Who was better Tony Tucker or Mike Weaver?

Utterly ridiculous take.

So Weaver pushing the number 1 Heavyweight in Holmes to the brink in a great fight makes his win over number 2 ranked Tate meaningless ?

But you rate Tucker winning a vacated belt vs Douglas as some amazing feat because he peaked for one fight 3 years later vs Tyson ?

WTF am I reading ?

Coetzee the worst belt holder of the 80s ? He destroyed Leon Spinks, brutally KO'ed Michael Dokes, earnt a legit draw Pinklon Thomas, beat James Tillis, was robbed vs Renaldo Snipes, beat George Chaplin who had 2 razor thin close fights with a prime Greg Page.

 

I thought he deserved the W over Thomas as well.

 

When the question is: "Who was better Tony Tucker or Mike Weaver?", things like Weaver having "fought better competition" matter.

The question of resume is a different discussion, no?

 

But, that's not what I am saying.

I am pointing out that the matter of resumes is a different question from who was the better.

You yourself have stated that "Weaver fought better competition than Tucker and has more relevant wins because of that."

In terms of the thread's question and on the basis of your assertion above, do you not see how that could be interpreted as Weaver being the better fighter?

 

I think the fact that Coetzee is remembered says enough, even if people can't list off any of his performances.
He had his place in boxing history, and it was good. He was for sure better than the real worst champ of the 80s- Francesco Damiani.

 

When talking with broad terms like "better" with no clarification, more evidence is better, and therefore, competition is relevant.

 

Have I said otherwise?

 

Weren't you just asking if that was worth a different discussion?

 

Yes - or, at least , asking whether it was a different discussion?

I also stated: 'When the question is: "Who was better Tony Tucker or Mike Weaver?", things like Weaver having "fought better competition" matter.'

So, I am not sure why you felt the need to point out that "more evidence is better", and "competition is relevant".

I am clearly highlighting that evidence of Weaver having fought better competition is relevant.

 

I only really read the post I responded to, and I said what I said because you were asking if it was a different discussion, but the blanket statement of "better" is broad enough to where everything is counted in as meaningful evidence for an argument of who is superior.