Mike Weaver 1980's ranking

Top 10-15. The 80s had real depth.

We've got Holmes, Tyson, Michael Spinks, Tucker, Witherspoon, Pinklon Thomas, Cooney, James Smith, Berbick, Greg Page, Tubbs, Bruno, Ruddock, Dokes. Possibly the top 14 guys and hes 0-7-1 against them 0-8-1 including young Lewis. He beat 6 contenders Carl Williams, Tillis, Bert Cooper,Coetzee, Ledoux and John Tate. They are all outside the top 10 for any era and most are outside the top 15.

In an era of padded records his losses stand out like a sore thumb. The early losses to fighters you've never heard of matter when no one else has them.

 

I read an issue of KO magazine around 1989 where they ranked the top 10 heavyweights of the decade and Mike Weaver came in at #4. I thought it was a fair rating.

 

Weaver's a bit hard to rank. A pretty good fighter with great power and comeback ability... As long as he didn't get blasted out, as he was very prone to.
He has good chances against anyone who can't crush him, and even better chances if he lands that right hand. 50/50 matchups against Berbick in my opinion. Bruno I'd rank over him, but due to Bruno's lack of defense, I could see it going either way.
I rank him at 10 amongst the champions of the 80s, though he'd likely be lower if I added on guys like old Foreman or Bruno.

 

Tate wasn't a contender, he held the WBA from 79 until the Weaver loss, and not only that, but that was a declining John Tate. He started to get caught up in the fame and lose himself, you can see it with the Berbick loss, too.

 

I don't consider that a real belt but if I don't include him people would correct me and say he fought Tate.

 

Who was nr 3?

 

I don't see how you could have Weaver outside the top 10 he was ranked number 1 for 2 years wins over Coetzee, undefeated Tillis, Tate, Williams, are very impressive wins and most felt he beat Dokes in their rematch.

Hes definitely not outside the top 10 for example why is Tucker above Weaver in the 80s ? He had only had 1 notable win vs Douglas in the 80s.

Weaver's list of wins in the 80s are probably amongst the strongest of that era outside of Tyson, Holmes, Witherspoon.

 

I think it was either Dokes or Witherspoon. I would personally put Tim at #3

 

I hear you, I kind of figured such when you put both Tate and Coetzee on there as simply contenders, lol.
Williams was also an uncrowned champ, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Maybe he's thinking in a head to head sense, I know that's how I was doing my rating.

 

Its arbitrary but none those guys are clear top 10 fighters in the era. Tillis, Coetzee and Tate are probably not top 15. It was a deep era.

Tucker is the best alphabet champ of the decade. Some would have Witherspoon but its between him and Tucker. He went till 1995 without being stopped with his only losses to Tyson and Lewis who he won some rounds against. How do you see Weaver over Tucker?

Tucker also beat Broad, Oliver McCall and washed Jimmy Young. But the reason Tucker is at the top of the pile aren't great wins the reasons are

.the lack of losses in his prime
.doing well against Tyson and Lennox
.Buster beating Tyson
.his size

 

Agreed. Mike Weaver is a lock for top 5 in the 80s.

 

How is Tucker the best alphabet champion of the decade ? his only notable win was vs Douglas in which he was behind points. He never fought the likes of Witherspoon, Thomas, Page, Tubbs, etc. Infact he's missing a whole alot of notable 80s Heavyweights on his resume, most of his 30 odd fights were against complete nobodies he wouldn't even be in my top 5.

You're telling me how do i have Weaver over Tucker but i could ask you the same question in regards to Tucker ? the whole of Tucker's resume in the 80s is basically going 12 rounds with Tyson in a wide points loss, and rallying from behind to beat Douglas and the Douglas win only looks better with hindsight. If you want to use losses to further Tucker's resume well then i could say Weaver did far better against a prime Holmes, and actually came close to beating him unlike Tucker vs Tyson. Weaver has considerably better wins than Tucker and was rated higher than him in the 80s.

Tucker's win over McCall was in 1992 and doesn't have relevance to Tucker's standing in the 80s.

Lack of losses in his prime = That's because the only notable fighters he fought was Tyson, Douglas, in the 80s. The rest of his 30 odd fights in the 80s were against nobodies.

Doing well vs Tyson, Lewis = Tucker lost 9-3, 8-4, to Tyson and also lost 9-3 to Lewis with two knockdowns against him. Neither Tyson or Lewis ever looked in danger of losing and the only impressive feat is that Tucker lasted 12 rounds. Weaver as i said did far better against a prime Holmes in which was a life and death struggle for Holmes who barely pulled it out with a hail mary uppercut.

Buster beating Tyson = That was 3 years after and most would say Douglas peaked in the Tyson fight, and never fought at that level again before or after i don't think that greatly improves Tucker's standing TBH.

His size = He got a gift decision against 5'9 Orlin Norris and should've been 0-2 against him, if you're taking into account Tucker's H2H ability when rating him that's fine. But again point out to me where he had any stand out wins/performances against top 10 ranked opposition ?