Could Tony Tucker (1987) Go The Distance With Foreman (1973)?

Yeah heavyweights seldom ever overcome a 3 1/2 pound difference

Just stop.

 

Thanks for reminding us that Frazier was ten pounds overweight.

 

But it's a "size advantage" when we talk about Bakole and Foreman

 

Bakole would have a size advantage over Foreman. That is correct.

 

Then please do explain to me why Bakole being full-on obese is a part of his size but Frazier having a few extra lbs is just him being overweight.

 

Thread isn’t about Bakole, chief.

 

He was beating Frazier, a 5'11"
swarmer who was always going to be exactly where George wanted, directly in front of him and wading into George's uppercuts. He was beating Lyle, who while tough as nails, was also right in front of George slugging it out. He was beating Norton who was prone to being bombed out by big punchers.

I can't argue with you that George has some very good wins, and he does have a better resume than Tucker, but you know that styles make fights. There's no sign that 1987 Tucker is just going to fold the way Norton did. He definitely had a rock-solid chin, and certainly appeared to have better stamina than 1973 Foreman. He definitely wasn't going to be right in front of George. I'm not seeing any reason to believe that Tucker gets bombed out early here, and his chances obviously increase the longer this goes. I think this fight makes it into the later rounds, and Tucker seemed better built for a long fight than George. No way this is comfortable for George from 10-15, and my guess is Tucker would still be around at that point. Not arguing that Tucker was better, but he appears to be a bad match-up for George, at least IMO.

 

Tucker's one of the most overrated fighters on here. To the best of my knowledge he beat one genuine top 10 heavyweight in his life in a fight that was dead even late. There was a lot of questions around Buster's sudden capitulation and it tore his team apart. Buster has subtly commented on it in years gone by.

Tucker gets a lot of credit for lasting the distance against Tyson, but he won about 2 rounds. He relied a lot on clinching and racing around. Pre loss Foreman would cut of the ring and nail him in corners. Foreman got people out of there that no-one else did, or faster, styles or not. If he didn't beat up a guy like Chuvalo i could see a segment in here saying Foreman was lucky not to have fought him, his insane durability may have outlasted George etc etc.

I just don't overly rate Tucker. When the level was stepped up he lost, period. I could see Foreman keeping thew pressure on, getting him in corners, and having him wilting by round 7 or earlier. He wouldn't have the luxury of resting on Foreman at regular intervals as he did Tyson. He never beat anyone remotely like Foreman. He has two big punchers on his record and he lost to both. No-one on his record screams at me that Foreman can't stop him. He's just not that good. The Tyson connection of lasting 12 rounds with Mike and beating the guy that beat Tyson years later gets him a crazy amount of mileage with some. He just didn't do that much in the real world.

That's my take.

 

Fair enough. It's true that absolute peak Tucker was the win over Douglas, then the loss to Tyson. He then took a two year hiatus and was heavier and less mobile...just not quite the same fighter. Prior to that, he really fought a bunch of nobodies aside from Broad. Poorly managed IMO. They should have stepped up the competition 2 or 3 years before they actually did.

As far as what he would have looked like vs. Foreman, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I thought he showed enough in the way of stamina, boxing skills, and a good enough chin at his peak, however brief a time that was, to make it into the later rounds, where I'd probably lose confidence in George.

 

Tuckers durability is far more proven against big hitters than guys Foreman stopped. Chuvalo and Frazier didn't fight any aside from Foreman himself and Moorer and Norton were stopped by the only other big hitters they faced.

Tucker faced two monster hitters in Tyson and Lewis and survived both.

 

He was down twice against Lewis and evaded most of Tyson. They are both very different fighters to Tyson.

 

I agree he wasn't the same fighter after the hiatus. I contend Foreman wasn't after Ali as well.

I so agree he was terribly managed. He either fought nobodies or top of the tree and top of the tree was rare and unsuccessful. Fighting good opposition enhances ones game.

You're not coming across as emotionally biased (which we have a bit of) and therefore i respect that's the way you see things from your side. I see Foreman from Frazier up to and including Ali as a real beast, you don't. It's all good.

 

Tucker sure did go out bad in that Hide bout. I thought he'd give one of his Joe Bugner type efforts and make it to the final bell. Sure didn't think Herbie would catch him like that and make him crumble.

But we get lots of these results when guys are old with lots of mileage on the odometer. Real tough facing those reflexes of those youthful opponents.