Was Mike Weaver the most under-appreciated heavyweight of the 70s and 80s?

If he got a fair nod in the two Dokes fights or got the fight with Cooney instead of Holmes or got rematch with Coetzee it would have changed everything .

 

Weaver is my second favorite heavyweight of all time, Jerry Quarry being first.

Weaver was a very good all around fighter. Could box and had an extremely good jab (watch the Pinklon Thomas fight) and obviously a big punch. Like Quarry, Weaver was maddeningly inconsistent, but always fun to watch, as you never knew what was going to happen.

 

The reason Weaver had such a spotty record was simply that he wouldn't take the career seriously. He credited Ken Norton for turning his career around. He said he was at a party and Ken Norton gave out to him telling him that if he took it seriously, there was no end to the amount of money he could make in the business. And that's when things started turning around.

 

What are you saying? Weaver was always in great shape. He weren’t called Hercules cos he didn’t put in the work when in training an preparing for a fight

 

The only thing I didn't like about Weaver was that he fought at a very modest pace, he never really seemed to have another gear and kind of slept walk through fights at times.

But the plus's for him is that he had pretty dangerous power at any point in a fight, he caught Carl Williams early and he caught Tate late. He was well conditioned and fairly durable but could be vulnerable early if you jumped on him.

All in all a very solid champion that should be commended for turning his career around, he went from a borderline journeyman/contender to one of the top 2 Heavyweights in the world for a few years and wins over Tate, Coetzee, Tillis, Williams, is very respectable. As was his performances vs Holmes, Dokes 2, most people felt he should've edged Dokes the 2nd time.

 

Short 3 words-answer: management, management, management.

AFAIK during Weaver's first years he was essentially on his own. He had either bad management or even zero management.

Back then Weaver was considered a sort of a hybrid sparring-journeyman, just a decent card-filler. There was no real manager bringing him gradually up, picking low risk-high reward bouts versus “not too dangerous” opponents in order to nurture his career and build a champion run.

Consequently, Weaver was signing bouts with no proper analysis, planning and preparation, and naturally he got blasted more than a few times.

In 1978 he finally gets a decent manager and his career changed for the better.

Anyway, we could say Weaver was the “Anti Patterson”. You can only imagine what Weaver would have accomplished with somebody like D’Amato managing his career.

 

No. He was respected after he gave Holmes hell and was acknowledged as #2 after he beat Tate. It was understood Weaver wasn't the best boxer but once he dedicated himself fully he was known to do the best with what he had and that he was always dangerous despite a tendency to be outboxed

 

There's physical shape to the eye and then there's actual boxing shape consisting of fundamentals, sharpness and stamina. Weaver admitted to being a party animal through his early days.

 

He might have been underappreciated by fans but certainly not by the fighters and devoted fans who followed religiously...... He carried big-time power, tough as nails, in shape and game. He was a pick'em type fighter smallish for the time when 220 and 6'3" was becoming the standard but durable and strong.