Who was better Tony Tucker or Mike Weaver?

How has Tucker shown hes better ? He lost to Tyson and Lewis by wide decision, his other notable wins he got a gift decision against Norris that the majority thought he lost, another close split decision vs McCall, and a come from behind win vs Douglas who run hot and a cold as someone else pointed out.

So you're basing your whole argument on Tucker losing two wide decisions without any stand out performance in regards to wins.

That sounds like a very poor argument to me.

 

You don't count Tucker's losses in the 90s but yet your fine bringing up Weavers losses in the late 80s and early 90s when he was past his best also. That sounds like double standards to me.

It's like talking to a brick wall honestly I just don't understand what you're even on about TBH your logic is baffling. You don't give Weaver any credit for beating better names than Tucker, but your elevate Tuckers win vs Douglas who run and cold and happened to peak for one night vs Tyson 3 years later. And you base that whole win for Tucker as an argument for him being the best of the era ? That makes 0 logical sense. That's like elevating Jesse Ferguson because he beat Douglas 5 years prior to Douglas's big win over Tyson.

You're also claiming Tucker is clearly better than Weaver based on two wide decision losses, but yet you don't mention Weaver pushed a prime Homes far harder than Tucker did against Tyson or Lewis.

 

Losses to the likes of Duane Bobick, Leroy Jones, are better names than Tucker fought in his first 30 or so fights.

What's even more funny is that if Tucker beat Jones or Bobick that would probably be amongst Tucker's top 5 wins.

I don't know why you're so fixated on that though Weaver suffered some early losses then peaked later what's the issue ? Yeah despite a rough start to his career Weaver reached a higher peak in his career than Tucker did.

 

They didn't start their careers in the same era though, & the '70s was an era where it still wasn't uncommon for top fighters to emerge w/ a bunch of early losses - look at Jimmy Young's early record for example. Is Young any less of a fighter than contemporaries like Lyle or Bobick simply b/c he didn't happen to run up an early win streak in his career?

 

Weaver improved once he received improved direcion.

-improved condiioning
-improved mach making

Freddie Pendleon is anoher one

 

If both were at their best? I'd lean Tucker as he had the better overall tool box, but him at his best was a rare occurrence.
Very similar level fighters though Weaver accomplished more in my opinion.

 

Weaver has better wins and worse losses. I'll take wins over Mercado, Tate, Coetzee, Tillis, and Williams over wins against Douglas, McCall, Noris (very controversial fight), and an old Jimmy Young. Tucker's record looks impressive until you realize there's a hell of a lot of nobodies there and few solid wins against decent names. As for losses, Weaver had a very close fight with prime Ruddock and his early stoppage losses to Smith and Dokes were proven to be flukes due to him being a slow starter as he rematched them and went the distance.

In terms of boxing ability/skill, Tucker gets an astronomical amount of mileage from his loss to Tyson in a fairly dull fight where he mostly fought to survive. Weaver isn't as "fancy" as Tucker but had more elements to his game. Weaver wasn't just a slugger and could be a volume puncher or a boxer. Also unlike Tucker, Weaver knew how to actually dig deep to find a way to win.

Tucker was a major underachiever and a typical 80's HW squandering his career on drugs and being sort of aimless other than his brief stint as champ winning a vacant belt. Weaver had his issues, but was willing to face anyone and put it all on the line every fight.

 

oh I’ve seen plenty of Tony Tucker back when he was still active and so have lots of guys around here. While he DID have some skills, good chin and physical tools he often fought safety first and barely got by. The biggest problem was that his resume was about 98% void of good wins. Now here’s a question. Do you think Tucker was better than weaver because you believe he’d beat weaver in the ring or because you think he has the better resume ?

 

In thin-line comparisons like this, I prefer to go with the fighter who did better than expected than the one that seemed to underachieve.

Weaver is in some way quite inspirational in this sense. He really relied on his natural attributes to go and take what he could, and the attribute central to the success of anyone in any endeavor that Weaver seemed to have in truckloads was perseverance. This was perhaps never more on show than in his title bid against Tate.

Apart from the finish - which, like just about any behind-on-the-scorecards-KO, was dramatic - it was Weaver's composure going into the final round that grabbed my attention - his focus was unmoved, he wasn't going mad-wild for the KO. He just kept going forward, pushing, using those natural talents to gauge the target, lock on the target, fire - repeatedly.

Both were dog tired but, while Tate was just playing the hand out, Weaver was still banking on the river, which ultimately turned up a winning hand.

As has already been mentioned, Weaver also has the better wins and this to me is another clear indication of which of the two - Tucker or Weaver - get the vote here.

Tucker could be considered the slicker technician, but he wasn't the better fighter, for mine.

 

Weaver, zero question, legacy wise. Longevity, resilience and multiple WBA Title defenses. Made the most of his abilities. Yes, I'm a big fan.

Peak for peak?

I pinpoint Tucker to be at his best over 12 dominate rounds with a very well conditioned James Broad. An excellent Buster Douglas was beating Tony handily when he gassed and TNT abruptly stopped him in the tenth. But with Broad, he moved well, boxed effectively, and went wire to wire for a lopsided margin of victory on the cards. (Tyson was diminished, distracted and out of focus for Buster. I believe James was as good for Tucker as he'd later be for Tyson.)

We simply don't know how good Tucker would've been for Tyson without Tony's fractured right hand. (Hand problems were not new for Tucker.) He did lift Mike into the air with a left uppercut, but was also out jabbed by an opponent seven inches shorter and with ten inches less of reach. Tony's first big stoppage win was against rugged trial horse Eddie "Animal" Lopez in 1984. His last major stoppage was Buster in 1987, a span of three years. Tucker did not post a notable win after 1992, eight years after Lopez.


Weaver had a remarkable run through the WBA Championship. He not only dominated LeDoux with his jab from round four to 12, he actually decked Scott with that jab in round six (although LeDoux's hometown referee LeRoy Benson instantly refused to call it as such). Mike's jab was Listonian in Bloomington. Sharp and hard. Hercules strangely opened the final round by dancing around, perhaps merely to demonstrate he could do it, but he was obviously best when planted.

Second consecutive visit to hostile territory was Knoxville and Big Sad John. But as one commentator said, "That left hook was no 'lucky' punch! When you knock out a guy with a single shot in the 15th round, you're a puncher, period!"

Third consecutive trip into hostile territory was Apartheid South Africa and a date with Coetzee. Although the white crowd treated him well, Gerrie fought a very dirty fight (and had some history of doing so). Yet Mike got the best of him, then unloaded a single right hand in the 13th to produce a second Championship Round count out. So he demonstrated one punch knockout power with each hand against two HW Title claimants in back to back outings.

Finally, he got to neutral territory at the Rosemont Horizon against undefeated Quick Tillis (now long a very close buddy of his). Quick had yet to discover his allergies to the boxing diet staples of eggs and milk, but emphasizes that Weaver's body punishment was not pleasant to endure. (Coetzee suffered from those same body shots tremendously.)

We all know that Joey Curtis, a referee previously criticized for letting bouts go on too long, admitted being spooked by Mancini-Kim, and stepped in way too quickly to prematurely stop Dokes I, especially after the way Hercules recovered from being stunned by Coetzee in round eight. Everybody who's watched Weaver-Dokes II from beginning to end knows that only rigged Don King scoring prevented Weaver from regaining that title.

He feigned distress to time and sucker Carl Williams into that second round left hook off the ropes. That the victim of Joey Curtis did this is astonishing. (Don't think Hercules was playing possum? Look at his left hand positioning when he was protecting himself from the follow up attacks of Coetzee, Dokes and Bonecrusher when legitimately stunned. It's up against his head. But with Carl the Lie, he tucks his chin behind his right shoulder and has his left lowered, cocked and loaded for discharging.)

Hercules got off the deck to stop the huge and deadly punching Mercado in 1978. 15 years later, he decisioned 27 y/o Bert Cooper when he himself was 43. That's respectable longevity.

Mike was obviously diminished for DuPlooy I at age 36, again in South Africa, but he dropped Johnny with a body shot (to me, it did not look low), then a right cross, and finally, DuPlooy went down in agony when his left hook scored but cracked painfully against Weaver's head. (The live announcers called it a low blow, but Johnny's fall to his knees didn't come from a punch of Mike's, but a punch of DuPlooy's own. Johnny tried continuing, but then quit between rounds as his left was useless. He'd been unloading combinations with both hands, but his left was of no value after it slammed into Weaver's skull.)

DuPlooy I was a good stoppage win for Hercules. For their rematch, Johnny strengthened his hands against injury the way Tunney once had, by chopping piles of wood, and it paid off. Mike took a very solid opening round, but DuPlooy nailed him with two big rights in the next stanza, producing a knockdown then count out.

Gil Clancy articulated a maxim which stated that once a guy is knocked out by a particular opponent, he will be knocked out by that opponent in any rematches. Hercules went against that myth in a dramatic way, getting the best of Dokes over the Championship Distance, then taking the extremely dangerous Bonecrusher the full 12 rounds. (The following year, Bonecrusher would retire Jeff Sims for the count with a monstrous opening round right uppercut to the body. Sims was powerfully built, and once was speculated to be the second coming of Sonny Liston.)

Weaver also avenged a 12 round decision loss to Stan Ward in 1978 by halting him twice in nine rounds. He was certainly resilient. He rebounded from his opening round TKO defeat to Bonecrusher to push Ruddock to a ten round SD.


Best for best? In the case of TNT, it can only be Broad. In the case of Hercules, it depends on whether you think he was better against LeDoux or Coetzee. I lean towards the latter, because he had LeDoux and Tate under his belt at that stage. Tucker was taller, faster with a longer jab, and terrific chin, but Weaver was much the stronger with vastly superior staying power and a harder punch with both hands. Over the Championship Distance, I lean towards Hercules. He'd hammer TNT's body and ram his much harder jab into a retreating Tucker. Weaver was a self admitted slow starter, and Tony wasn't the guy to take advantage of this. (Styles make fights. Hercules would've been blown out by Tyson in one. But he'd have gotten warmed up against TNT. Weaver showed in Tillis and Dokes II that he'd manage Tony's speed.)

 

As I just stated in one of my characteristic TL;DR posts, Tucker's very best IMHO was a very well conditioned James Broad, his biggest win the come from way behind sudden stoppage in his next bout over Buster.

 

I like Mike