Top 10 '80s Heavyweights

It's ABSURD to rank Bonecrusher in the TOP 10 and not Tucker.
Because he knocked Witherspoon out in the first round?
Doesn't that tell us something about Witherspoon?
Or should we be careful what we write because Witherspoon is a member of this forum (Mr. Witherspoon you are a two-time world champion and I respect you).
What would Marvis Frazier have to say about Bonecrusher's H2H power?
But ok...

If you're going to counter-argument me now...
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/james-bonecrusher-smith-vs-tony-tnt-tucker.684613/
...then why didn't you provide counterarguments on this topic?
Why didn't you counter-argue to the members of this forum and tell them: "The voting ratio should be 20:3 in favor of Bonecrusher, not in favor of Tucker"?

Rules - as far as I'm concerned we stay good, we can still discuss everything, we can be best friends as far as I'm concerned

 

Whether we go along with the Witherspoon story or not Smith's win over Tim is better than anything Tucker has ever done. His win over Bruno is also pretty reasonable. Tucker's win over Douglas contrary to what's getting bandied around lately did little to enhance his reputation at the time.

The whole thing with Tucker is that he never got much of anything done. He gets lauded for his efforts against Tyson but the biggest story at the time was that he went the distance. He won about three rounds all up from memory and went into survival mode in the middle rounds and onward.

 

He didn't do anything?
He fought near peak Tyson, and fought Lewis, who destroyed Ruddock in the next fight.
Triangulation, right?
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/4-man-tournament.710947/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/james-bonecrusher-smith-vs-tony-tnt-tucker.684613/
WHY?

 

He lost both of those fights which underlines my point.

 

1. Larry Holmes
2. Mike Tyson
3. Tim Whiterspoon
4. Michael Spinks
5. Mike Weaver
6. Trevor Berbick
7. Pinklon Thomas
8. Michael Dokes
9. Greg Page
10. Gerrie Coetzee

 

As much as I like Tucker and his very classy style, I think they are right.
Even though Bonecrusher had more defeats, he should be ranked higher. Smith fought the better competition and had the power to be a threat to anyone. He was also very durable.
If Tucker managed to beat more contenders, he would have been higher.

 

MAYBE I will be able to explain to you what I mean.
And Ruddock also lost both of his fights against Tyson (not the Tyson who fought Tucker), but that wasn't a problem at all to get into the "4 man tournament".
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/4-man-tournament.710947/
And Tucker endured a fight with Lewis, and Ruddock was destroyed by Lewis.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/james-bonecrusher-smith-vs-tony-tnt-tucker.684613/page-2

That's why you don't accept me, and that's why you don't accept the White Bomber

 

Holmes
Tyson
M. Spinks
Witherspoon
Tucker
Thomas
Smith
Dokes
Weaver
Tate

 

No it isn't let's take a look at both of Bonecrushers and Tuckers resume in the 80s.

Bonecrusher beat.....

Ferguson = who beat Douglas who people are using to sky rocket Tucker up the rankings.

Witherspoon
Bruno
Weaver
Bey

Tucker beat.....

Douglas
Broad

And well that's pretty much it.....

Bonecrusher certainly has better wins than Tucker in the 80s.

 

How does wide points losses to Lewis and Tyson enhance Tucker's resume ? And what has Lewis got to do with Tucker being rated in the top 10 in the 80s ? That fight took place in 1993. How in the world can Tucker be in the top 10 in the 80s based on one win over Douglas and a wide points loss to Tyson ?

Losses to great fighters can enhance your H2H ability depending on how well the opponent did. But Tucker was not really that competitive vs Tyson or Lewis, and it was only the fact that Tucker went the distance is really the only impressive thing about it. And whilst Tucker does deserve some credit for going the distance with Tyson and Lewis again that's the only impressive feat about it as Lewis and Tyson won comfortably without getting out of 2nd gear.

I'll tell you why your logic is flawed because you might aswell say Bugner going distance with Frazier, Ali, that means hes amongst the very best top 10 Heavyweights in the 70s right ? No wrong.

Bugner and Tucker are actually very comparable infact I think Tucker is basically the 70s version of Bugner, two big men who were durable who are mostly known for their losses going the distance with prominent fighters who both also fought a cautious defensive style.

 

Cooney was good. But not top ten good.

 

@Dynamicpuncher

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/james-bonecrusher-smith-vs-tony-tnt-tucker.684613/page-2
You counter with your own words; you deny yourself.
First, understand what you REALLY mean, so that only then you can argue with me.

 

What has that got to do with anything ? Because I may marginally favour Bonecrusher over Tucker in a fantasy match up ? What has that got to do with resume ?

Bonecrusher clearly has a better resume than Tucker and is more proven against notable 80s Heavyweights.

Yes I do think Tucker looks better than Bonecrusher in regards to the eye test, but there is still very little evidence of Tucker having any standout wins/performances against any notable 80s Heavyweights so it's more guess work than anything.

There is no argument for Tucker being top 10 in 80s in regards to resume and very little evidence of him having a case for top 10 in regards to H2H ability.

 

You stated:"I'd probably give the edge to Tucker to win by decision in this match up".

And now I will leave the discussion again until further notice, or forever.