A version of Tony Tucker who didn’t embarrass himself against Mike Tyson would beat any version of Gerry Cooney. On points, or by knockout - I don't know.
This fight nearly happened in May 1986. ABC offered Cooney a number of opponents they would approve. Tony Tucker, 30-0, coming off a 10-round decision over Eddie Richardson, was one of the names on the list. Cooney opted for Eddie Gregg, who he stopped in 86 seconds. Tucker would beat James Broad that fall, and then defeat Buster Douglas in May 1987 for the vacant IBF belt. Cooney fought Michael Spinks two weeks after Tucker-Douglas, and Cooney was stopped in five.
I think Tony Tucker is one of the most overrated fighters on the forum, people look at him going 12 rounds with Tyson. Which in fairness to him is an impressive feat, but outside of a decent losing effort to Tyson his career is just not that impressive. Going into the Tyson fight Tucker was 34-0 and his only two notable wins was vs James Broad, and a come from behind win against Buster Douglas who wasn't highly thought of at the time, and that win is really only significant because of what Douglas did after vs Tyson. Outside of that you have Tucker getting a very controversial decision over a blown up Cruiserweight Orlin Norris, and another very close decision over Oliver McCall. He has no standout impressive performances over any top 10 opponent to my knowledge, and didn't fight any of the other dangerous 80s contenders. Whilst he was padding his 34-0 record against mostly no hopers. I'm not trying to hate on Tony Tucker i don't have anything against him, but to me he seems to get very favoured in H2H match ups. When his only real impressive feat is surviving and winning a few rounds against Tyson, i mean Tillis did better than Tucker against Tyson i don't see him getting favoured in many H2H discussions, my question is where is the stand out performances over good opponents ? What makes Tucker so favourable in H2H's ? I mean ok Gerry Cooney's best wins are against fighters past their best, but stopping Lyle in 1 round, Norton in 1 round, and stopping Young in 4 rounds, is still more impressive than any of Tucker's performances over named opponents. As for the actual match up between the two, it's hard one to call. I think i might favour Cooney over the 12 round distance. Cooney was able to fight a competitive fight vs a prime Larry Holmes, who had arguably one of his best ever performances of his career to beat Cooney in 13th round. I think Tucker might fight a bit too passive, and Cooney would be able to win a decision based on his aggression and power punching.
I'd go with Tucker by points. Yea I agree with all of the criticism on Tucker and his lack of meaningful opponents prior to Tyson. After Tyson he had drug problems and was getting on in years. But what Tucker does have is a great chin, especially the best version of him. Tucker also is a better all around boxer than Cooney, though not as exciting, and before his freak knee injury he was allegedly even better. So I'd take Tucker on points, he's going to survive the early Cooney onslaught and end up piling on points, especially as the fight wears on.
Tucker by points. He didn't develop like he should have, but TNT had strong boxing ability and had more than enough to defuse Cooney.
I went with tucker. I think he knew how to survive Cooney’s early onslaughts and ultimately outlast him. He’d have to take some lumps along the way though
Tony TNT Tucker on points over Gerry Cooney. I believe Tucker is well skilled to let an elderly adult abuser like Cooney beat him, Tony is not a fossil like Ken Norton and Jimmy Young were.
Only way Cooney wins this would be if Tucker steals his coke stash and he becomes so angry he unleashes that left hook that can knock buildings down.
Cooney was done as a serious fighter after 1982. He would find a way to lose to Tucker. Tucker was managed by Dennis Rappaport’s brother in law at one point.
