Which Fighter Sufferers Most Moving Era's..?

Great post as always.

That's exactly how I see things.


Without being disrespectful, only a fraction of the guys he's mentioned are ATG's.


There's no way that Mike would have had a little chance of beating all of those guys.

 

@HistoryZero26 is a nice guy but he does have some baffling takes at times.

i remember I went back and forth with him in regards to Tony Tucker when he rated him as a top 5 Heavyweight of the 80s ? But yet Tucker only beat 1 top 10 Heavyweight in the 80s which didn't make sense to me.

He also has a very high opinion of Jimmy Young he once claimed Young was one of the hardest Heavyweights to beat in history over 15 rounds yet Young is 0-1 in regards to 15 rounders.

So yeah I've got nothing against him as a poster but I don't agree with alot of his takes.

 

I know that they aren't ATG's.


I've already said that Mike is hugely overrated. However, that's mostly by casual fans.

IMHO, he's actually underrated by many people too.


As we know, he had no longevity as a great fighter.

So that means he suffers in ATG rankings.

However, if you view him at his best, when he was still hungry and motivated, and you look at how these guys would have matched up stylistically, then you would have to go with Dynamic's assessment.


He'd have been favoured over most of the guys listed.

And saying that he'd have had a little chance of winning, is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Whenever I mention Tony Tucker in a positive light you get an alarm on your phone and rush to the scene.

Hes 0-1 against Muhammad Ali. Who was not just also one of the greatest point fighters ever but one whom the judges were fairly biased towards. This is like blaming Sham(the horse) for being unable to win a Triple Crown race. .000 winning percentage and he came in last in the 73 Belmont. Yeah context.

Anyway you've written like 10 posts saying "Historyzero26 is great but he thinks Tony Tucker is a top 5 HW in the 80s have I reminded you he thinks Tony Tucker is a top 5 HW in the 80s because he thinks that".

 

Hi Loudon.
Unlike @HistoryZero26 I grew up with Frazier, and as such I have rose tinted glasses about him and other great fighters of the 70s, but your cogent, precise, and pinpoint post, to me has no honest rebuttal,all your observations and insights into their skill set,and fighting attributes, are hard to refute, I say that as a Frazier admirer ( who isn't ) so thinking our fellow poster would do well to ponder your post, and give it the merit it undoubtedly deserves, we shall see.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.

 

This is a fun debate.

I don't agree with your opinions, but it's all good.

I respect them.

And I respect that you don't insult anybody.


Just out of interest, tell me why you think that they're all ATG fighters.

Maybe some could be HOF fighters, which is obviously a notch lower.


Also, why do you think that Joe Bugner would have been problematic to Mike?

 

Not really I barely interact with you.

There's no basis to any of your logic it doesn't make any sense.

Tucker logically can not be rated a top 5 Heavyweight of a decade when there's atleast 10 Heavyweights in that decade with better resumes.

Logically Young can not be one of the best 15 round fighters ever when he's never won a 15 round decision in his entire career.

Again as I said logically it makes 0 sense.

 

Thanks Mike.

I really appreciate that.

And I always enjoy reading your lovely posts.


Btw, I love Joe.

I grew up in the 80's, but I've studied the careers of those 70's guys.

It was a great era.

It was stacked.

I admire all of them, including guys like Jerry Quarry who went all out and gave everything.


I love all of those guys, and I would hate to disrespect any of them.

I'm 100% certain that they would all make waves in today's division.

However, I see many of them being more HOF fighters than ATG fighters.


I also have no issue with people ranking Joe higher than Mike. But to me, when both at their best, Mike was superior.

 

While we disagree on how Mike would do against the 70s guys I also think part of this is you see the label of "ATG" as a more exclusive one then I do. More exclusive then the HOF? There are fighters I'd label ATGs that I do not expect to make the IBHOF at least not anytime soon.

I rate elites in what I consider the best eras higher then dominant champs in eras I don't rate as well. Which is not how everyone sees it. Not that the 80s is terrible or anything but Tyson was at his limit facing the best of that era(which includes the legendary Tony Tucker) and then IMO was the 6th best HW of the next one.

I think you are underrating Joe Bugner.

 

We don't interact much but 90% of the time we do its always about Tony Tucker.

There are not 10 with a better resume. Theres Tyson and Holmes.......and perhaps Witherspoon and thats really it so far as better resumes go. Busters a peer. Michael Spinks has 4 wins in the weight class. Pinklon? I don't know how you get to 10 even if you add Weaver who I think you've overrated far more then I would be overrating Tony Tucker.

"At least 10". What did Tony Tucker do to you man? Hes a NABF/USBA double winner who won a bunch of rounds against Tyson and Lennox at their peaks. What did he do to deserve being ranked outside of the top 10 in the 80s? 57-7 with 47 knockouts state champion, American champion IBF champion what more do you want from the guy? Hes beaten more HW notables then Usyk.

 

To me, an ATG fighter, is a historical great.

We have HOF fighters, and we have ATG fighters.


You could say they were ATG's of the 70's.

But not in general.

Not historically.


To me, an ATG fighter is a Duran, a Robinson or an Ali.

An ATG HW would be a top 10 ATG HW like Louis, Ali and Holmes.


I rate Bugner.

He was tough and durable. And he beat good guys of the 80's, even though he was in his later years.

But I don't see what he could have done with Mike.

 

Again not really we've had like 2 discussions on this.

Yes there is 10.

Tyson
Holmes
Spinks
Witherspoon
Thomas
Weaver
Berbick
Bonecrusher
Page
Tubbs

Why are you so invested in Tony Tucker ? he beat a grand total of 1 top 10 rated Heavyweight in the whole decade. And yet you constantly try and push this narrative that Tucker resume wise is one of the best 80s Heavyweights when logically it makes no sense and is totally wrong on all fronts.

 

Its more like 5 or 6 conversations about this. Not 2. This started shortly after I got my account its been over a year.

Hes 57-7 world champion, USBA/NABF winner who beat Buster Douglas and Oliver McCall and won rounds against Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson. He was missing losses at a time everyone else was tripping up. And its hard not to take how someone did in the early 90s and not factor that into your H2H assessment of fighters and how they compare to others in the 80s gen.

"Why are you so invested in Tony Tucker?"

I'm not invested in Tony Tucker. I think you might just be messing with me here.

 

It's not that many and i've barely interacted with you not that i'm meaning that in a bad way but we don't normally interact.

I just stumbled across this thread and i see you're still pushing this narrative about Tucker and Young both of which make no sense.

Douglas is the only name relevant to your argument.

McCall was in the 90s and so was Lewis which has no barring on Tucker's rating in the 80s.

Tucker had a cleaner record because he only beat 1 ranked Heavyweight in the 80s.

If you want to rate Tucker highly based on his H2H ability that's fine but that's not what you're saying. You're saying Tucker has one of the best resumes of the 80s Heavyweights and that's simply not true.

You're also rating Tucker's H2H ability based on notable losses and not really much on notable wins which is always a bit dicey.

Like for example you're listing the 57-7 record to further your argument but in those 60 odd fights Tucker only has 1 win over a top 10 rated Heavyweight.

 

I agree Ali in still dangerous in particular in 70-74.

But even in that 2nd Norton fight I thought Norton was still catching up to him especially in the 2nd half the fight. But I did think Ali won 7-5 in rounds.