Tony Tucker or Oscar Bonavena - who do you rank higher?

Personally, I would rank Bonavena higher. He came fairly close to stopping Joe Frazier, competed valiantly vs Ali, and was a tough challenge for just about everyone that he fought...and though Tony Tucker did rather well, relatively speaking vs Tyson, and landed that big uppercut in round 1, what else did he do to distinguish himself, really?

 

This sums up my views on it. Bonavena was no world beater,but he'd always give the world's best a tough fight.

 

bonavena of course. please....

 

agree with the above. ringo was a hell of a tougher opponent to fight then tony

 

also i think ringo has a slightly better resume

 

Tucker much higher. He was 6 foot 5.

 

I don't know.

For whatever its worth, Tucker did become a title holder, even it if it was under dicey circumstances. His win list is pretty thin, but he did beat Douglas, McCall, Norris, Broad and a few others, whereas Oscar is mainly known for galant losing efforts. Tucker at age 35, had reached a career record of 50-2-0-40, with his only two losses coming via decision to prime versions of Tyson and Lewis. After that, age began to get the better of him, but he did retire with a better record than Bonavena....

 

i would rate oscar higher

but i think tucker would beat him

 

Bonavena beat and fought tougher competition.Tucker was an underachiever, who never truly fulfilled the potential that he had.

 

Oscar beat Chuvalo, gave Frazier and Ali tough fights, and for the most part, was competitive with every big name he fought.In another era,like the 80's, probably would've been champion.Tony decisioned a faded Jimmy Young, won a lopsided decision over James Broad, stopped Buster Douglass and Eddie Lopez beyond his time, and gave Tyson a couple of good rounds.Even though he fought name fighters in the next decade, that was more of Don King than anything, So Oscar gets the nod here.

 

He not only gave Tyson some good rounds he managed not to get decapitated whilst not fighting like Bonecrusher.

Bonavena all the way for reasons already stated.

 

I like Ringo I thought he faced better comp that he beat, remember he almost took smokin JOE:rasta

 

Both men are primarily known for their losing efforts..

Tucker lost to prime versions of Tyson and Lewis via decision... He was 35 against Lewis and fighting with an injured hand against Tyson... Bonavena was in his prime when dropping a decision to a green Frazier who had 11 pro fights, and stopped by Ali when Muhammad was still rusty from the 3 year layoff... In fact, Ali looked like **** in that fight... Bonavena was also beaten by an aged Patterson, Ellis, Lyle and a few others when at his peak... Tucker had some less than flattering losses as well, but they came when he was very long in the tooth... As for records, Tucker left the game with 57-7-0-47, with 6 of his 7 losses coming between the ages of 35-40... Bonavena finished with 58-9-1-44, and with most of his defeats coming in his 20's..... Oscar's best wins were an aged Folley, Chuvalo, Martin and Mildenburger. Tucker beat Douglas, Broad, Norris and McCall.... Not much difference there in my opinion.... Oscar had a chance to win a paper title in the late 60's heavyweight tournament, but blew it against Jimmy Ellis... Tucker won a strap under very similar circumstances but managed to turn the trick by beating a comparably good Douglas..... I couldn't find anything on Bonavena's amatuer career, but Tucker did manage to accumulate a record of 115-6 and won several amateur titles......

After rethinking this, I think I am going to give Tony the nod...