Hi everyone i'd like to hear your overall opinion on former heavyweight champion Mike Weaver. I recently saw the Mike Weaver Vs Michael Dokes fight (yeah, i know, a bit behind the times aren't i ?) I just wanted to mention i was very impressed with both fighters. The level of skill on show was pretty impressive i thought. Also the condition both men brough to the ring was excellent too. Also, the Carl Williams fight was exciting, i thought these were real heavyweight fights, what they're suppose to be when you think of the heavyweight divison. In your opinion, how would these fighters fare today, against the divisions elite ? Thanks for reading.
The 80's heavyweights including Mike Weaver were a solid bunch of fighters. You could name fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Holmes, Weaver, Tyson, Tony Tucker, Mike Dokes and Mike Spinks to name a few and even Marvis Frazier had a good run after he got KTFO by Holmes and before Tyson. In my opinion, Mike Weaver would definetely be Champ today and so would all the others have their share of glory. I'll tell you one thing though, it would make for one exciting division compared to today's garbage. Funny thing is, back in the 80's they were considered to have a weak Heavyweight division, if only they could have known about today back then.
Thanks for replying, much appreciated, totally agree with your comments :good Would be very exciting, a very good group of well schooled fighters. Had good speed as well...
...............It's funny how times change, and perceptions along with them. At the time, the heavyweights were laughed at; Dokes, Weaver, Berbick, Page, et. al were all considered wastes of talent that simply disappointed. Perhaps we were all still suffering from the lingering Ali hangover and missing that one transcendant focal point to take the mantle of boxing's savior. Perhaps there was also really something to the idea that they disappointed in the ring. I think now in retrospect, it's perhaps fairest to say there was just a lot of parity in the heavyweight division then. The critics complained about how no one could hold the title for more than six months, but maybe that speaks more to the levelling of talent than lack of it.
Weaver was an excellent fighter. He is an example of someone whose win/loss record grossly understates the true ability of the fighter. Mike's overall record of 41-18 contains many losses that occured at the beginning of his career (before he had his act together, so to speak), and at the end of his career, when he was physically washed-up. In his prime, Weaver was one of the top two or three heavyweights in the world, ability-wise. When I first started following boxing as a kid in 1975, Weaver had a mediocre 7-6 record. Nobody expected anything of him. He was just a "C" level clubfighter. In truth, Weaver was far better than his numbers indicated. He had been badly overmatched when he turned pro in 1972, being thrown in with the likes of Howard "Kayo" Smith, Duane Bobick, and Rodney Bobick. I remember reading also that Weaver wasn't motivated in those early years. In 1975, though, Weaver pulled himself together and began his ascent to the top of the world ratings. Between 1975 and 1982, Weaver won 18 of 21 matches. His only losses during that period were to the great Larry Holmes in a title fight, and via controversial decision to world rated Stan Ward and Leroy Jones. During this period, Weaver beat many good fighters, too.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for your input. I also really like the point you touched on, regarding champions not being able to hold onto there titles for longer than six months, due to the talent level the divison had to offer, very interesting observation salsanchezfan
I also found this for anyone who's interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuYu3p8ob0 Pure entertainment, how come things like this don't take place anymore ?
I've always thought Weaver's best performance was in his losing effort to Holmes. He was fast, aggressive, and he kept up a consistent attack all the way, something he didn't always do. Weaver had a lot of tools - namely, a good jab, and solid punching power in both hands. His biggest weakness was that he was often tentative and lethargic in his fights, particularly in the early rounds, and that left him open to being outboxed/outworked. His chin sometimes seemed to be suspect as well. When Weaver started his career, he was pretty much thrown to the wolves, and was used as fodders for up-and-comers like the Bobick brothers. Eventually, he scored a decent upset over someone (I believe it was Bernardo Mercado, I can't remember), and that earned him a shot at Holmes, who was pretty much expecting an easy fight. Weaver-Holmes was one of the best heavyweight fights ever IMO. Weaver crowded Holmes and gave him hell all the way, until Holmes found him with a desperation right hand and knocked him out. Holmes never would give him a rematch, even after Weaver won the title. The fight with Holmes earned Weaver some notoriety, and he went on to be a pretty good fighter for a few years. He scored successive wins over John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee, and Quick Tillis, when all were considered very good prospects at the time (and Tate and maybe even Coetzee were favored over him). After he lost his title to Dokes (yet another good prospect), he challenged Pinklon Thomas for another title. He acquitted himself well in that fight too, but similar to the Holmes fight, he ran into a big right hand and got KO'd. After that, he faded back into the journeyman status from whence he came.
He was superb vs the favoured Dokes in their rematch too, the big consensus agreed Weaver won a close fight by a point or two. He gave Dokes plenty, after MD said he'd never fight him again regardless of if they demanded a rubber match and threatened to strip the title away.
The end of the eighties was the time when the HWs started to turn towards the worse. I mean they started putting emphasis on bulk and power till it has been completely overdone as we can all see today. The big losers were speed, movement, combinations, timing and skill. But in the beginning of the decade, everything was still in good order. That is why you are impressed with the conditioning and consequent performances of fighters like Mike Weaver, Michael Dokes and Carl Williams. I think fat guys like Greg Page, Tony Tubbs and later on to a lesser extent Tim Witherspoon started the trend. Mike Tyson was an enigma but with Lennox Lewis going up from the 220s to the 250s everything went haywire.
Always had time for Weaver, even as someone that came along in '89 after his glory days had passed. I appreciated his effort in the ring, dedication in staying in shape even as an older fighter, and just his rep as a good guy. ...sorry? You think that Lewis going from the 220s to the 250s caused everyone to get overmuscled and fat?