The ' Who did he beat' question

Sorry mate, I'm not following. What are you asking?

 

Oh no, not again

 

I don't understand what's funny. What did Tua do better than Galento??

 

The ‘lost to’ rankings I gave (with Miami and South Carolina) were what they were ranked at the time.

And I just think you’ve somehow missed the discussion of who teams beat — Alabama got in last year with one loss because it had a tougher strength of schedule (and thus more quality wins) than any other team. The WIN over Georgia got Alabama in, not the LOSS to Texas. Texas got in because of its WIN over Alabama, not because it had a shiny LOSS to Oklahoma. Ohio State’s loss to Michigan was better (by the playoff seeding, since both made it) than Alabama’s loss to Texas, but the Georgia WIN trumped any on Ohio State’s record.

Yes, number of losses is a disqualifier but you previously said specifically ‘a two-loss team with both losses to good teams would be rated very highly’ so I brought up Penn State to say no, the two losses to good teams didn’t make it more attractive as a contender.

In cases where two (or more) teams are considered to have pretty equal win resumes, the ‘who they lost to’ is certainly a factor. But if that team doesn’t have decent wins (see UCF or Boise in some years, even undefeated but no real marquee victories, for example) then it doesn’t come into play.

Alabama in 2011 I think it was lost in OT to LSU, the far-and-away No. 1 team by resume, so it got over Oklahoma State based on the quality of that loss but only because both teams had wins over four ranked-at-the-time teams and Oklahoma State’s loss was blowing a huge lead to lowly Iowa State. Their resumes were similar, maybe even close to identical, so the loss quality differentiated them. That’s frankly the only time I remember that coming into play, and that’s almost 15 years ago.

Let’s also talk NCAA basketball: What do they talk about? Quad 1 WINS. Nobody gets in because they have nine Quad 1 losses (Quad 1 being the top tier opponents). Now yes there’s some differentiation if a team is 4-4 vs. Quad 1 and beat the No. 1 and No. 2 teams on the road and another team is 4-4 and lost to the lowest of Quad 1 teams at home, but again we’re getting into almost identical resumes before we talk losses.

In boxing, Tony Tucker gets rated highly by some (great win for Tyson!) because he went the distance in losing to Tyson and Lewis without the quality wins to back up his resume. If 2011 Alabama had no wins over quality teams and lost in OT to LSU, it probably doesn’t get in.

 

How high a 2 loss team can be rated depends on the situation. Quite a few 2 loss teams would have made the CFP if it had existed in the 2 team era. It depends on the year. Likewise Tony Tuckers resume would not place him nearly as high in another era. The reason I rated him as high as I did is because how his resume compares to the other champs of his era.

In Texas and Alabamas case both those things played a role. Also its not just the loss but how competitive it is.

The schools from minor conferences are a different discussion and generally have to be undefeated to even be considered. They are playing by different set of rules.

In Tuckers case a lot of his opponents who looked promising when he fought them did nothing afterwards. There is an element of luck to how someones padded record ages especially when they never have a reign as champion. Tucker took a similar route to most of his peers he was positioned to compete for state belts then the USBA and NABF belts which were the main pipeline for title shots. Who Tucker had to beat for these stepping stones opposed to someone else wasn't his fault. Champs deserve more blame for who they fought because there is the expectation they will fight top guys. Besides Louis not a lot of guys are setting the world on fire before fighting for the title.

I know almost nothing about the college basketball selection process. I know more about college hockey and they use a computer they deny using I think.

 

Great post, T! Also, didn't David Bey beat Page to get a shot at Holmes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

That's true. I think I mentioned that in the 85 Holmes Vs Moore thread, but forgot to mention it here. Good catch, Clint.

 

One more word on college football: the minor conference schools have to go undefeated (and even that usually isn’t good enough) because they don’t usually have quality wins. If you go 12-0 against Armadillo Tech and Popcorn State and similar competition and another team goes 12-1 with wins over Alabama and Georgia and a loss to LSU … the 12-1 team has a better resume. Just like if a college team played nothing but high school teams, nobody would say ‘what a great team, look at their record!’ You know this.

Tony Tucker beat a lot more Armadillo Techs and Popcorn States in his time than real opposition. He was very carefully managed.

His lone notable win before beating Buster Douglas was over James Broad (who had been KO’d in two by Tim Witherspoon and outpointed by Marvis Frazier in his only step-up fights). That’s it. There are no other promising guys on his record unless you count gatekeeper Eddie Lopez (who had no wins of note but a draw vs. a very green pre-Ali Leon Spinks years earlier), Jimmy Young (Jimmy’s fifth loss in a row in his mail-it-in-and-get-paid phase) or journeymen Dave Jaco and Bobby Crabtree. Not an impressive path to a title shot.

But wait, there’s more: OK, let’s grant that he did whatever he had to do to get a title shot (which is to say, beat James “Broadass” Broad as he was known) … what did he do after Tyson? Took off two years and then beat Dino Homsey and a few more guys of that caliber. He’s a former world champion — can we not hold him accountable to fight fellow contenders at some point?

He lost basically every meaningful fight in his entire career other than Douglas and split decision wins over Orlin Norris (whom he split with, and Orlin wasn’t exactly title material … Tucker was like a foot taller, lol) and Oliver McCall (also split — and McCall was a 19-4 journeyman at the time).

Akinwande? L

Herbie Hide? L

Seldon? L

Ruiz? L

Orlin again? L

Two decision losses to Lennox and Tyson are doing a lot of heavy lifting, and it’s not like he was in razor-close fights with those guys. All that proves is that he was durable. Hell, Everett “Bigfoot” Martin lost a lot of decisions to good fights … we gonna prop him up as having a great resume based on going the distance?

I respect your opinion and appreciate the discussion, but to me Tucker was a carefully-constructed paper mache kind of ‘top guy.’

 

You may already know it, but apparently Tucker's camp refused a title shot against Holmes in 1984.
I was a little disappointed because Tucker claimed that the champions often denied him a title shot (Spinks/Foreman), but why refuse Larry's offer if you were so confident on your abilities ?

 

Right.

 

I actually watched this fight recently Page was in reasonable shape and even badly cut Bey but Page didn't press the advantage in the later rounds.

Bey basically dug deeper than Page and out hustled him to win by a few rounds basically the story of Page's career not doing enough.

 

Maybe that is where I remember it from lol. Great job, T!

 

What much better opposition would that be? Such a fighter is not on his resume.