Tony Tucker -Pinklon Thomas - Who Was the better fighter?

Thomas was the better fighter and would've won. Tucker was incredibly overrated and ironically a major underachiever. Tall, athletic and had a good chin for nothing.

Thomas had the much better jab, was just as durable, good ring IQ, decent defense, decent footwork, better accuracy, had more heart, etc. It would be been competitive, but Thomas would've earned a convincing decision.

 

Whenever I think of best heavyweight jabs it´s Holmes, Buster Douglas and Pinklon Thomas.

As mentioned he outboxed Witherspoon, took out Weaver (recently robbed against Dokes and in his next fight knocks out Carl Williams) in style and drew with Coetzee who was really struggling in the last few rounds.

Coetzee knocked out Dokes in his next fight to become WBA champ.

Tucker has 2 standout fights, Buster Douglas and Tyson.

He struggled badly with Douglas, especially with his jab but came from behind to score a 10th round stoppage. Douglas went on a run of wins culminating with his historic win over Iron Mike.

Tucker stunned Tyson in the 1st round with a well placed left uppercut. Hurt his hand soon after and took everything Tyson could dish out in a fine performance.

I see this going similar as Douglas-Tucker except Pinklon´s stamina and chin wouldn´t let him down as he takes a tough but clear decision.

 

This,,,,,

 

For me it was clearly Tucker. Was world champ and NABF/USBA double winner.

Pinklon has a less impressive win column then Tucker and a less impressive loss column. Pinklon could win but nothing about their shared resumes suggest that IMO.

 

Tucker was a trinket holder for 5 minutes. He didn't even dethrone a champ, it was a fight between two contenders. Neither were inside Ring's top 7 heavyweights. The NABF/USBA double amounts to very very little.

Thomas' win over Witherspoon is a far better win than Tucker ever achieved, so is Weaver for that matter. Thomas beat more contenders. Tucker was around forever and beat what, one contender in Douglas.

Thomas has multiple wins over top 5 heavyweights, Tucker has ZERO.

Chalk and cheese. Tucker's biggest claim fame is lasting the distance with Tyson when he was on his rampage.

 

Top 5 is a flawed metric because who is in the top 5 is heavily arbitrary. Especially in a time period like the 80s. One shouldn't be looking at Tucker and Douglas fighting for the title and be justifying them being underated. No their performances against Tyson are supposed to change your mind. Tucker and Busters career high ranking by the Ring was 3 and 4. That was a strong title matchup and anyone who didn't think so at the time was proven wrong.

"Thomas beat more contenders." No its either a tie or Tucker beat more. Tucker fought 9 HW contenders, Pinklon fought 8. Tuckers 4-5 in those fights. Pinklons 3-4-1. If you don't count Broad as a contender they have the same number of wins and a nearly identical record against contenders. Besides Broad theres no one else either fighter beat on the bubble for being a contender. Pinklons got the Witherspoon, Weaver and Tillis wins and the Coetzee draw and that is it. The big disagreement I guess is you rank Weaver much higher and that swings the comparison between Pinklons group and Tuckers. But the group is the same size. Everything negative you can say about Tucker not fighting many top guys you can say about Pinklon. But Tucker did better in his losses and Tucker didn't start losing non title fights for almost a decade longer.



One of the reasons I rank Witherspoon over Pinklon despite Pinklon beating him is Witherspoons accomplished so much more before being black balled. And because hes the most glaring omission missing from Tysons record. Pinklons really leaning on that fight. Tuckers got 3 or 4 performances to support his place at top of the hierarchy. Pinklons got a win over someone who you can rate above him in spite of it. That win is enough to sort Pinklon into the top group of HWs(so the lineals, Tucker and Witherspoon) of his very deep era but within that group hes right at the bottom. Except maybe Spinks which is a whole other can of worms. Pinklons main advantage over Holmes or Spinks is not anything Pinklon actually did but the fact Holmes didn't fight him or that Spinks cut him in line for a title shot.


"Chalk and cheese. Tucker's biggest claim fame is lasting the distance with Tyson when he was on his rampage."

Tyson and Lennox. Tucker had a broken hand and might have won the Tyson fight anyway if its 15 round. Pinklon gets credit for doing way less against Tyson.

The main reason I have Tucker ranked above most of the other 80s HWs is his consistancy and longevity. While Tucker didn't fight as many top guys as some of the others(so not really Pinklon) his losses before Seldon were to the best guys in the era and he was otherwise consistant. He might not have fought many Trevor Berbicks but he didn't lose to any Trevor Berbicks. Tucker was not an Usyk he has 57 wins and 47 knockouts. Many reductionists say "those were nobodys that doesn't matter" but to me it does matter he had a full boxing career. Tucker has more wins, more knockouts, less stoppage losses, a higher KO rate, better performances against shared opponents.

"The NABF/USBA double amounts to very very little."

Its something only 6 guys have won and hes got a case for being the best of the group(along with Witherspoon). Tucker checked all the boxes we're supposed to have for a HOF boxer. He won all the prizes he got the longevity marks and when given a chance against the best HWs he proved his record wasn't manufactured. But to many "if you're not first you're last" and they've decided Tucker is last. What is funny though is here theres a double standard being rendered.


Sidenote. Pinklons also got a problem where having one of the best jabs ever isn't going to move the needle because theres Holmes, Tyson and Buster.

 

I agree. It looked like Tucker was in survival mode vs Tyson. When he faced Lewis a few years later he sort of did the same thing though he did ralley late in that fight.

 

Top 5 is a flawed metric to you because Tucker didn't beat any of them. Perhaps James Broad was top 5, Tucker did beat him? It's no more outlandish than you rating George Foreman the #1 heavyweight in history.

The fight, and title, was a sideshow. They weren't underrated. Tucker had beaten some trailhorses and has beens. He had no aura. Douglas was considered quite a promising heavyweight. They were rated #7 and #8 as i have told you before.

Tucker won a few rounds and lasted the distance vs Tyson. Bonecrusher Smith lasted the distance with him just two fights earlier. It's not the stuff of ATG's to say the least. Neither looked like winning.

Buster's performance against Tyson was 3 years later. Tucker doesn't get boosted by that lol.

Thomas was top 5 for years. He was top two for over a year as well. Top shelf wins get one that high in the rankings.

No it wasn't, and no-one was proven wrong. There were loads of matchups stronger.

That's a lie. Why are you talking "fought" when i specifically said "beat"???? Besides Douglas, rated #7, Tucker didn't beat JACK. That's a fact.

You tell me what contenders beside Douglas he beat who were rated when he beat them? Do you understand that beating a guy rated years earlier but not when they fought doesn't count? You need to understand this. Witherspoon would have been #2 when Thomas beat him handsomely.

No they don't. They categorically DO NOT. Broad was in no way, shape, or form, a contender. Neither were other guys you are trying to pretend were.

And that lot of Pink MUDERS Tucker's win column. Tucker has Buster and.....ZIP! Witherspoon easily tops that. Witherspoon was actually a real champ, Tuckers never beat a real champ.

The big disagreement is that you pretend Tucker beat all these contenders when he simply didn't. It's a figment of your imagination. You've been shown this before.

Um, Pinklon beat the #2 heavyweight in the world who was actually a reigning champ and had recently run #1 Larry Holmes close. Chalk and cheese. Losses? lol Where are the wins! Tucker was a cheese champion who fought an unreal number of plodders in all those fights he had. How can one have so many fights and meet so few contenders? It's a mystery.

It's ok to rank Witherspoon over Pink, but Tucker sure don't belong over either of them. Not remotely lol

Tucker is no-where near the top of the hierarchy. It's not even debatable. It's ludicrous, to put it mildly. Trying to bracket Tucker with Pink, Witherspoon and the lineals is obscene and dishonest. One of these is not like the others.

Spinks performances against Holmes rocket him above Tucker.

Lewis beat him handily, and that's before he got his act together.

On no planet might Tucker had won if it was a 15 rounder. That is such a horrific take. Outlandish. Tyson was going thru the motions round after round after round, and winning them.

Consistency over low level, middling and unrated opposition. No thanks! He was consistent, consistent in not fighting contenders and if he did invariably losing to them, except Buster.

Reductionists LOL. Jesus. Usyk and Tucker have no place together in the same sentence.

Nobody chased it bud. Darryl Tyson won both, Joey Olivo, Danny Perez. Real ATG's and that double is often talked about in here with awe....isn't it?

He checked next to nothing. All the prizes? A lie. His record was indeed manufactured, a shyteload of wins and very very very little substance among them.

You've somehow decided he's first or equal first, and quite frankly, it's bizarre. The places you are putting in are simply not defendable.

What? Let me guess, Tuckers also above him because there were three other good jabbers in Pink's time? lol

The Thomas jab is still talked about in here on a consistent basis. Why don't you tell me what punch or facet Tucker has that's routinely talked about in here? That's right, none of them. He was one of those guys that did not have a weapon. No great jab, or right hand, or slashing speed, or power. He was a very mundane fighter.