Earky 1980's heavyweights vs early 2000's heavyweights

You overrate Tucker. He was a good fighter but not great. Vitali was never down on the scorecards ever his entire career. No way Tucker beats him unless he gets injured.

 

Tucker would be a difficult go for Vitlay. He's definitely lasting the distance and might even turn Vitlay ***** as the rounds progress.

 

Having survived both a prime Tyson and Lewis, I agree that its fair to give Tucker the benefit of the doubt of at least going the distance. But that's about all I'd predict him to do. He was non aggressive and rarely pressed the action. He was soundly outboxed by James Douglas before Buster's late round stamina issues and weak mental resolve kicked in. I don't see him besting Vitali Klitschko who was his superior in size and if nothing else, equal in boxing ability. I think Klitschko takes this via decision, unless a fluke torn rotator cuff or cut occurs.

 

:rofl

 

Do you actually have a valid opinion to contribute?

 

Holmes v Lewis

The thread does not state what the scheduled distance is, and in some of these matchups it would make a difference.

If Lennox had a fault, it was that he did tend to rely on his power a little too much. I think he neglected his considerable boxing skills sometimes, and it may cost him here.
Larry won't show Lewis any more respect than he is due and was in my opinion, is slightly more well-rounded as a fighter. I think Lewis (who has shown that he could be outjabbed and hit fairly often with a jab) would have a mighty struggle with Holmes' rapier jab which is arguably the best jab ever at the weight.
I think Lewis would get outworked by Holmes, and this is especially true if this is a 15-rounder. Holmes was proven at this distance whereas Lewis was not.
Larry by UD.

Tucker v Vitali

Vitali is overall better than Tucker, but there are some interesting assets that Tucker brings to the table. He's tough, durable, has quick hands and good boxing skills. He's in the same ballpark size-wise as well, although conceding around 20Lbs. But still, he's not physically overmatched.
He is not going to plod after Vitlai as some of Klitshcko's other opponents have done, some of whom lacked the skills and size to really bother the awkward Ukrainian.
I see a pretty even fight for a few rounds. I think where Tucker loses this fight is that Vitali is more consistent and more dogged in his approach. He is going to want to win that bit more, and would pull out a points lead as the fight progresses.
Tucker was very durable normally, so I see a points win for Vitali. But it would not be a lopsided fight by any means in my opinion.

Cooney v Wlad

For me, maybe the most interesting fight here.
Yes, Klitschko is overall better than Gerry ever was and yes, he is more proven at the top level. By rights, this is his fight to lose.
But like the matchup above, Wlad is not fighting a physically overmatched guy. Cooney is pretty much the same size as Wlad, give or take a few pounds.
And unlike Wach, who was huge but a stiff, slow plodder, Cooney had respectably fast hands and an absolutely monstrous left hook which he used to both the head and body, and was generally very aggressive.
This is a ticklish fight in the early going I feel. Wlad is going to have to be very careful not to get caught by that hook, and Gerry would have to be careful not to let Wlad settle down into a rhythm and establish his jab and grab tactics.
I may get all sorts of heat for this, but I feel Gerry has a very live shot here, although in general I'd say Wlad may be too polished in the long run. Still, a very, very interesting fight where the underdog (Cooney) can definitely upset the applecart.

Spoon v Tua

One of the easier matchups to call. Tua struggled a lot with inferior competition like Rahman and Maskaev, and I think he'd struggle a lot with Spoon, who was just more well-rounded than Tua.
Tim I feel is just too good for Tua, who would lose by convincing decision.

Thomas v Byrd

I'd favour Pink, but Byrd ha a shot. He could make Thomas look pretty ordinary because he had excellent defensive qualities and very good overall skill.
There is no chance that Chris can score a stoppage here since Thomas had a great chin and Byrd could barely dent a balloon, but on a technical level this is a pretty close fight. The clincher for me is Thomas' world-class jab, which when pumping was a game-changer.
I don't think one could expect any real fireworks, but for the purist it would be interest to see who can overcome the problems each fighter would pose for the other.
Overall, I think Thomas was just a slightly better technician and he has the heavier punch, which may sway the judges in a close round.

Thomas by close decision.

Weaver v Rahman

Another fight where for me there is not an outright favourite. Weaver had the irritating tendency of starting really slowly and also having a poor punch output.
Hasim was a strong, solid fighter with decent skills, and he could punch too. Weaver had a marginal chin and Rahman could pose a knockout threat here. If there is to be a stoppage, I feel that Rahman is the more likely of the two to get it.
Weaver had terrific power in both hands, but I don't think he would ice Rahman with one shot like he did with Tate. That was a bolt from the blue and the chances of that sort of shot landing are slim.
Over 12, I think Rahman may shade it. Over the longer distance, where Weaver has more time to get into the fight and is proven over 15, I think Mike gets the nod.
A close fight where the outcome could be influenced by the scheduled distance.

Coetzee v Sanders

The one matchup here that I am certain does not go the distance. Both were front-runners, both had stamina issues (Sanders more so) and both could bang.
Sanders has a big edge on being a southpaw and this may trouble Coetzee a great deal. On the other hand, they say the best punch against a lefty is the straight right, and Coetzee built his career around that very punch.

If Coetzee had a big flaw, it was that to me, his jab was poor. One of the few times he ever showed a good jab was against Dokes, but generally his jab left something to be desired.
As a result, he struggled sometimes to establish his distance and was guilty of falling in with his punches, leaving himself off-balance and vulnerable to a counter.
Sanders was a good counter-puncher with fast hands, and he may exploit this shortcoming in Coetzee's game.
Sanders' big problem is that he went for broke if he got his guy hurt, and expended a lot of energy in trying to take out his man. If this failed, he was left gasping for breath and this problem was compounded by his lack of good stamina anyway.
He could punch himself out and get taken out himself, as was the case in the Rahman fight.
Overall I tend to favour Coetzee slightly. He was more proven at the top level and generally lost when he was gassed. Sanders does pose a very real danger here though, and it's a very hard fight to pick.

I tentatively pick Coetzee to stop Sanders inside 8, but it's not a comfortable pick at all.

Tubbs v Toney

To be honest, I've barely watched Toney at heavyweight. Once he became a fat butterball, I kind of lost interest in his career.
I was impressed with his stoppage win over Evander, but I'm not sure if that gives me a lot to go on. Holyfield was nearing the end as a top-level fighter by this point and Tubbs at his best would pose some interesting challenges for Toney.
The only thing I can really say about this fight is that it goes the distance, and would most likely not serve up too many highlights.

Dokes v Peter

If the Dokes from the Holyfield fight shows up, I think he has this in the bag. That version of Dokes was a few years past his best, but he gave a very much prime Holyfield as awful lot of trouble. He had a solid chin, very quick hands, good overall skill and a lot of heart.

I have been both impressed and unimpressed by Peter over the years. He has enormous strength (about the only guy I've seen who could shove Wlad off him) a good punch, good chin and ruggedness. He was pretty dangerous at his best.
But at the same time, he was crude and lacked some of the finer points of boxing. He tended to rely on his raw physicality to win most of his fights, but at the top level I think more often than not, this is not enough.

I think Dokes is good enough not to get caught by too many of Peter's big punches and would take Peter into the later rounds, where Dokes would have a decided edge. He had a better workrate than Peter, is not nearly as bulky and can go 15 rounds. I have my doubts about Peter's wind once the fight goes past the halfway mark and it would only get worse for him as the rounds go by.
In a 15-rounder, I think he'd be hanging on by the final bell.
Dokes by comfortable decision.

Ruiz v Berbick

I'm not terribly enthusiastic about this fight to be honest.

I think these are all very good fights (bar one) and I applaud Heinzenberg for these carefully selected matchups.

 

Interesting that you think Larry was an overall better fighter than Lewis. Lewis was a boxer/puncher/mover; Larry in my eyes was just a boxer/mover. You say Lewis had problems against jabbers but he dominated Holyfield who had a very good jab. He did have problems with Bruno and Mercer jabs but he found a way to win. Holmes also had problems against a good jab. Holmes has the best ever jab? I disagree (although that is the subject for another thread).
Lewis' stamina wasn't an issue. Lewis knew how to fight well when he was tired, play possum and pace himself.

Two things you didn't mention: Lewis' size advantage (2 inch height, 30-35 pound weight and 3 inch reach) and punching power. I think those would play a deciding factor in the fight.

 

Oh I totally agree. :good I was just having a bit of fun at Foremanjab's expense.

 

Heizenberg is true to his namesake Principle: just the right degree of Uncertainty.

 

Hws from EARLY 80s and he mentioned holyfield, evander did his pro debut around 1984 and he was a lhw /Cruiser at that time, Actually i will not spend my time anymore debating seriously in this forum full OF ******s and ignorant people. If the question were not EARLY 80s, everybody would have mentioned tyson and evader was a hw even later than tyson was in scene

 

I don't think power really matters here, basically because Larry had a great chin and great survival instincts. If Lewis were to win, I don't think it would be because he was a bigger puncher (which of course he was) but because he would be able to apply his skills better.

Yeah, I don't think Lewis coped well with a good jabber. Even in one of his best wins - Rahman II - he was hit flush by a number of good jabs. I'm not hanging my hat on that point, but against a great jabber like Holmes he could have his hands full. Larry was a master jabber and whether or not it's the best ever, I think we can agree that it was a better jab than what Lewis had.

I agree that Lewis could fight in the trenches and gut it out. But assuming this is over 15 rounds, well that could change things. Lewis never had to go that distance so he's an unknown quantity there.
Larry is proven over 15. He also had late fight power and scored late stoppages, whereas Lewis never finished off an opponent beyond eight rounds.
Significant? I don't know, but it could be.

Lewis is a lot heavier that's true. However, I don't think a mere two inches in height and only three inches in reach when measured from fingertip to fingertip is of any actual significance.