Tony Tucker A level talent

Tony Tucker was a decent fighter with good potential that probably went unfilled. The thing that keeps him low on my list is that he had very few notable wins and most of the victories that he did have, rose in value due to his opponents acheiving things AFTER THE FACT. In 1987, Tucker defeated a mediocre contender named James Douglas. People give him credit for this win, due to what Douglas did to Tyson nearly 3 years later. Giving added value to a win based on what a fighter did later in hindsite is kind of a dicey thing. At the time, Douglas was very ordinary. Similar arguments could be made for Tucker's other two big wins over Orlin Norris and Oliver McCall. Tucker beat McCall in 1991, and again, 3 years later, McCall scored the big win over Lewis. Norris, was a fringe contender who's career was slipping when Tucker decisioned him, but later dropped down in weight to become a successful cruiserweight champion.

Tucker was a good fighter but outside of surviving the distance with some great champions and beating a few average contenders who's bigger acheivments wouldn't come until years later, his resume is somewhat thin in my opinion.

 

And his career was derailed by facing 2 of the best HWs ever in their primes. I believe Tucker had top grade talent that would definately make him a belt holder today

 

I agree full heartedly, but we can't give him extra credit for fights that never happened, and under the shear pretense that he would have won them if they did occur. As for the Foreman fight, there is little to suggest that he was a truly qualified contender. He hadn't beaten a worthy opponent as of recent to justify his getting a title shot at that point. He may have been ranked highly, but that was a result of King manipulating the ratings during that time frame.

 

You mean Spinks?

 

I really don't know for sure why Tucker never got opportunities against top raters. What I do know, is that he had the most powerful promotor in boxing bringing him along, so therefore, I think he should have had no problem getting fights with rated contenders throughout his career. In 1987, he was the IBF's #1 contender and a mandatory for Spink's title. Spinks passed up the fight to take a more lucrative bout with Cooney. He was stripped of his leaving Tucker and Douglas to fight over it. To that point, I really don't see anything on Tucker's record that warranted him being a #1 guy. I mean really, who had he beaten? His only notable win was a decision over James Broad who Witherspoon had recently blasted in a mere two rounds. Everything else was basically garbage. In 1995, George Foreman was supposed to face him but claimed that the public had no real interest in seeing it, so the WBA stripped him of their belt and set up a vacant title fight between Tucker and Seldon. Tucker was rated #1 and Seldon #2. I remember Larry Merchant saying what an outrage it was for either of those men to be rated so high. Seldon was rated above Riddick Bowe who dusted him in one round and had since beaten Evander Holyfield.

My theory is that Tucker and Seldon were strategically steared into a title position to be an easy prey for a returning Tyson. Upon winning the belt, Seldon then fought Tyson and basically layed down without even seriously being hit, implying that it was a potential fix.

 

Dose anybody here think that Tucker could have beaten the versions of Spinks or Foreman who were mandated to defend their titles against him?

 

Given how badly Tucker got beat by Seldon in 1995, I really would not have picked him to beat Foreman. Tucker's resiliance had arguably warn off by that point as well as his ability to inflict any real damage on a durable opponent with a good defense. As for Spinks, its difficult to say. I firmly believe that Michael was a much better fighter than he showed us against Tyson, and had he shown up to really fight against an opponent like Tucker, might have had a very good chance, given how untested Tucker really was. Tony was outboxed and behind on the cards against Douglas in the summer of 87', and frankly I think Spinks was a superior fighter by all accounts.

 

No I think Spinks beats him- he's the better fighter. Old Foreman probably would too. :good

 

I thought that was for not facing, Seldon/Schulz. Seldon beat Tucker afterall aroudn that time and Tucker was on his way out

Just checked you maybe right but Tucker lost to Seldon when fighting for the vacant title

 

Is it worth noting that Gerrald McCellan supposedly got the better of Tucker in sparring at the kronk?

 

Oh and Tuckers seemingly constant #1 mandatory status was ludicrous and utterly laughable: I'm sure some weren't laughing though. Just what exact did he do to earn those shots? Zilch IMO.

 

Spinks was a better fighter than Douglas overall, yes. At Heavyweight though I'm not quite so sure, the '87 version of Douglas fair enough- but Buster from the Tyson fight is better than Spinks ever was at Heavyweight (even though that was sadly more or less a one off great night). :good