holmes uppercut a "hail mary" and saying he was about to lose is misleading. If Weaver did not finish Holmes Holmes was probably winning. If my math is right if a)Holmes uppercut doesn't happen b)Weaver wins R11 and c) Weaver gets a knockdown in R12 Holmes would have still gotten a draw and defended his title. Weaver was the one who needed to KO Holmes to win the fight not the other way around.

3)Tucker was undefeated except for a competitive Tyson loss then the guy he won his belt over beats Tyson. I think that helps him quite a bit. Witherspoon has the Smith and Pinklon losses, Pinklon has the Berbick and Tyson losses. No one really proved they were the best of that era. But Tucker doing well against Tyson and Buster beating Tyson makes it look like they were the best all along and we couldn't tell because they weren't fighting anyone. McCall upsetting Lewis also helped.

Buster Douglas and Oliver McCall aren't great so far as champs go but Weavers 2 wins over champs were John Tate and Coetzee the worst 2 of the era who I don't even consider champs. He almost went 1-1 with Dokes. But lets say Weaver beat Dokes. What did Dokes,Coetzee or Tate do to give those wins value? They lost almost every big fight they had outside of their group. Coetzee had a 10 round draw with Pinklon Thomas.

4)H2H plays very heavily into peoples ratings especially for the same era.

Orlin Norris was great cruiserweight. But fair enough.

 

Too inconsistent and flawed for me; but I am OK with him as a fringe Top 10 HW in thw 80s.

 

The thread asked specifically about Weaver's rating in the 80s, i don't see what the 90s has to do with this discussion. Your argument would be in regards to all time Heavyweight rankings but that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing Heavyweights based on what they did in the 80s, and how they rank in that era so Tucker's win over McCall in the 90s is irrelevant.

Weaver pushed Holmes hard it was a back and forth war in which Holmes had to dig very deep in a fight he was in danger of losing. What other fighters during Holmes's prime pushed Holmes that hard throughout an entire fight ? Norton ? Witherspoon ? i can't think of anyone else.

Weaver didn't get beat badly by Thomas the fight was even on two of the judges scorecards it was a very competitive fight until Thomas landed the KO punch with the right hand.

The fight was 15 rounds not 12 yes Holmes was slightly ahead on points but that doesn't tell the whole story....Holmes was hurt numerous times and pushed to the brink in a back and forth war.

Again as i keep pointing out Tucker was undefeated yes but his only real notable opponent was Douglas, and that win wasn't considered that impressive at that time. Most of Tucker's first 30 professional fights were against complete nobodies and he didn't beat any of other notable 80s Heavyweights of that time.

Your logic is baffling to me quite honestly how does Douglas beating Tyson 3 years later make Tucker one of the best of the era ? You might aswell say Jesse Ferguson is one of the best of the era then because he beat Douglas aswell.

Because as i keep saying Weaver has a far better resume than Tucker in the 80s hence that's why everyone apart from you rates Weaver above Tucker in the 80s.

Tucker's whole resume in the 80s is basically a wide decision loss to Tyson and beating Douglas.

Weaver has Williams, Coetzee, Tate, undefeated Tillis, and a draw against Dokes that most felt he won.

Yeah Weaver had more losses in the 80s he took some losses whilst past his best, but he was also fighting much tougher opposition overall than Tucker.

Weaver in the 80s fought Bonecrusher, Thomas, Smith, Ruddock, Williams, Dokes x2, Tillis, Coetzee, compare that to Tucker's opposition he basically only fought 2 notable opponents in the whole decade.

Yes but Tucker's H2H basis is based on wide decision losses and going the distance with Lewis, Tyson.

Tucker barely scrapped by McCall by SD, should've lost twice to Norris the 1st fight was a gift for Tucker, was behind on points vs Douglas before Douglas just basically quit.

Don't get me wrong i commend Tucker for going the distance vs Lewis, Tyson, that does take some doing. But i don't think Tucker ever really showed he was the top man, he barely has any stand out wins/performances and didn't fight any of the other notable 80s Heavyweight contenders.

 

Cooney needed a live opponent whilst he had some stand out wins against notable names Lyle, Young, Norton, they were all considerably way past their best. Cooney needed to be tested against a top 10 ranked Heavyweight before taking on Holmes.

I'm not sure if Weaver would've been the guy to test Cooney though, because there is a quite a strong possibility Weaver could get blown away before even getting into the fight. Cooney had alot of early KO's and that's not a favourable match up for a notoriously slow starter like Weaver, but if Weaver could survive the early onslaught then it would be a very stern test for Cooney.

 

Agreed, and it's definitely a shame that Cooney was pushed up so quickly.

 

Jesus.

Tucker had ONE win over a contender in the 80's. Incredibly he turned pro in 1980 and it took him seven damn years to finally fight a contender. He had 36 fights in the 80's and faced just TWO contenders going 1-1.

Every one of Weavers early losses were not in the 80's. John Tate was considered by a small minority to be better than Holmes and was the standout #2 in the world. Coetzee was also a very impressive win. Weaver soaked up his right hand bombs and came back to poleaxe him. His "draw" against Dokes in a fight the solid majority thought he won was an extremely good performance. He was a different fighter IMO after Tony Anthony pole axed him from behind when he wasn't looking - his durability went to crap.

Tucker was a good fighter but is incredibly overrated on this forum.

 

That's such a horrific take.

 

DP who wasn't even born in the 80's is putting on a clinic in here.

 

belongs above Coone, Page, Dokes and Bonecrusher. Ruddock is 90s

 

Tucker was nothing to me. Beat Buster who was notoriously hot and cold. After losing to Tyson he disappeared for a long time, coming back in unimpressive condition. McCall is a good win but I see little else. Give me Weaver any day.