Top 10 '80s Heavyweights

And as I already said yes I may give the edge to Tucker in a fantasy H2H match up vs Bonecrusher but again what has that got to do with resume or their overall standing in the 80s ?

You're trying to quote an old post of mine in an attempt to expose me or trying to accuse me of double standards but you've done neither.

A single match up in regards to Tucker vs Bonecrusher is not proving what they did in the 80s or their overall standing in that era.

You've yet to respond to......

Who has the better resume in the 80s Tucker or Bonecrusher ?

Who has the more proven wins in the 80s against notable names Tucker or Bonecrusher ?

So it's irrelevant whether Tucker may or may not beat Bonecrusher in a single H2H match up, Bonecrusher has the better resume and more proven performances against notable 80s Heavyweights which is why he ranks higher than Tucker in the 80s.

It's that simple I don't know people are having such a hard time understanding this.

 

Is this a H2H thread, or is this a resumé thread?

 

You look at resume and notable performances when you're rating H2H ability. Again what's Tuckers best win or performance that really stood out to you in the 80s that makes him top 10 ? You've yet to answer and expect me to keep answering your questions.

You're basing your whole argument on Tucker losing a wide decision to Tyson and again to Lewis in 1993 which has nothing to do with Tucker in the 80s.

When you have to use losing efforts as counter arguments especially in ones where Tucker lost by wide decisions. You're not really making a strong case are you ? And it also shows Tucker's resume is very thin.

 

If you stated (and you did) how you think Tucker would beat Bonecrusher H2H, why are you now questioning me about Tucker's resume?
Tucker's resume is thin.
If (IF) you changed your mind, then simply say: "Now I think Bonecrusher would beat Tucker H2H".

 

Who has changed their mind ? have you read anything i said ? i stated Tucker maybe a marginal favourite vs Bonecrusher in a H2H fantasy match up not a certainty by any means BTW. But again what has that got to do with their overall standing of that era ? Bonecrusher has more proven wins and a better resume that's why he's ranked higher than Tucker overall it's that simple.

You've stated Bonecrusher being ahead of Tucker is wrong but where's your counter argument ? you've yet to make a case. You just stated Tucker has a "thin resume" which is furthering my argument and you have to bring up wide decision loss to Tyson a to make a case for Tucker which is not a strong argument.

Again i've asked the question 3 times now what is a signature win for Tucker where he had a standout performance that makes him top 10 in the 80s ?

 

OK. Here is my argument, and you don't have to ask me the question for the fourth or hundredth time. I really consider you a better boxing connoisseur than me, and that's not just a game to say, but I really mean it. I don't know if you remember that I told you that I think you are in the top ten percent of boxing experts on the forum...

If you, as a better connoisseur of boxing than I, think so, why and with what arguments should I counter you?

 

I don't know how else i can say this i've explained it numerous times.

Me believing Tucker may or may not win a decision over Bonecrusher is irrelevant in regards to their overall standing of that era. When establishing H2H ability you look at a fighters most notable wins and performances.

1. Compare Tucker and Bonecrusher's resume Bonecrusher has a better resume in the 80s.

2. Compare their most notable wins/performances Bonecrusher has the more notable performances in the 80s.

So overall Bonecrusher rates higher based on having a better resume and more noted performances. Tucker may or may not beat Bonecrusher in a fantasy H2H match up, but he still doesn't have the resume or performances to back up the argument that he deserves to be ranked above Bonecrusher in the 80s.

As i said when you have to use guess work and can't find any stand out performances. And have to rate a fighter based on losses you're already fighting a losing battle in regards to trying to make a case for that fighter.

Your opinion on Tucker's rating is pure speculation that's what i'm trying to get at.

 

Taker's best performance was a loss against Tyson. Some boxers reach their peak in a loss like Mercer vs. Lewis.
And now I'm going to have to be respectfully sarcastic, because I'm running out of patience and time.
And let's put Marvis Frazier H2H over Tucker, because he has Bonecrusher in his resume, while Bonecrusher also has a good resume.
Quit as far as I'm concerned. I hope I didn't offend you, and I wish you the best.

 

Yes and as i've said numerous time when you have to use Tucker's wide points loss to Tyson to make a case for him that says it all.

Again you've totally missed the point and like yourself i'm also growing impatient because frankly i'm tired of having to keep explaining myself when you're not understanding the point i'm making.

So i am also done with this conversation good to day to you.

 

Iron mike
holmes
Spinks
Weaver
pinklon
Spoon
page
.ubbs
.ucker
Gerr. Coe..e

hon men.ion Dokes

 

leaving off Weaver is a joke

 

op and his.or..ero were born in 2000s. General Forum

 

I think this is exposing a deep ideological disagreement about resumes. The point of a resume to me is to prove how good someone is. Losses matter and the absence of them matter in how good you feel a fighter was. Its not just counting big wins. Why should only wins matter? Impressive losses against the best fighters of the era crucial because it shows how close to that level someone is. You can acknowledge this with Weaver fighting Holmes but not Tucker fighting Tyson or Lennox. To me those impressive feats prove Tucker was the best titlelist along and his padded record stopped people from seeing it.

I feel this mentality is a reaction to fighters padding their record but in my eyes it goes too far in the other direction. Clean records with no big wins are associated with fraudulence and records with many losses and a better SOS are given respect regardless of the results that better SOS produced. But in an era where everyone had padded records Tucker should not really be punished for that resume to the extent you are punishing him and Weaver should not be exonerated for having so many losses in an era where that was uncommon.

Smith has the Witherspoon win and went the distance with Tyson. Hes got losses to top competition but so does most everyone else. Tucker doesn't have those and I think thats why you picked Tucker to beat him.

 

I don't see how though ? How does Tucker losing wide decisions to Tyson and Lewis mean hes one of the best of the era ? Is Joe Bugner one of the best of the era in 70s because he went to the distance with Ali and Frazier ? As I keep saying to you and the other poster using only losses to make a case for a fighter to being one the best of the era doesn't make logical sense and isn't a good argument.

Losses to great fighters can enhance your reputation but you also have to have some type of resume aswell to back that up. And not just rely on losses to make a case for a fighter which as I said doesn't work.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/james-bonecrusher-smith-vs-tony-tnt-tucker.684613/
Here's a look at who commented on what and why the voting ratio is 20:3 in favor of Tucker.
The rest is demagoguery.
It doesn't have to be a lot of reading. There is much more to read here.