Here, the members voted pretty convincingly (20:3) that Tony "TNT" Tucker 1987 would beat James "Bonecrusher" Smith 1986 (both versions fought Tyson; champions). https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/james-bonecrusher-smith-vs-tony-tnt-tucker.684613/
He has the closest chance against him, for sure. If you want to put him over Bonecrusher, that's fine. I put Bonecrusher at 10 because despite his losses to certain men that were lower, he was able to beat an old Weaver, and would definitely be competitive against a young one, and would be scary for men like Spinks and Williams, though I still would bet on them.
If Tucker H2H 80s above Bonecrusher Smith, Douglas, Broad. Some boxers reach their peak in defeat. There should be a spot in the TOP 10 for Tucker. No No.6 TOP HW 80s. (I forgot it was a H2H list). Holyfield is imo above Tucker even though he beat Dockes dirty.
Based on what ? winning a vacated belt against Douglas ? Without taking into account what stage of their careers they were at ? Young was 3-4 in his last 7 fights and considerably past his best. Norton was at the tail end of his career and had been KO'ed in 1 by Shavers and was basically TKO'ed by journeyman Scott LeDoux. Lyle was also at the end of his career had recently been stopped in 2 by journeyman Lynn Ball and would pretty much retire after Cooney fight. All the fights took place in the 80s aswell so i'm not sure why you're bringing up the 70s argument. Yeah it means Cooney's most notable victories were against completely washed up fighters past their primes and had 0 wins against any top 10 ranked fighters of his time meaning you ranking Cooney above Weaver is absolutely baffling. Yes they were. Cooney had 0 wins against top 10 ranked opposition and never held a world title, yet you rate him above Weaver who held a world title had 4 wins against top 10 ranked opposition who was also ranked number 1 for 2 years. It makes absolutely 0 sense so you must dislike Weaver who you've already shown some questionable opinions in regards to.
Maybe not above Page, but certainly above Berbick. So H2H Tyson, Holmes, Spoon, Page, Spinks, Holyfield,... and Tyson's Tucker would be in the TOP 10, if we drop the Bonecrusher from your Top 10. Imho Tucker was the first to show the "cracks" in Tyson's speedkills boxing.
Berbick beat an undefeated Pinklon Thomas, undefeated Greg Page, KO'ed John Tate, i don't think you can confidently say Tucker beats a motivated prime Berbick.
Not really it doesn't because that's not how boxing works styles make fights and Tucker gets way too overrated for going the distance vs Tyson in a wide loss. Tillis did better against Tyson and I don't see anyone rating him really highly.
You definitely gotta go watch some fights from these guys in their primes before you start putting Tucker above em. You did say previously that you weren't informed enough to make a full list, so don't start fronting. It ain't be bad to be unknowledgeable, you just gotta own it and learn.
Bruno was good, but he loses to most of the guys who can stand up to him cause he had trouble holding on, especially when taking punishment, just watch the Witherspoon or the Smith fight. If he doesn't get outpointed, he'll likely get knocked out by anybody up there.
Also was thinking about mentioning how prime Berbick definitely beats heavyweight Spinks. The only reason I don't got him on my list is that he probably loses to Bonecrusher. I probably should've added more spots to my list. The beauty about the division pre Tyson is that most champions had interesting and good matchups against each other, and everyone had a chance against at least one or two other fighters that were up there. There wasn't really a plateau of skill, but more like a dome, with skill rising as you go closer to Holmes, but everyone was still good in their own way.