Who would you rank as the top ten Pro Heavyweights of the '80s, prime for prime and head to head? Not every man above will beat every man below, but should be able to beat most of them.
I'll likely post my 10 after seeing the general thoughts on who's up there, though the top three should be pretty obvious.
This content is protected For places 6-10, I don't have enough boxing knowledge to rank them meaningfully. But I would mention: Tucker, Smith, Bruno, Weaver,...
1. Larry Holmes 2. Mike Tyson 3. Tim Witherspoon 4. Evander Holyfield 5. Greg Page 6. Pinklon Thomas 7. Carl Williams 8. Mike Weaver 9. Michael Spinks 10. James Smith Going off of one fight primes for all of these guys (Within the '80s, of course), as well as fighters just off of the top of my head. Considered guys like 13-0 Bowe and a rising Ruddock, but Bowe wasn't proven enough to consider, even with his Olympic accolades, and I see Ruddock losing to prime versions of all of the guys above. I think that the top three beat everyone else below them every time, and from then on down, everyone is ranked accordingly, but also, most have a chance against each other.
I put up KO's list years ago. https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/kos-top-12-heavyweights-of-the-80s.624361/ Ratings done mid 1989 - 1. Larry Holmes 2. Mike Tyson 3. Michael Dokes 4. Mike Weaver 5. Pinklon Thomas 6. Tim Witherspoon 7. Greg Page 8. Gerrie Coetzee 9. Trevor Berbick 10. Michael Spinks 11. Tony Tubbs 12. Carl Williams
Tyson Holmes Michael Spinks Tucker Witherspoon Pinklon Thomas Buster Douglas James Smith Cooney Berbick Everyone outside the top 5 except Cooney has a win over a top 5er. I have Tubbs and Greg Page 11 and 12. People this week really don't like Tucker.
I think this list is pretty good although I rate Spinks a little higher for his performance against Holmes than most. Holmes was clearly not in his prime but he was still able to beat Mercer and give Holyfield and McCall a tough fights a full decade after Spinks beat him. I still think Holmes won the rematch but Spinks beat a very dangerous ans good Larry Holmes the first time.
Or maybe you just don't like Weaver for some reason and have some bizarre takes in regards to Tucker. It's absolutely baffling to have Tucker as a top 4 Heavyweight not to mention having Cooney over Weaver when he never held a world title and doesn't have a single win over a ranked opponent!!!!
Tyson wiped his a** with Holmes, it's not so much that Holmes' arm got caught and there was an alleged fight ending uppercut coming, but more so that Holmes was getting backed up hard enough to allow his arm through the ropes, he never really stood a chance and was lucky to make it to round 4 Tyson #1 by a fair margin, it really doesn't help that Holmes and Holyfield didn't fight until the 90's and that Holyfield didn't go heavy until the end of the 80's Holyfield should have beat everyone Tyson did and there could have been a closer/more competitive top 3, and that includes Holyfield still having a more difficult time with Holmes than Tyson, he also struggled with Tillman at cruiser
Tucker in the 80s has a record of 35:1. The only defeat ON POINTS from near peak Tyson; fighting. There are in resumes: Douglas, Broad, and ancient Young. He is wearing a belt. Tucker IMHO must be above Holyfield in the 80's. If @ Rumsfeld doesn't agree with Tucker being TOP 5: This content is protected Then certainly Tucker shouldn't be lower than No.6 TOP HW 80s.
Before my poll I really did think most everyone had him top 5. I don't consider that WBA belt a world title. Cooney destroyed Jimmy Young, Norton and Lyle and I consider the 70s the best era. They weren't in their prime but those wins meant something. The oldest of the bunch Lyle was winning fights in his 50s 15 years later. Young and Norton were not far removed from contention. His losses came to Holmes, Michael Spinks and Foreman. He had a brief career but he did enough to make the top 10 IMO.
It's not so much Holmes getting caught in the ropes, but Holmes being enticed out of retirement with two weeks to train against a prime Mike, I don't know why anybody would count this against an old Holmes. And I don't know if you were reading, but this was a prime for prime list, everyone matching up against everyone else will be at their very best from that decade. Holmes and Holyfield also didn't fight until the 90s cause by the time that the came around into the division, he was working on pursuing Iron Mike, not an aging and post retirement Holmes, there's no logical reason for him to try and fight Holmes in the 80s. And Holyfield beat everyone that Tyson did that was put up against him, anyways. Thomas, Tillis, Stewart, etc. Holyfield also had a more difficult time with Holmes than Tyson did because he fought a championship ready Holmes, not a lazyboy ready Holmes.
The wins were impressive, but not impressive enough to put him head to head against anybody else in the business. He had a cuts win against Young, where Young was putting on a pretty good performance against him, a stoppage win against an old Norton who had a weakness to big punchers, and a stoppage win against Lyle who was past his prime, as the other two were, but was notably in the worst shape. It doesn't help that his best performance against Holmes basically put an end to his prime time career because he didn't get back into the sport frequently, and looked like a grandma against Spinks. No contender wins other than old men, a good performance against a dominant champion, and kicking your competition out of your training camp does not put you in the top ten for a strong decade like the 80s.