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

That's also because he had an early loss overturned in his career prior to the Tyson bout. He fought nobodies prior to Douglas and the guy was a regional fighter that was known for serious managerial problems back then.

 

To a degree yes, I'd say Haye's the next best, but I think Tucker at his best beats the lot of them maybe barring Haye

 

I would pick Tucker over all the current HWs except possibly Wlad. I think he could beat the 2012 Vitali.

Tucker would beat Haye, Haye has some qualities, can punch, but has many flaws. I don't think he is the bravest; I find it hard to reconcile why Haye loses to Wlad and instead of pursuing a rematch with the man who has beaten him goes for a fight with the older, in decline brother. In essence, I think Haye lacks the true warrior spirit.

 

Tucker beat Wlad? Wlad beat Lewis? In what universe? :huh

Tucker's had three significant fights before Lewis: vs. Douglas, vs. Tyson and vs. Norris. Against Tyson, he fought well but won about 3 rounds IF you are extremely charitable to him. Against Norris, he looked very poor despite a huge height, weight, experience, and style advantage. Against Douglas, he did poorly until Douglas gassed and Tucker caught up with him.

Tucker fought his best against his best opponents, and even then he wasn't that great. He was primarily a spoiler who would run, hold and feint, and would only punch if he had no alternative. He's a classic B-level fighter, who was never awful until the very end of his career when he got embarassed by Hide but was also never impressive in any fight.

Still, I'd make him a favourite against everyone out there today except Haye, Povetkin and Chambers. Beating a tall and skilled boxer like Tucker requires more athleticism and skill than is possessed by the likes of Peter, Johnson and Arreola.

 

Yep. He had all the tools that Douglas had and even used some similar tactics at times (uppercuts, controlling the distance and turning Tyson) but never applied them consistently. I never saw Tucker carry out a gameplan against any good opponent. Against Tyson his tactic seemed to be just to go the distance and against Lewis he seemed to have banked on landing "the One Big Punch" without ever really committing to an attack, which is never actually how anyone beat Lewis: McCall pressed for the counter and Rahman kept an underprepared Lewis until he tired and then make for an opening behind his jab.

Tucker would make for a good sparring partner for the greats, but he could never have been a champ for long.

 

I was never impressed by Tucker. He would do very well today since boxing today is not just in the toilet but in the sewer. Result of so many years of multiple champions and very low talent. Boxing commissions and promoters have ruined our sport milking it dry. Only federal intervention will save it. We must get back to one champion in each division.

 

Sorry, i meant Douglas and McCall, (not Wlad). I agree with most of what you say, i was just questioning the inconsistency comment that seamus made.

 

The only problem with the top fighters in the HW division is that they do not fight each other often enough. That would bring out the best in them, better performances, more commitment, more incentive... With the plentitude of belts and the expectations for fighting frequency these days, the guys can half-ass it and collect decent paychecks... all with the hope of getting one huge payday should their ledger stay clean... I don't think it's a talent issue; it's the structure of the game.

 

Tucker was somewhat over-hyped in his heyday of 1987 to 1993....... Tucker never won a big fight on the "A" class level, except for his title win over "Big Bus" Douglas in 1987 as a tired out Buster simply quit in the 10th stanza or so.... Had B.D. been in top shape for Tucker, it's likely Tucker would've lost that fight in May 1987.....

MR.BILL

 

Tucker would be a top contender or ABC champ of some kind today if he were age 30 to 35 and with no K-Bros. in sight......

MR.BILL

 

What happened during Tony's early career ruined his chance to be a top level fighter.However, he would be competitive, probably beating a Haye and a couple of others, but at his best, he was wasn't really over 225.

 

In the abscence of the Klitschko brothers I say he does pretty well. I agree with those who say that he was rather non aggressive and had somewhat of a padded record though.. However the men he defeated such as James Douglas, James Broad, Orlin Norris, etc, are probably no worse than many of the fighters that today's contenders beat to warrant a top 10 rating. Tomasz Adamek currently sits around number 3, and who did he beat? Vinny Madelone, an ancient Michael Grant, and inactive Eddie Chambers?. Hence my point. Tucker at 6'5", 225 lbs, was a large and well conditioned man with a proven chin and better than average boxing ability. He also wasn't afraid to fight more than two times in a calendar year. It should also be noted that if a prime Tucker were around today ( meaning 28 years of age ) he'd be facing a 41 year old Vitali and a 36 year old Wlad. Remember he took on a prime Lewis when he was 35 and in decline, but survived 12 rounds, albeit one sided. so his chances against today's Klits ( and not the ones of several years ago ) might not be that bad.

 

How did Tyson do against skilled super heavys? spent both fights on his backside
:hat

Tucker was meh, he would probably have beaten most of those guys on the list, he was pretty up and down though, so could have lost, certainly to Haye.

 

A mentally shot Tyson who basically should have got the KO
against Douglass, and a 2002 washed up Mike who
took unreal punishment from Lewis before getting
stopped. Tyson beat Biggs. Tillis, Ruddock, Smith,
Golota. A lot of superheavies with dangerous power
and/or skills. The list of todays contenders suck, and
I like some of them. Dont get me started on
Wlad vs Tyson either. Tucker at the very least
loses a Decsion to kilt bros.

 

Look i see your a Tyson fan but so you obviously won't be completely objective on this and fair enough he beat Golota but by then he was already pretty shot and it was more of a "**** it" job than a great performance from Tyson . Ruddock, good wins, which i did forget about, but to be fair Ruddock still gave Tyson a lot of trouble, the others listed were not super heavy's. But when a fighter with a good jab, courage and a bit of ring guile (Lewis and Douglas weren't in the least bit intimidated) then no matter what version of Mike turns up he is going to struggle. If like Bruno though they just fight dumb and try to slug it out they will be knocked out. Anyway i think Tucker was decent enough but it's this usual back in the day pedestal rubbish, he would have been among the top heavyweights nowadays but certainly not a champion. His power i think was a bit overrated , kind of like Shavers it was just padded with dozens of bums. He was more of a spoiler imo than anything special.