Who was better Tony Tucker or Mike Weaver?

As I said before when we debated this Weaver has the better resume and certainly had the more notable career in the 80s.

If you think Tucker is a better H2H fighter than Weaver then that's your opinion which you're entitled to but I don't think theres any stand out wins for Tucker to really prove that either way.

Tucker had the height, skills, durability, but didn't fight many notable fighters in his prime in the 80s. His whole resume in the 80s is basically 1 win over Douglas and a wide points loss vs Tyson.

Tucker in the 90s managed to win a few close decisions vs McCall, Norris highly disputed, and then a wide points loss to Lewis and that was pretty much it.

Tucker on paper has a good record for example he was undefeated in his first 30 odd fights but again that was against mostly nobodies. I don't think Tucker fought enough notable names and doesn't have enough notable wins for him to be rated above Weaver IMO.

 

Tucker is more of a "what might've been" fighter IMO. His career progressed at a snail's pace, & instead of capitalizing on the positive attention he received for lasting the distance w/ Tyson, he languished in semi-obscurity for several years until he suddenly reemerged for another title shot vs. another HoFer, by which time his best days were probably already behind him. He seemingly had all the tools to be at least a very good HW & he showed commendable heart/grit vs. Tyson & Lewis, but he must've been horrifically mismanaged/promoted. It's almost impossible to accurately assess his place among his contemporaries, b/c there's so much he failed to prove one way or another.

 

Weaver was less skilled however did more in a sense of qual. wins. So Weaver

 

Tucker is more skilled than Weaver, but Weaver has the better resume.

I think Tucker has a lot in common with Gerry Cooney. Showed great potential but just lacked notable wins during his prime and is most known for a loss.

 

Tucker has Douglas, McCall, Norris disputed win, Broad, and that's his whole resume in regards to notable wins unless you count a totally washed up Jimmy Young who had lost his last 4 fights.

Weaver has Williams, Coetzee, Tate, Mercado, Cooper, Tillis, Dokes Draw in which most felt he won.

I don't know why you keep asking this question and are so baffled that people have Weaver ahead of Tucker it's not that hard to figure out. Weaver has a considerably better resume than Tucker and definitely had the better career of the two in regards to their peak years in the 80s.

As others have said Tucker is more of a what if his first 30 or so fights were against complete nobodies, he then had a solid win vs Douglas and showed some heart going the distance vs Tyson in a losing effort. But then didn't build on that and didn't fight for 2 years, and despite having a solid close win vs McCall he then lost a one sided decision to Lewis and then that was his career pretty much over Tucker's career never really got going.

Yeah possibly there is an argument for Tucker looking better than Weaver in regards to the eye test but his resume certainly doesn't back up that argument.

So again as I'll finally say it's pretty obvious that Weaver had a better resume of the two hence that's why hes rated higher it's as simple as that.

 

I’m not sure who wins head to head but if it’s a matter of who had the better resume it’s Mike Weaver by some distance. He beat John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee, James Tillis, Carl Williams, Bernardo Mercado and fought Mike Dokes to a disputed draw when they were ALL in their primes. Tucker had a much cleaner record for sure but he wasn’t constantly fighting the best the way that Weaver was.

 

Weaver indeed has many defeats but that’s because he wasn’t protected or well managed in his early years the way that Tucker was by his father and Don King.

 

The man was the second best heavyweight in the world through just about 3 calendar years. He beat John Tate - undefeated WBA champ and former Olympic bronze medalist. Gerrie Coetzee - a solid number one contender in his prime and future title holder. Bernardo Mercado - solid fringe contender who weaver fought when he was still developing. Carl Williams - top 10 contender in his prime who might have been jobbed against Larry Holmes. James Tillis - undefeated # 4 ranked contender. It should also be noted that many felt Hercules was robbed against Michael Dokes and Leroy Jones. How many top contenders did Tucker beat ?

 

I thought i'd add my scorecards for Tucker's and Weaver's controversial decisions vs Norris 1 and Dokes 2.

Tony Tucker vs Orlin Norris 1

1 Tucker
2 Norris
3 Norris
4 Norris
5 Norris
6 Tucker
7 Norris
8 Tucker
9 Norris
10 Tucker
11 Tucker 10-8 point deduction
12 Norris

114-113 Norris

Michael Dokes vs Mike Weaver 2

1 Dokes
2 Dokes
3 Dokes
4 Weaver
5 Dokes
6 Dokes
7 Dokes
8 Weaver
9 Weaver
10 Weaver
11 Dokes
12 Weaver
13 Weaver
14 Weaver
15 Weaver

143-142 Weaver

 

Weaver had better career. Clearly.
But the Tucker that fought Tyson I believe beats Weaver. He was really good that night. Tyson was just better.

 

Weaver obviously.

 

The early losses that you keep referring to occurred in the '70s though.