Your most over rated fighters H2H?

Is it actually possible to overrate SRR H2H at WW? I'd pick him over any other fighter in that division's history. He's overall number 1 in terms of achievement, consistency, dominance and H2H. I don't think there's another fighter in boxing history who meets that criteria in any weight class, not even Willie Pep at Featherweight.

 

Basically every great is overrated h2h according to everyone's posts.

 

Of course Tucker and Tubbs were talented fighters. Great fighters in many respects...just not great enough in relation to “all time great” fighters. And there is nothing wrong with that. And I will argue the case against both of them when they are pitched against all timers who won real titles, beat more linear contenders and over all proved themselves a whole lot more. Talent is one thing but it is deeds that count.

Ultimately both careers were disappointing. And it is probably not even their fault. I met Tucker once. After he was retired. He seemed sad about how things panned out for him. The Olympics not happening for him, then being held back so much because of managerial disputes and injury. A lot of potential and a lot of bad luck. Opportunity came at the wrong time. But he can’t go ahead of somebody who realised more accomplishments.

Same with Tubbs. That guy was as nice to watch as any fighter. Fast hands. Good use of distance. But the guy had the mentality only to fight as hard as he had to. He would fire back and hang with anyone. But he just wouldn’t go quite far enough to expose himself against the best guys he fought. And the great fighters always do that. They put it on the line.

 

You met Tucker , wow !
Not fighting for 2 and a half years after Tyson ruined his career . Even when he came back it was 2 years before he fought anyone of note. Even as a veteran he went the distance with Lennox.
Had he been active he should have been in place to be Buster D 's first challenger after his Tyson win , given Tucker had already beaten him.
Tuckers own father screwed his career financially up to an including the Tyson fight.
I always wondered how much the broken hand story was true and did it happen in training or in the fight ? Heard so many versions of the tale.
I wouldve asked him about that if I met him !
Thanks

 

Ezzard Charles at LHW?

 

Are the people who rate those guys revisionists, or are they just revisiting what many people thought about them while they were active?

 

They’re revisionists.

Notwithstanding a stray, anomalous quote here or there, I think the contemporary consensuses on Hart and Carnera were pretty clear...

 

I don't.

 

Calzaghe.

I've seen posters on here making a case for Joe against many of the light heavyweight greats, and its just absurd.

Between 168-175, theres a rather long list of guys who beat Calzaghe H2H.

 

I'll bet Tucker wishes he were around right now. Wilder and Ruiz rely on roughing people up--which was hard to do to Tucker--and aren't that hard to take rounds off of. And Fury only throws like 20-30 punches per round when not fighting bums.

 

Good shout. He's a possibility, certainly.

 

Yeah for all Fury, Wilder and Ruiz represent the best at the moment, neither are really that proven.
The WBC title is a bulls!t world title at heavyweight. No way were Stiverne and Chris Arreola the best two heavyweights when they fought for a vacant crown. Neither was Charles Martin the best in the world when Joshua beat him. In all truth Ruiz is champ because he beat the man who beat Charles freakin’ Martin? The guy who only won a title becauseca guy had a bad leg. and Wilder is only champ because he beat Stiverne? So Martin and Stiverne dictate who the world thinks are champions?

Fury? He beat a real champ... but it was so long ago...and he couldnt even beat the man who beat Stiverne.

Something has to be based on being the best in the world.

At least Tucker beat the guy who beat Mike Tyson ...albeit in the wrong order. But after that, his resume is thin on rated guys who are based on wins over decent guys.

 

You are right.
Tucker fought alot , but apart from Douglas and Tyson, he fought no big fights in his prime. His father who managed him at the time, avoided tough fights on the way up and then he took too much time out after the Tyson loss. He got some chances later on but was past his best.

 

Yeah, I read his dad sold that many parts of Tuckers contract to so many guys that there wasn’t enough profit. And legal disputes.

Tucker was a good amateur but his pro career didn't pan out to be anymore than it was. He had no Olympic platform. He was best placed with the right investment to make an impact on the last years of Holmes reign. Unfortunately too many wasted years. So It didn't happen.

He was not sold to the public like Tyson was where Tysonmania was celebrated before mike had even done anything.

With hindsight, I truly believe circa 1986 the best young heavyweights who in another era would have been poised to face one another (to determine logical contender status to an undisputed champion) were Douglas, Tucker and Tyson.


We didn't know it then but had each of the three been given the shared equal billing on the same platform -that Tyson had- things might have been different.


This was when heavyweight boxing was screaming for a new face. But the landscape was Don King, the HBO tournament and the round robin of has beens from his stable. Douglas had no money behind him. Tucker lacked exposure. Nobody knew who he was until Spinks ducked out of a fight with him.


But Tyson got boosted ahead of them and the resulting "Tyson mania" eclipsed even the strap wearing ABC title holders. And looking back it was based on no more than what any half decent prospect was brought up on. The only difference was Tysons early fights got promoted. And they were just mismatches. Who did he beat on the way to the championship fights? Frazier and Ratliff??


Tyson bypassed meetings with Douglas or Tucker on the way to the belts. He got to the tired selection of strap wearing, lost generation of early 80s heavyweights before they did. The path was cleared only for Mike Tyson.

Looking at their resumes,Tucker or Douglas were as qualified to meet Bonecrusher or Berbick.

Because Tyson got Berbick and Smith before they did and he was kept so active, Tyson ended up having the edge that came from taking those fights. He benefited because Nobody else in the top ten could get fights whilst everyone was being lined up for Tyson.


If you look at that top ten the contenders were not fighting each other! But imagine if they had of been? Or if the declining ones were lined up for other prospects too, rather than just Tyson? Maybe the winners might have been better prepared for Tyson? We will never know.


That's why the Tucker we did get to see was not able to be the fighter he might have been. Not just him but many others too.


We can only use the Tucker we did see. And who was that exactly? A man who fared fairly respectably in losing to a young Champion who possibly benefited from being made to look better than he was?


I don't think Jaco or Broad should make a highlight reel list of Tuckers. This leaves Mcall and Douglas. Norris beat Tony both times. So This is a very thin resume.


Who else with a win over Douglas and Mcall to his name would you back to trouble Joe Louis?

 

You make some interesting points.
Tyrell Biggs camp found it hard to get him the fights and exposure that Tyson got.
He had 15 fights before Tyson but had some pretty tough ones compared to Tysons resume .
Mike sure was the media darling throughout his rise, I remember it well.
He was the best though. But some real underachievers from that era, that's for sure.