Who was better Tony Tucker or Mike Weaver?

Thanks for the clarification. Although, to be honest, I am now beginning to wonder what you mean by "better".

 

And yet you count Tucker winning a "vacated belt" vs Douglas as some amazing achievement that somehow sky rockets Tucker into the top 5 Heavyweights of the 80s baffling.

Tucker won a vacated belt and only had 1 notable victory in the 80s i would say he has an argument to being one of the worst belt holders of the 80s based on resume.

Coetzee certainly has more notable performances than Tucker.

So you've just admitted Weaver fought better competition and has more relevant wins yet you still rate Tucker above Weaver ? Am i missing something here ?

 

Explanation given here:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...er-or-mike-weaver.722568/page-4#post-22937807

 

I just don't understand your logic at all.....you're all over the place.

So Weaver gets penalized by you for fighting better competition and having more relevant wins ? WTF ?

Tucker doesn't have any great wins either ? Weaver has more notable and relevant wins as you already admitted so what is even your argument ? i'm actually baffled.

What ? so we don't rate fighters based on their best or most notable wins ? what am i even reading ?

Terrible comparison Chisora was never ranked in the top 10, never a champion, never beat a top 10 ranked heavyweight.

 

Probably the guy who is more proven against notable opposition and as you said "more relevant wins".

 

In which case, I'll stick with my initial answer:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...er-or-mike-weaver.722568/page-2#post-22932246

Unless it can be explained, in the context of being a form guide, as to why Tucker's less relevant wins hold greater value than Weaver's more relevant wins, then I'd be happier betting on Weaver.

 

Gerrie wasn't even the WBA's highest rated contender Tate beat in 1979. (In fact, John was only ranked by Ring Magazine in 1979, but that year, he beat two contenders who were also ranked by Ring in 1977 and 1978.)

Forgotten today is that Big John won a 1979 elimination tournament to crown Ali's WBA successor.

Tate-Bobick took place in February and is sometimes identified as the first bout of that tournament. Big John blew Duane out in one via four successive right hand leads, establishing a formula the definitive American Great White Hope of the 1970's could never recover from. (I don't recall this as being an official tournament bout, and it was only scheduled for ten rounds, but it did get Tate into the final four contenders, as Bobick also would've been had Duane somehow prevailed, and at this time, Bobick must have been desperate for another shot at Knoetze.)

Following Tate-Bobick, the WBA's top contender was Kallie Knoetze. Number two was Earnie Shavers, pursuing Norton and Holmes, so he was out of the WBA tournament. Number three was John Tate. Number four was Leon Spinks, and number five was Gerrie Coetzee.

Coetzee shockingly blew out Leon Spinks in one via the 3 KD rule in the other first round semifinal at Monaco on 2 June. Three weeks later in South Africa, Tate outlasted Knoetze's right handed rushes to wear him down in eight. Kallie was an established name to American audiences, having retired former Ali challenger Dunn, then nationally televised crushing Bill Sharkey in Miami Beach in January 1979.

Let's not forget now that Tate would easily take 13 of 14 completed rounds over Weaver in Knoxville before following Ace Miller's fatal instructions to stay away from Hercules for the final three minutes. After Mike's impressive showing over LeDoux, this would've triggered serious debate over who the world's best heavyweight was, and the WBA would've enjoyed linear credentials, as well as the cachet of being a truer world wide championship.


Retroactively, Tate TKO 2 Mercado is also a good win. Bernardo had considerably more professional experience going in, would floor Weaver in his next outing before getting stopped the following round, then raise hell with a six bout streak that saw him uniquely one punch Berbick, get off the deck to remove Shavers from contention, retire Henry Clark and prove he could produce a longer distance stoppage by halting Tom Prater in 12. Then, right at Mercado's very peak, he took on Leon Spinks.

After Leon halted Mercado in nine, nobody disputed that he EARNED his shot at a peaking Holmes. (Larry won easily, but from Evangelista in November 1978 to Witherspoon in May 1983, only Weaver and Cooney won more than a single round from Holmes. Leon actually took round two from Larry. Holmes was actually hampered by the flu for Weaver I. He had a torn left bicep going into Norton, injured five days earlier in an elbow to elbow collision with sparring partner Luis Rodriguez, almost causing Holmes-Norton to be postponed by four months, but Larry refused. In round even, Ken nailed that left bicep with his overhand right, taking away Larry's jab and turning it into a fight. Holmes had severe diarrhea for Witherspoon. It was actually Carl Williams which showed he was finally fading, but Holmes already should have reached 50-0-0 by then.)

A columnist was sued for writing that there was "something neurologically wrong with John Tate" following Berbick. Larry himself didn't go quite that far. In 1983, when he was asked if it was a bad idea for Cooney to attempt a comeback with Tate, Holmes replied, "I think it's a bad idea for John Tate! There's something wrong with John Tate to be taken down and out three times like that, and we all know how Gerry Cooney can hit!"

In fact, the manner of his death at age 43 seems to have retroactively validated the supposition that he indeed had something neurologically wrong. His fatal crash was induced by a massive stroke caused by a brain tumor.

John Tate and Leon Spinks would've been an interesting paring if Leon had gotten by Coetzee.

And today, he says he misses the Championship Distance, and strongly preferred it during his Championship career with Holmes, Tate, Coetzee, Tillis and Dokes. He became widely admired for turning a former weakness into a strength.

Mike was noted during his WBA reign as a professional class pianist, and during one televised newscast profile, he played the theme to Chariots of Fire with casual ease. (Matthew Saad Muhammad was also reported to be an excellent pianist, but I never saw him play on camera. Hercules could make a living at it. He also joined the USPS in 1999, so he might be set with a pension and benefits by now.)



Initially, I was inclined to lean towards Tucker in a head to head best for best matchup, but after reviewing Mike's best and Tony's best, I don't see how Tucker can win.

Tony sometimes fought to survive. Having experienced bad defeats, Weaver fought to win, rather than not to lose. If he lost, he lost. But unless he was betrayed by his admittedly slow starts, he aimed to prevail as if he had nothing to lose. Tate dominated him by using immense physical strength to smother Hercules against the ropes.

 

I take my hat off to you. Your posts are very detailed and interesting.

 

Tony Tucker probably had the more talent but Mike Weaver produced much more in the pros and it is not even a question.
I think what gets overlooked alot is dedication and discipline are just as important as talent and Weaver had much more of those two attributes then Tucker did.

 

Bad management ?
His father was his original manager and was forever selling % shares in his son for upfront cash , until in the end Tony owned little of himself.
After the Tyson fight he found out he was only getting about 25k after all the shareholders were paid out..
He became disillusioned before regrouping and resuming his career.
At 33 he went the distance with Lewis.
At that point peak Tyson/peak Lewis were his only 2 defeats.
A very capable boxer who certainly was mismanaged.
He survived against peak Tyson perhaps more comfortably and ( slightly) competetively than anyone else did in that time period ( 1987) . He was a big guy who moved well , with an excellent technique.
A much more consistent fighter than Weaver.