How well could Tony Tucker have done in this era if there was no klithsckos?

Tucker beats all of them. I wouldn't count him out
against the klits either. He had the size, movement,
Power and intelligence. He was one of the first guys
to stun/back up Iron Mike, went the distance with
a broken right hand. Have the klits ever faced
a skilled superheavy, and won? Anyway Tucker
beats all those bums, I mean guys.

 

yeah, I was thinking that too, he was quite a good boxer and was by no means lesser than most of his peers!

 

Tucker was an inconsistent underachiever and would be the same in any era. He loses to as many of those as he beats.

The current crop is far better than they given credit for.

 

Pretty decent but he'd lose a fight or 2 that he'd be expected to win. Tucker has very few quality wins on his resume. Jimmy Young was about a million years old, Buster outboxed him before running out of gas, the rest aren't even worth mentioning. Lucky to beat Norris, lost to Norris in their rematch.

He manged to go the distance vs. Tyson and Lewis. Lewis dropped him twice.

 

Tucker was the best fighter after Tyson in the late 80s

Very underrated ... would be a champion today and would be able to KO Wlad and decision Vitali

 

Explain yourself. Tucker had a great record prior to Tyson, but vs. who?

 

I think Witherspoon was better. Dokes was good, so was Thomas. Tubbs and Page were good boxers but lazy. Smith could be very good sometimes, so could Weaver. If Coetzee could land a few...

 

I had to live through that era. He was tall, gun shy and and a bit underpowered (that KO percentage is inflated with by the Jaco's and Crabtree's). There was a reason he was so protected up to the Tyson fight.

He would be just another top 8-10 fighter today.

Dimitrenko with a Jherri Curl.

 

He had a decent record and was undefeated before Tyson (and as a Tyson fan I'll admit he did give Mike problems and boxed him well)

Had a good jab, iron chin, athleticism and size. Skilled boxer too.

His right hand was reported to have been damaged for the Tyson fight and still gave Mike 12 rounds.

Dude had a slow developing career and supposedly a lot of personal problems which was the cause of that.

A younger Tucker gives Lewis a lot more problems and may be able to beat him via decision.

 

You kinda proved my point. All you did was mention his losses to Tyson and Lewis. You admit you are a Tyson fan... so just because he went 12 with Tyson and had a few good moments his stock goes up in your opinion. What else did he do?

 

Lewis beats Tucker everytime IMO. There is no evidence to support a Tucker win over Lewis... had he been younger.

 

Err... Tyson, Norris and Seldon weren't exactly towering giants. Height is only good if you know how to use it. Again, Tucker was inconsistent and lacked focus. He would flash skills and then abandon them. He just wasn't that good, a protected Don King charge.

 

Why do you say he is inconsistent, until about 1994 his only two losses were to Lewis and Tyson and both went the distance. Plus he beat both Wlad and Douglas, both of whom actually beat Lewis and Tyson. Admittedly there were not many other good fighters on his record but still, he beat them all. After Lewis his record is probably more poor than inconsistent.

In relation to todays fighters, it is hard to imagine many if any being able to come out with an equivalent record. Vitali, certainly couldnt say the same, because he was stopped by Lewis. And no Wlad was in line for his shot at Lewis but he blew it with upset losses to Lesser fighters (inconsistency perhaps?). I think that a young Tony Tucker would have found a way to win the title in the current era. Even if the Klitchskos were around. I imagine an older Tony Tucker finds a way to lose the championship.