Who Was the 3rd Best Heavyweight of the 1980s?

Thomas on one of his very best nights might have a slight edge over Witherspoon, the thing is though that 'Spoon in general was more consistent. :good

 

Holmes did some fine work in the late 1970's to mid 1980's. In the 1980's Holmes defeated:

1980 - Ali
1981 - L. Spinks, and Berbick
1982 - Cooney
1983 - Witherpsoon
1984 - Smith
1985 - Williams and Spinks
1986 - Spinks - Holmes was robbed in the fight.

I agree with you that Tyson did better work in the 80's. However if you look at the full resume of wins, Holmes > Tyson.

 

You'll find i posted exactly that

 

This is exactly my order right to a "T"

 

100% agree...and with the order too.

 

Witherspoon is a fairly reasonable pick for a #3 spot during the 80's. Although I fully acknowledge the efforts of Mike Weaver, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas and some others, Witherspoon probably defeated a wider array of rated fighters between 1983 and 1986. His prime was short but productive. Spoon compiled wins over Page, Snipes, Tubbs, Bruno, Smith, Broad, and Tillis in just 3 short years, and fought Larry Holmes to a disputed decision, that some felt was a robbery. Also, for whatever its worth, he was a two time alpha champ, wheras the rest of his peers only held a fragment once. In addition, he was one of the few alpha champs of the 80's who continued to have a semi-productive career into the 90's.

 

My problem with Witherspoon is that he was very clearly outhustled by Snipes, but very crooked scoring flagrantly robbed Renaldo of the unanimous decision win he was entitled to. When 'Spoon was wiped out by Bonecrusher in losing the WBA HW Title, he was dropped three times before it was stopped. This is a far cry from Joey Curtis's overreactive and panicky premature theft of Weaver's title against Dokes. (If Curtis had been refereeing Weaver's previous match with Coetzee, he unquestionably would have awarded Gerrie the title in round eight. Paranoid idiot!:fy)

The draw verdict between Thomas and Coetzee was fair, but Thomas should have been able to decision Gerrie handily. A great jab should always prevail over a good right cross. (Especially when the owner of that right cross has had his confidence undermined by a negaholic nincompoop like Philip Coetzee. That jerk was Hyrum Dempsey reincarnated.)

It will come as no surprise to anybody who's wasted time reading my long boring posts that to have established a 15 round championship distance pedigree is extremely important to me. Weaver was the last heavyweight to score more than one knockout in the now abolished championship rounds, coming back from enormous punishment against Tate, and a slew of bionic rights to his body from Coetzee. Could any of his successors have beaten him if he got them into the championship stretch? (Dokes certainly couldn't, but Weaver got robbed again by a gift draw. As soon as Coetzee dispatched Dokes in Akron, Hercules should have been first on Gerrie's dance card.)

 

I can certainly appreciate the accomplishments of Mike Weaver, and have no problem with those who pick him as being the 3rd best heavy of the 80's. I myself have him at #4, which I believe to be fair. Weaver's efforts against Holmes, Tate, Coetzee, Tillis, Dokes, Williams, and Duplooy were galant ones. Especially considering the rather ruff start that his career got off to, and also that he fought well past his best years. Frankly however, I think Witherspoon had the better record, and slightly more wins over ranked fighters. You also mentioned the Smith loss which, reaked of a dive, and you have to also acknowledge that Weaver was Ko'd in 1 by Smith around the same time frame. Lastly, Weaver's biggest moments came between 1979-1981. While this does not diminish the greatness of his accomplishments, the time frames don't quite work with measuring him as a force during the 80's. Although he still acheived a great deal during the decade.

 

Yep, your reasoning is perfectly understandable, and since you broached the subject, yes, a dive is a logical explanation for the outcome of Witherspoon/Smith II. My tendency would be to place Thomas at number four, and 'Spoon at number five, but these are not strongly held views.

Weaver's jagged start is of a nature which once spawned the eventual development of many prominent champions and contenders. It's a shame that the luxury of learning by such competitive trial and error is not afforded to today's boxers, in an era where an entire career can last for fewer prizefights than pugilists sometimes competed in over a single year's time.

 

Good points on this issue,

Weaver in my opinion, was one of the last heavyweight champions to begin his career as a trialhoarse before, elevating himself to the elite. Of course similar arguments could be made for James Douglas and Oliver McCall, but probably not to the same extent. I don't exactly know why Weaver struggled so much within the first 4 years of his career, but I've always written it off as being a possible result of poor managment, inexperience and perhaps a limited amateur career.

Of course this is pure speculation coming from someone ( myself ), who doesn't know the full history of Hercules.

 

This list is based entirley on each fighters rankings within the period and takes no acount of other factors so dont get mad if you dont like it. I have left Mike Tyson out simply because he represents the end of that era.

• Larry Holmes
• Michael Spinks
• Mike Weaver
• Pinklon Thomas
• Michael Dokes
• Gerrie Coetze
• Greg Page
• Tim Witherspoon
• Gerry Cooney
• James Bonecrusher Smith

 

Incidently, who provided these ratings?

 

I calculated them based on fighters rankings. Giving a score based on where the fighter was ranked and in how many years.

Of course they do not tell the whole story.

 

Fair enough, but if that is indeed the case then how did you arrive at the conclusion that Michael Spinks was worthy of a #2 slot? He only fought as a heavyweight from September of 1985 to June of 1988, which is just under 3 years. During this time, he defeated 2 unranked fighters, and lost a fight in 91 seconds, leaving only his wins over Holmes, one of which was a highly disputed decision.

Also, why is Witherspoon no where to be found in your ratings?

In addition, you really should have Tyson rated in there as well, given that he was champ from 86-90, despite the fact that he wasn't around for the whole decade. Spinks had far less fights, and spent less time in the division than Tyson, yet you have him at #2, and Tyson no where in the top 10.