View Full Version : 1980's Tony tucker article. 26-0.


waldorf
01-18-2006, 03:33 PM
When Tony Tucker was 26 wins with 0 losses there was an excellent article about him in boxing magazine. The article discussed his career and how his dad was choosing his opponents and how his career was going good. It described his dad as a stage mother in acting. It also had pictures of him posing and if I recall correclt was really his first big article about his pro career in any major boxing magazines...... There were also some action shots of him in the article, it was a full 2 pages, perhsps three........ It came out at some point in 1984, can anyone tell me what boxing magazine and what month and year. Anyone who collects old boxing magazines may have the issue. Any help is apprecaiited.......... :D :boxing: ;)

Dynamite76
01-19-2006, 05:02 PM
Was this article featuring several heavyweights ( including Mitchell Green ), and was it the one where Tony was posing with two girls?

LondonRingRules
01-19-2006, 06:53 PM
Tony Tucker was a major speciman and talent. Unfortunately he was not ready for young Tyson and suffered mightily. His old man ran off with all his money and all his confidence and security. Terrible story. He never really recovered his top form and is likely very poor now instead of retiring as a millionaire.

waldorf
01-19-2006, 09:37 PM
he may have beeb posing with two girls, i dont recall it came out in 1984 or so after he was 26 wins with 0 losses any idea what mag.......

Dynamite76
01-20-2006, 09:41 AM
he may have beeb posing with two girls, i dont recall it came out in 1984 or so after he was 26 wins with 0 losses any idea what mag.......

I think I know the magazine name, but have to double check.Will get back to you when I find it.

Dynamite76
01-20-2006, 09:43 AM
Tony Tucker was a major speciman and talent. Unfortunately he was not ready for young Tyson and suffered mightily. His old man ran off with all his money and all his confidence and security. Terrible story. He never really recovered his top form and is likely very poor now instead of retiring as a millionaire.

I also felt that him missing 15 months due to a knee injury hurt his career mightily, he should've been a major player by the end of '83 or beginning of 84.

mokele
04-23-2006, 07:57 AM
I remember watching the Tony Tucker vs. James "Buster" Douglas fight. Douglas had a superior jab and was winning a lot of the early rounds, but tired and Tucker came back to stop him.

http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=746

Both men were in very good shape for the fight, and many thought that Douglas was close to through as a contender when he lost. Tucker got his title shot with Tyson for winning his fight with Douglas. I remember that Tucker was a bit slow but durable, had a decent jab but wasn't a really big puncher. Tyson was able to outjab Tucker in spite of a deficit in reach of around 11"! I'm of the opinion that this was Tyson's most disciplined fight, one in which he used his jab, showed good overall boxing skill and was patient and controlled.

Yaman
04-23-2006, 08:12 AM
Tucker is one of the most underrated Hw's ever. He is the most skilled fighter Tyson ever beat. Tucker was unbeaten untill he met Tyson and lost for the second time in his career against Lennox Lewis. but i do not believe he was the same fighter against Lewis. He was stopped for the first time in his career when he was 37, wich is when he was CLEARLY past his prime and the stoppage was on CUTS. He lost speed, relfexes etc. Thats what he relied on early in his career. He was KO'd for the first time in his career when he was almost 40 years old(39 to be exact). Dont have to tell you he was past his prime.

Tucker is also the proof that 86/88 Tyson would've beaten Douglass because Tyson beat Tucker and Tucker beat Douglass.

THE REAL NINJA
04-23-2006, 09:18 AM
i think he's rated maybe a little less then he should but Buster himself is the most underrated HV ever

Yaman
04-23-2006, 09:50 AM
i think he's rated maybe a little less then he should but Buster himself is the most underrated HV ever

Buster COULD have been rated very high if he dedicated himself for his fights. The guy had no heart troughout his career except for 1 time. Against Tyson. We've only seen the best of Douglass against Tucker and Tyson, but Tucker was better because he proved it when he beat the best version of Douglass.

Dynamite76
04-23-2006, 02:57 PM
Not to take anything from Buster, but I remember reading something to the effect that Tucker wasn't at his best for this fight.

Yogi
04-23-2006, 03:35 PM
Tucker is also the proof that 86/88 Tyson would've beaten Douglass because Tyson beat Tucker and Tucker beat Douglass.

That doesn't prove anything, Yaman, and considering all that Tucker was dealing with entering the Tyson fight (a well publicized drug problem that soon cost him a couple of years of boxing, well publicized and confusing managerial & promotional problems, the fact that he was in court the night before facing Tyson, etc., etc.) I think it would be hypocritical of you Tyson fans to not take all that stuff into consideration...You know, since all of you guys are so quick to excuse Tyson's loss against Douglas.

Yaman
04-23-2006, 03:50 PM
That doesn't prove anything, Yaman, and considering all that Tucker was dealing with entering the Tyson fight (a well publicized drug problem that soon cost him a couple of years of boxing, well publicized and confusing managerial & promotional problems, the fact that he was in court the night before facing Tyson, etc., etc.) I think it would be hypocritical of you Tyson fans to not take all that stuff into consideration...You know, since all of you guys are so quick to excuse Tyson's loss against Douglas.

Tyson looked horrible against Douglass.

Tucker looked like the prime Tucker he was against Tyson.

Thats a fact. What do you have to say against that?

Yogi
04-23-2006, 04:25 PM
Tyson looked horrible against Douglass.

Tucker looked like the prime Tucker he was against Tyson.

Thats a fact. What do you have to say against that?

What do I have to say against that?

Well, seeing as how you used the word "looked" in both of your comparisions, I would say that your "facts" are not such, but instead are yor own personal opinions and hypocritical ones at that...

The "fact" is Tucker had a well publicized drug problem around that time, which cost him a couple of years of pro boxing. The "fact" is Tucker had a well publicized and documented managerial & promotional problems (you can find specifics on that by doing some reading/research and you'll see that those problems were most prevailant in July of 87...JUST before the fight). The "fact" is Tucker was in court on the eve of his fight with Tyson, in a dispute with a former manager, Dennis Rappaport.

Verstyle
04-23-2006, 04:31 PM
to me the tuck fight was one of the greatest fights i have personally ever seen. the stamina those two guys had that night was incredible to be moving like that. if that fight happened in 06 we would be callin it 1 of the greatest of all time.jus sit back and watch the fight again and u will see all the work they put in that fight

Yaman
04-23-2006, 06:18 PM
What do I have to say against that?

Well, seeing as how you used the word "looked" in both of your comparisions, I would say that your "facts" are not such, but instead are yor own personal opinions and hypocritical ones at that...

The "fact" is Tucker had a well publicized drug problem around that time, which cost him a couple of years of pro boxing. The "fact" is Tucker had a well publicized and documented managerial & promotional problems (you can find specifics on that by doing some reading/research and you'll see that those problems were most prevailant in July of 87...JUST before the fight). The "fact" is Tucker was in court on the eve of his fight with Tyson, in a dispute with a former manager, Dennis Rappaport.

Not to be dissrespectfull but i think i'll whipe my ass with those ''facts''. Sometimes problems before the fight can have effect(like Tyson-Douglass) sometimes not at all because i did NOT see an overweight Tucker. I did not see a slow Tucker, i did not see a Tucker that wasn't the unbeaten Tucker of the 80s. When i look at tyson's performance against Douglass, i see a horrible performance unlike Tucker who fought Tyson.

One other thing, Douglass' mother died before he would fight Tyson. Thats not a good thing that happened, but did that effect him? No.

Parody
04-23-2006, 08:42 PM
Tucker is also the proof that 86/88 Tyson would've beaten Douglass because Tyson beat Tucker and Tucker beat Douglass.

Junior Jones beat Barrera, Barrera beat Morales, Morales beat Junior Jones...

Styles make fights man you should know that

Yogi
04-23-2006, 10:25 PM
Not to be dissrespectfull but i think i'll whipe my ass with those ''facts''. Sometimes problems before the fight can have effect(like Tyson-Douglass) sometimes not at all because i did NOT see an overweight Tucker. I did not see a slow Tucker, i did not see a Tucker that wasn't the unbeaten Tucker of the 80s. When i look at tyson's performance against Douglass, i see a horrible performance unlike Tucker who fought Tyson.

One other thing, Douglass' mother died before he would fight Tyson. Thats not a good thing that happened, but did that effect him? No.

You can wipe your ass with those facts all you want, and I wouldn't blame you for doing so. But then again, I'll do the same with the amount of excuses you Tyson fanboys come up with in regards to the ****kicking he took at the hands of Douglas because, for the life of me, I can not see ANYTHING from Tyson that came before that fight to illustrate that he'd ever beat Douglas on that night (certainly not from the fight with Tucker, who, after a good effort in the opening rounds, basically spent the last half of the fight with Tyson only looking to survive the full distance..."[Tucker] stopped fighting after the fifth round. After that he was just in there to survive" - Mike Tyson)...

What's he going to do different?

To steal a few of your lines...I did not see a slow Tyson in there against Douglas, as his punches & reflexes looked as quick as they ever did. I did not see an overweight Tyson in that fight (Douglas may have been in good condition for him, but it was still his tits that were bouncing up and down in the ring on that night...not Tyson's, who physically looked VERY similiar to what he did against Spinks, Tubbs, etc.). Nor did I see a version of Tyson that wasn't the unbeaten version of himself of the 80's, because he came out and started that fight like he always did, and contrary to popular opinion, he DID start the Douglas fight out by using his normal & quick head movement over the first part of the fight...The BIG difference in that fight was Douglas' performance in it, as he stuck to the gameplan laid out before him (jab, movement, clinching, uppercuts, etc.) and punished Tyson most times Mike got within his punching range (if Douglas wasn't getting off first during the exchanges, he was getting off last and knocking Tyson off of him).

But whatever...you're going to try to come up with some excuse(s) to try to save the idea of Tyson that you have in your mind, which is typical of you Tyson fanboys (at the same time you fanboys and the boxing media quite often point to his fight against Spinks as some kind of peak performance of his, which is funny considering how quick you guys are to excuse/blame the loss to Douglas on outside distractions or whatever)...But to me, the ONLY reason Tyson lost that fight to Douglas on that night was because of Buster Douglas himself, who fought the fight of his life.

Yaman
04-24-2006, 06:01 AM
Well, this thread is about Tony Tucker, not about Tyson vs Douglass. I already prooved my point a few posts above and i am right. If you think that was the Tyson that Rooney trained, you either didn't see the fight for years(I've seen it like 40 times in my life) or just making **** up because everybody knows Tyson was not ready to fight Douglass.

Now, don't make another redicilous post about this. There are threads about this. Search em.

hemichromis
04-24-2006, 06:31 AM
tony tucker was a good fighter but did anyone else think- seeing the tyson fight- that he was trying to copy ali WAYYYY to much

joeytrimble
04-24-2006, 10:04 AM
well what was tysons excuse for the holyfield fight? second time he was a kazillion to 1 favorite and got his ass handed too him

tyson lost to douglas who lost to holyfield who beat tyson then lost to lewis who later beat tyson

your right A beats B so A beats C does work!

Yogi
04-24-2006, 10:52 AM
Well, this thread is about Tony Tucker, not about Tyson vs Douglass.

Is that so?

Well ****...Seeing as how you were the very first one to bring it up, I guess I must've confused your initial "proof that 86/88 Tyson could've beat Douglas" statement to mean something completely different.

And you also haven't proved anything except that you're a hypocrite.

P.S. I've seen the fight with Douglas plenty of times over the years, but...who the **** hasn't? It's not like it's a hidden gem that's never, ever played on ESPN Classic or anything like that. In fact I just watched the first half of it yesterday before making that post and also threw in a couple of other fights of his...like the one against Nino Ribalta with Rooney in his corner, when Mike once again "had a bad night" (Mike's own words) against a fighter who offered a similiar look to what Douglas offered (height, reach, jab, clinch, right uppercuts, etc.) though not nearly as talented as was Buster.

Kid Achilles
04-24-2006, 03:19 PM
To steal a few of your lines...I did not see a slow Tyson in there against Douglas, as his punches & reflexes looked as quick as they ever did. I did not see an overweight Tyson in that fight (Douglas may have been in good condition for him, but it was still his tits that were bouncing up and down in the ring on that night...not Tyson's, who physically looked VERY similiar to what he did against Spinks, Tubbs, etc.). Nor did I see a version of Tyson that wasn't the unbeaten version of himself of the 80's, because he came out and started that fight like he always did, and contrary to popular opinion, he DID start the Douglas fight out by using his normal & quick head movement over the first part of the fight...The BIG difference in that fight was Douglas' performance in it, as he stuck to the gameplan laid out before him (jab, movement, clinching, uppercuts, etc.) and punished Tyson most times Mike got within his punching range (if Douglas wasn't getting off first during the exchanges, he was getting off last and knocking Tyson off of him).

This is something I've been saying for awhile but everyone disregards it. Tyson came out like he always did in the first round of that fight but the difference was he up against a strong willed (for that night) opponent who would not crack under the pressure of fighting Mike Tyson. Lots of guys, Spinks being the biggest and most exaggerated example, just fell apart when they got in there with him.

Heckler
04-25-2006, 07:05 PM
Tucker is one of the most underrated Hw's ever. He is the most skilled fighter Tyson ever beat. Tucker was unbeaten untill he met Tyson and lost for the second time in his career against Lennox Lewis. but i do not believe he was the same fighter against Lewis. He was stopped for the first time in his career when he was 37, wich is when he was CLEARLY past his prime and the stoppage was on CUTS. He lost speed, relfexes etc. Thats what he relied on early in his career. He was KO'd for the first time in his career when he was almost 40 years old(39 to be exact). Dont have to tell you he was past his prime.

Tucker is also the proof that 86/88 Tyson would've beaten Douglass because Tyson beat Tucker and Tucker beat Douglass.

How the **** is that proof? Person A beats Person B, Person B beats Person C so Person A could also beat Person c?

Simplistic, flawed logic.

Douglas never fought tucker aswell as he fought Tyson. Tucker didn't fight half aswell against Tyson as Buster. Tucker was a promising up and comer but he was nothing overly special.

Yaman
04-25-2006, 07:27 PM
How the **** is that proof? Person A beats Person B, Person B beats Person C so Person A could also beat Person c?

Simplistic, flawed logic.

Douglas never fought tucker aswell as he fought Tyson. Tucker didn't fight half aswell against Tyson as Buster. Tucker was a promising up and comer but he was nothing overly special.

Simply because both men had the same kind of style and Tucker beat the **** out of Buster. There you have it dickhead.

Verstyle
04-25-2006, 08:31 PM
be honest with u guys the tyson vs. douglas was slightly different, headmovement and combo wise everything else was the same as old tyson oh yeah and stamina. and this is coming from a huge tyson fan. me myself is not biased when it comes to tyson i put it as i see it. :)

Verstyle
04-25-2006, 08:31 PM
in my opinion the tucker that fought tyson could have whipped out alot of ppl

hemichromis
04-26-2006, 07:37 AM
in my opinion the tucker that fought tyson could have whipped out alot of ppl

true but i couldn't stand how he did every ali movement he knew
shuffle,windup etc

Heckler
04-26-2006, 07:41 AM
Simply because both men had the same kind of style and Tucker beat the **** out of Buster. There you have it dickhead.

What do you mean had the same kind of style? Most the boxers out there have the same ****en style... Buster was a very conventional boxer, thats all. Is it not possible that different boxers have different strengths? And that boxers are stronger or weaker against certain styles?... I guess not, what the **** was i thinking... speed, power, experience, jaw... all irrelevant, only style matters.

joeytrimble
04-27-2006, 02:26 AM
tony tucker was a good fighter but did anyone else think- seeing the tyson fight- that he was trying to copy ali WAYYYY to much
most 80s hw mimmicked ali

Dynamite76
04-27-2006, 09:43 AM
tony tucker was a good fighter but did anyone else think- seeing the tyson fight- that he was trying to copy ali WAYYYY to much

That Ali influence was prevalent in a lot of fighters back then.

LondonRingRules
04-27-2006, 07:16 PM
true but i couldn't stand how he did every ali movement he knew
shuffle,windup etc
** Tucker only adopted the Ali run and jab style after the first few rounds when he tasted the power of Tyson. Tucker was a damn fine very underrated fighter. His only losses were to Tyson and then Lewis much later, and he went the distance with them. He was finally stopped at age 37 by Seldon, but all three of his stops were by TKO. He never took a 10 count.

SABBATH
04-28-2006, 09:24 AM
I'll grant that Tucker was a decent 80's heavyweight, however calling him a "damn fine very underrated fighter" is a stretch.

Tucker's record is padded and littered with nobodies and trial horses. His most notable win against a ranked fighter was the Douglas fight which was even on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage, a dubious Douglas performance that labelled Douglas a quitter. This was Tucker's only stoppage win against a ranked fighter. Split decision wins over Oliver McCall and Orlin Norris and a decision win against James Broad rounds out his resume and that's it for wins against respectable ranked fighters in an 18 year 58 fight career.

Tucker's resume doesn't suggest that he should be rated anywhere other than where he should be. Nothing more than a decent 80's era heavyweight.

Dynamite76
04-30-2006, 02:54 PM
I'll grant that Tucker was a decent 80's heavyweight, however calling him a "damn fine very underrated fighter" is a stretch.

Tucker's record is padded and littered with nobodies and trial horses. His most notable win against a ranked fighter was the Douglas fight which was even on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage, a dubious Douglas performance that labelled Douglas a quitter. This was Tucker's only stoppage win against a ranked fighter. Split decision wins over Oliver McCall and Orlin Norris and a decision win against James Broad rounds out his resume and that's it for wins against respectable ranked fighters in an 18 year 58 fight career.

Tucker's resume doesn't suggest that he should be rated anywhere other than where he should be. Nothing more than a decent 80's era heavyweight.

I could see Tucker beating someone like Bonecrusher Smith and Pinklon Thomas had the chance arose.

SABBATH
04-30-2006, 03:34 PM
I could see Tucker beating someone like Bonecrusher Smith and Pinklon Thomas had the chance arose.I agree. There were plenty of those types of guys around. It's too bad he didn't fight more of them. We would have had a better gauge of Tucker's abilities.

Yaman
04-30-2006, 03:54 PM
I'll grant that Tucker was a decent 80's heavyweight, however calling him a "damn fine very underrated fighter" is a stretch.

Tucker's record is padded and littered with nobodies and trial horses. His most notable win against a ranked fighter was the Douglas fight which was even on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage, a dubious Douglas performance that labelled Douglas a quitter. This was Tucker's only stoppage win against a ranked fighter. Split decision wins over Oliver McCall and Orlin Norris and a decision win against James Broad rounds out his resume and that's it for wins against respectable ranked fighters in an 18 year 58 fight career.

Tucker's resume doesn't suggest that he should be rated anywhere other than where he should be. Nothing more than a decent 80's era heavyweight.

Close your boxrec page. How many times did you see him fight? He sure as hell was a great fighter and very underrated.

K-DOGG
04-30-2006, 03:56 PM
I saw Tucker fight....he's the closest thing to Joe Bugner the '80's and '90's had.

SABBATH
04-30-2006, 11:09 PM
Close your boxrec page. How many times did you see him fight? He sure as hell was a great fighter and very underrated. I saw Tucker fight many times and he never dominated any top 10 contender. I watched the Douglas fight live and the fight was even and up for grabs when Douglas essentially quit.

Tucker competed in the same era and could have challenged such competition as Pinklon Thomas, Carl Williams, Tim Witherspoon, Tony Tubbs, Trevor Berbick, David Bey, James Smith, Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock etc...the list goes on and on and he fought none of them much less beat any of them.

Tucker was essentially another boring tall 80's heavyweight with a decent jab and a solid chin who never showed any true KO power against top tier competition.

How the hell does this qualify him as great?

Yogi
04-30-2006, 11:56 PM
I watched the Douglas fight

Well, I feel sorry for you then, because if you watched the Tucker/Douglas fight live as it happened then odds are very good that you, like me, were subjected to the painful sight of watching Greg Page and James Broad huffing & puffing their way through ten rounds under the hot Las Vegas sun...

****, wasn't Tony Tubbs also fighting under the hot sun on that card, as well?

SABBATH
05-01-2006, 12:18 AM
Well, I feel sorry for you then, because if you watched the Tucker/Douglas fight live as it happened then odds are very good that you, like me, were subjected to the painful sight of watching Greg Page and James Broad huffing & puffing their way through ten rounds under the hot Las Vegas sun...

****, wasn't Tony Tubbs also fighting under the hot sun on that card, as well?
Remember those cards? I miss those old 80's Don King promoted Las Vegas heavyweight promotions. Usually featured 6 underachieving Ali wannabe retreads squaring off in a showdown leading up to a title fight for either a splinter WBA or WBC belt. The sun was alway bright and hot when the cards started and dark as the main event was about to start. I'm getting weepy and nostalgic just thinking about it.

Yogi
05-01-2006, 01:14 AM
Remember those cards? I miss those old 80's Don King promoted Las Vegas heavyweight promotions. Usually featured 6 underachieving Ali wannabe retreads squaring off in a showdown leading up to a title fight for either a splinter WBA or WBC belt. The sun was alway bright and hot when the cards started and dark as the main event was about to start. I'm getting weepy and nostalgic just thinking about it.

I do remember those cards and like you, I also miss them quite a bit. It obviously wasn't one of the greatest times in heavyweight history, but at least we had frequent opportunities to see some of the top rated guys fighting it out on all one show, thanks to Don King...

Like you say, it was pretty normal to see one or even two alphabet title fights at heavyweight, maybe one or two other matchups involving another couple of top ten rated heavyweights (often for the NABF or USBA titles), and then we'd usually see a top ten guy fighting a tune-up fight or possibly a one of King's young heavyweight prospects...If it weren't for the amount of underachievers around at that time at heavyweight and some of the horrible heavyweight matchups that we saw, you'd almost call us spoiled with all those HBO cards of King's along with all the heavyweight action featured on network television during that time.

SABBATH
05-01-2006, 07:38 AM
I do remember those cards and like you, I also miss them quite a bit. It obviously wasn't one of the greatest times in heavyweight history, but at least we had frequent opportunities to see some of the top rated guys fighting it out on all one show, thanks to Don King...

Like you say, it was pretty normal to see one or even two alphabet title fights at heavyweight, maybe one or two other matchups involving another couple of top ten rated heavyweights (often for the NABF or USBA titles), and then we'd usually see a top ten guy fighting a tune-up fight or possibly a one of King's young heavyweight prospects...If it weren't for the amount of underachievers around at that time at heavyweight and some of the horrible heavyweight matchups that we saw, you'd almost call us spoiled with all those HBO cards of King's along with all the heavyweight action featured on network television during that time.
Dokes-Weaver II
Page-Snipes
Holmes-Witherspoon

All on the same card. Those were the days my friend......

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 02:01 AM
I'll grant that Tucker was a decent 80's heavyweight, however calling him a "damn fine very underrated fighter" is a stretch.

Tucker's record is padded and littered with nobodies and trial horses. His most notable win against a ranked fighter was the Douglas fight which was even on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage, a dubious Douglas performance that labelled Douglas a quitter. This was Tucker's only stoppage win against a ranked fighter. Split decision wins over Oliver McCall and Orlin Norris and a decision win against James Broad rounds out his resume and that's it for wins against respectable ranked fighters in an 18 year 58 fight career.

Tucker's resume doesn't suggest that he should be rated anywhere other than where he should be. Nothing more than a decent 80's era heavyweight.

Tucker had legit skills man, put him against carnera, willard or braddock and i guarantee he would have whooped them all.

hemichromis
01-27-2007, 03:26 AM
Tucker is one of the most underrated Hw's ever. He is the most skilled fighter Tyson ever beat. Tucker was unbeaten untill he met Tyson and lost for the second time in his career against Lennox Lewis. but i do not believe he was the same fighter against Lewis. He was stopped for the first time in his career when he was 37, wich is when he was CLEARLY past his prime and the stoppage was on CUTS. He lost speed, relfexes etc. Thats what he relied on early in his career. He was KO'd for the first time in his career when he was almost 40 years old(39 to be exact). Dont have to tell you he was past his prime.

Tucker is also the proof that 86/88 Tyson would've beaten Douglass because Tyson beat Tucker and Tucker beat Douglass.

that logicv rarely ever works in boxing

Mike Tyson77
01-27-2007, 12:53 PM
The "fact" is Tucker had a well publicized drug problem around that time, which cost him a couple of years of pro boxing. The "fact" is Tucker had a well publicized and documented managerial & promotional problems (you can find specifics on that by doing some reading/research and you'll see that those problems were most prevailant in July of 87...JUST before the fight). The "fact" is Tucker was in court on the eve of his fight with Tyson, in a dispute with a former manager, Dennis Rappaport.


The "fact" is Tyson had a well publicized drinking problem around that time, he came into the Douglas fight hung over. The "fact" is Tyson had to lose 20 pounds 2 weeks before the Douglas fight. The "fact" is Tyson had 3 morons with a rubber glove full of water during the Douglas fight. The "fact" is Douglas got to sit on the canvas for 11 seconds during the fight. The "fact" is Tucker beat Douglas and Tyson beat Tucker.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 01:09 PM
Tucker had legit skills man, put him against carnera, willard or braddock and i guarantee he would have whooped them all.

Tucker was never hungry enough to "whoop" anybody. He might beat them, he might not; but I guarantee you the audience wouldn't be awake at the end because of hiim.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 02:38 PM
The "fact" is Tyson had a well publicized drinking problem around that time, he came into the Douglas fight hung over. The "fact" is Tyson had to lose 20 pounds 2 weeks before the Douglas fight. The "fact" is Tyson had 3 morons with a rubber glove full of water during the Douglas fight. The "fact" is Douglas got to sit on the canvas for 11 seconds during the fight. The "fact" is Tucker beat Douglas and Tyson beat Tucker.

You tell him pal, tyson is the ****in best ever. No way is some punk champ for the prehistoric days kickin his ass. Praise be to Allah!

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 02:39 PM
Tucker was never hungry enough to "whoop" anybody. He might beat them, he might not; but I guarantee you the audience wouldn't be awake at the end because of hiim.

Carnera was the least skilled champ i've ever seen, no talent at all.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 02:44 PM
Carnera was the least skilled champ i've ever seen, no talent at all.


No arguement really; but Tucker was missing in the "stomache" department. He had a good chin, good skills, good speed, and decent power; but he lacked that "umph" that you look for in a fighter that drives him to the top. If any modern heavyweight could find a way to lose to Carnera, Tucker would be one of them.

Incidentally, Buster Douglas was whoopin' his ass in 1987 before he ran out of gas and quit in the 10th. Tucker was nothing special, really. He won more "controversial" decisions than any heavy in recent history outside of John Ruiz.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 02:51 PM
No arguement really; but Tucker was missing in the "stomache" department. He had a good chin, good skills, good speed, and decent power; but he lacked that "umph" that you look for in a fighter that drives him to the top. If any modern heavyweight could find a way to lose to Carnera, Tucker would be one of them.

Incidentally, Buster Douglas was whoopin' his ass in 1987 before he ran out of gas and quit in the 10th. Tucker was nothing special, really. He won more "controversial" decisions than any heavy in recent history outside of John Ruiz.

You know all those short term champs from 1900-1959, i dont really hold them in a high regard. If they were in the 70's, they would be nothing more than contenders. If you put them in the 80's, they would have just been short term abc champs like bonecrusher, tim witherspoon, berbick, etc. Rocky, dempsey, johnson and patterson are the only champs during that time frame that are great/good. Gene Tunney has no right to be called a great heavyweight, he falls in the same boat as ezzard charles. The guy was great at 175, to say he is one of the elites at heavyweight is insane. He could have had an actual title run but, the guy just decided to quit. You really shouldn't say he was a better heavyweight champ than joe frazier, it makes no sense at all.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 03:01 PM
You know all those short term champs from 1900-1959, i dont really hold them in a high regard. If they were in the 70's, they would be nothing more than contenders. If you put them in the 80's, they would have just been short term abc champs like bonecrusher, tim witherspoon, berbick, etc. Rocky, dempsey, johnson and patterson are the only champs during that time frame that are great/good. Gene Tunney has no right to be called a great heavyweight, he falls in the same boat as ezzard charles. The guy was great at 175, to say he is one of the elites at heavyweight is insane. He could have had an actual title run but, the guy just decided to quit. You really shouldn't say he was a better heavyweight champ than joe frazier, it makes no sense at all.

LOL!!! Still caught up on the Tunney thing, huh. Tunney could have beaten Joe Frazier; that's how great he was.....'course, Joe could have beaten him too; but Tunney would have been competitive with any heavyweight who ever lived because of his skill and talent and smarts. He'd sure as hell school the likes of Toney "TNT" Tucker. ;)

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 03:06 PM
LOL!!! Still caught up on the Tunney thing, huh. Tunney could have beaten Joe Frazier; that's how great he was.....'course, Joe could have beaten him too; but Tunney would have been competitive with any heavyweight who ever lived because of his skill and talent and smarts. Like it or don't. ;)

He didnt prove it though, he fought dempsey at the right time and then left.

Jersey Joe walcott falls under the same boat as those other short term champs, he wasn't that good. If ur gonna make that excuse, well guess what. Dwight Qawi didnt even have an amatuer career, earnie shavers turned pro after two weeks of training. Its not like hes the only guy to be malnourished and not properly trained. Walcott doesnt deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as tyson, holyfiled and lewis. He wouldnt have been a Ring Champ in the 80s or 90s. He would just be an ABC champ, he isnt that good. Let it go.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 03:20 PM
He didnt prove it though, he fought dempsey at the right time and then left.

Jersey Joe walcott falls under the same boat as those other short term champs, he wasn't that good. If ur gonna make that excuse, well guess what. Dwight Qawi didnt even have an amatuer career, earnie shavers turned pro after two weeks of training. Its not like hes the only guy to be malnourished and not properly trained. Walcott doesnt deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as tyson, holyfiled and lewis. He wouldnt have been a Ring Champ in the 80s or 90s. He would just be an ABC champ, he isnt that good. Let it go.


I think you underestimate Walcott; I know I did for a while. And it's true that Qawi and Shavers and Conn, among many others didn't have amateur careers or very abrieviated ones; but Walcott's slickness is apparent if you watch him fight. His problem was he was hot and cold and only excelled at the end of his careeer,which is why I don't have him in the Top 10; but he's Top 15 to be for sure.

And, you do make a point about Tunney not hanging around and proving it, which is why I didn't have him in my Top 10 for the longest time because I once based my list soley on accomplishment. Then, I realized that wasn't fair to Sonny Liston, who was one of the better heavies who has ever lived....so good that he was avoided like the plague by Cus D'Matto, who managed the champ, Patterson, even though Sonny was destroying some damn good fighters like Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen. So, I decided to look at a fighters career and promise and how they stack up against their contemporaries.

Tyson was in my Top 10 for a while; but I had to move him out, primarily because of things beyond his control....his competition, or lack thereof. It's not entirely Mike's fault that he didn't have any good opponents to speak of during his prime. He did beat some above average fighters like Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Thomas, and Ruddock; but we would have known so much more about him if he hadn't gone to prison...which was his fault. If he hadn't gone to prison, we would have seen him against Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, Moorer, etc....more than likely. Instead, we miss the last years of his prime while he's serving time and all we have to go on are the fighters he did beat and did lose too and then there was the bite in Holyfield II.

Now, while it's true that Mike was past his best in 96 and 97 as was Holyfield, and while it's true that Holy did headbutt him, as that was part of his style, there is NO excuse, NONE for what he did in that fight. What other All Time Great EVER took a chunk out of an opponents ear?! WHICH ONE?! None. That is not the mark of a great fighter, that moment in time showed us some insight into Mike Tyson's heart and soul. Other all time greats, even when they were getting beat, either found ways to win or went out on their shields showing championship mettle.....Mike Tyson displayed NONE of that in that fight.

A great fighter is defined by how they face adversity as much as by how they win and whom they beat. Mike came up woefully short in that department IMO.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 03:26 PM
The michael spinks that tyson beat would have beat the ezzard and archie that rocky beat. Archie had his chances at heavyweight and he failed. I respect the old mongoose but when i watch tapes of both in action, spinks looks better than him. Even bob foster looks better than archie. Maybe the archie i saw was too old,who nows.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 03:29 PM
The michael spinks that tyson beat would have beat the ezzard and archie that rocky beat. Archie had his chances at heavyweight and he failed. I respect the old mongoose but when i watch tapes of both in action, spinks looks better than him. Even bob foster looks better than archie. Maybe the archie i saw was too old,who nows.

I disagree. I think both that Charles and that Moore, especially that Moore, could have beaten that Spinks. Moore was deceptive in there. You don't reign for 10 years beating the competition he beat and not be great...even at his age.

Yaman
01-27-2007, 03:29 PM
There are Heavyweights that are good, and great. And some are in between. Tony Tucker was in between for his career, but could have been great.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 03:32 PM
I disagree. I think both that Charles and that Moore, especially that Moore, could have beaten that Spinks. Moore was deceptive in there. You don't reign for 10 years beating the competition he beat and not be great...even at his age.

nope i disagree, archie ended up losing to floyd patterson and a few others. Look what happened to ezzard, he was done by then. Spinks was top 3 pound for pound when mike beat him.

I can argue that head to head, mike spinks may be the best ever. He is one of the elite 5 at 175 and always will be. I got hooked up with a torrent site that has his fights from 1980-1985, at 175 he was sick.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 03:45 PM
nope i disagree, archie ended up losing to floyd patterson and a few others. Look what happened to ezzard, he was done by then. Spinks was top 3 pound for pound when mike beat him.

I can argue that head to head, mike spinks may be the best ever. He is one of the elite 5 at 175 and always will be. I got hooked up with a torrent site that has his fights from 1980-1985, at 175 he was sick.

I'm not disrespecting Spinks; but who's to say the Spinks that got smoked by Mike in 91 seconds doesn't get smoked by Patterson in Five Rounds as well?

Styles make fights. Now, while I'd favour Mike over that Charles, Ezzard was a fine boxer and did have a chance to beat Michael and I would pick Moore to beat that Spinks; but admit Michael could have beaten him as well.
With Michael's style, it's hard to tell. He was so damn awkward.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 03:48 PM
I'm not disrespecting Spinks; but who's to say the Spinks that got smoked by Mike in 91 seconds doesn't get smoked by Patterson in Five Rounds as well?

Styles make fights. Now, while I'd favour Mike over that Charles, Ezzard was a fine boxer and did have a chance to beat Michael and I would pick Moore to beat that Spinks; but admit Michael could have beaten him as well.
With Michael's style, it's hard to tell. He was so damn awkward.

cuz he wouldnt be scared of patterson. See this is why spinks shouldnt have fought tyson, all you guys will judge him based on this fight. He is a first ballot hall of famer that is capable of beating every 175.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 03:51 PM
cuz he wouldnt be scared of tyson. See this is why spinks shouldnt have fought tyson, all you guys will judge him based on this fight. He is a first ballot hall of famer that is capable of beating every 175.

The Tyson fight does not affect my judging him at 175.....and I was never impressed with him as a heavyweight. One legitimate win over an old Larry Holmes, coupled by a "loss" to him...and wins over Steve Tangstead and an alcoholic, inactive Gerry Cooney does not constitute an impressive "heavyweight" resume.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 03:59 PM
The Tyson fight does not affect my judging him at 175.....and I was never impressed with him as a heavyweight. One legitimate win over an old Larry Holmes, coupled by a "loss" to him...and wins over Steve Tangstead and an alcoholic, inactive Gerry Cooney does not constitute an impressive "heavyweight" resume.

better heavyweight resume than billy conn, bob foster and archie moore. Larry holmes started his career late, he even says he aged well. The win is as legit as you can get, i dont care. Spinks will go down as having one of the most legit wins ever. What did billy conn do thats more satisfying than beating a dominant heavyweight champ? O is it cuz he beat welterweights and middleweights. Beating leisnich is more satisfying than beating larry, i dont think so.

Mike Tyson77
01-27-2007, 04:00 PM
What other All Time Great EVER took a chunk out of an opponents ear?! WHICH ONE?! None. That is not the mark of a great fighter, that moment in time showed us some insight into Mike Tyson's heart and soul. Other all time greats, even when they were getting beat, either found ways to win or went out on their shields showing championship mettle.....Mike Tyson displayed NONE of that in that fight


How many of them where champion when they were a kid? How many of them would write a check for $250,000 to a homeless women begging in the street? How many of them had been wrongly convicted of rape?


Tyson had tons of problems, but accomplished more from 85'-90' then most fighters could dream. Tyson snapped the the Holyfield II fight. And he had Holyfield hurt before the bit.


But to answer you,.........EVANDER HOLYFIELD. Holyfield bit someone's shoulder in an amature fight. He was losing so be bit the other fighter, Holyfield still lost the fight.

Yaman
01-27-2007, 04:03 PM
How many of them where champion when they were a kid? How many of them would write a check for $250,000 to a homeless women begging in the street? How many of them had been wrongly convicted of rape?


Tyson had tons of problems, but accomplished more from 85'-90' then most fighters could dream. Tyson snapped the the Holyfield II fight. And he had Holyfield hurt before the bit.


But to answer you,.........EVANDER HOLYFIELD. Holyfield bit someone's shoulder in an amature fight. He was losing so be bit the other fighter, Holyfield still lost the fight.

Interesting. Holyman probably didn't learn an accurate headbutt yet. He evolved later haha.
Seriously though, where did you read this?

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 04:03 PM
How many of them where champion when they were a kid? How many of them would write a check for $250,000 to a homeless women begging in the street? How many of them had been wrongly convicted of rape?


Tyson had tons of problems, but accomplished more from 85'-90' then most fighters could dream. Tyson snapped the the Holyfield II fight. And he had Holyfield hurt before the bit.


But to answer you,.........EVANDER HOLYFIELD. Holyfield bit someone's shoulder in an amature fight. He was losing so be bit the other fighter, Holyfield still lost the fight.

Amateur vs Pro....Apples and oranges. What you do as "Champ" or in a championship fight says it all.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 04:05 PM
How many of them where champion when they were a kid? How many of them would write a check for $250,000 to a homeless women begging in the street? How many of them had been wrongly convicted of rape?


Tyson had tons of problems, but accomplished more from 85'-90' then most fighters could dream. Tyson snapped the the Holyfield II fight. And he had Holyfield hurt before the bit.


But to answer you,.........EVANDER HOLYFIELD. Holyfield bit someone's shoulder in an amature fight. He was losing so be bit the other fighter, Holyfield still lost the fight.

Dont worry pal, tyson has a better resume than ****in dempsey. Whats better, beating spink or gibbons and carpentier. Obviously beating spinks is better, its a no brainer. Beating the 88 holmes is still better than beating skillless idiots like willard, firpo and sharkey. On top of that tyson defended his belt 9 times against the top challengers of his era. He is better than dempsey, you dont need to defend him, tyson is the ambassador of this sport.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 04:13 PM
Dont worry pal, tyson has a better resume than ****in dempsey. Whats better, beating spink or gibbons and carpentier. Obviously beating spinks is better, its a no brainer. Beating the 88 holmes is still better than beating skillless idiots like willard, firpo and sharkey. On top of that tyson defended his belt 9 times against the top challengers of his era. He is better than dempsey, you dont need to defend him, tyson is the ambassador of this sport.


You call me biased and illogical, yet you are so biased it's pathetic.

In regards to who had a better heavyweight resume between Spinks, Conn, Moore, and Foster. Well, it depends on how you look at it. Conn beat ranked contenders Lee Savold and Bob Pastor, who were far better than the version of Cooney that Spinks dismantled and he also got the better of a prime Louis for the better part of 13 rounds while Spinks got the better part in one fight of an old Holmes, who did NOT get a late start in his career. That says "Conn" to me; and the "Spinks win" does not speak more highly of Tyson than the wins over Gibbons and Carpantier for Dempsey.

You're deluding yourself.

Mike Tyson77
01-27-2007, 04:19 PM
Amateur vs Pro....Apples and oranges. What you do as "Champ" or in a championship fight says it all.


Look man, I didnt became a Tyson fan by watching Tyson vs Holyfield II. There's a difference between an 87' Tyson and a 97' version.


Tyson made bad mistakes, but so do I. Im no better than Tyson and neither is anyone else. I cant/wont judge Tyson or anyone else. You can't judge a man until you walked a mile in there shoes, and that's a walk Ive yet to take.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 04:29 PM
Look man, I didnt became a Tyson fan by watching Tyson vs Holyfield II. There's a difference between an 87' Tyson and a 97' version.


Tyson made bad mistakes, but so do I. Im no better than Tyson and neither is anyone else. I cant/wont judge Tyson or anyone else. You can't judge a man until you walked a mile in there shoes, and that's a walk Ive yet to take.

Dude, I'm a Tyson fan. Have been for years. He broke my damn heart when he took that bite; and actualy, I'm over it and hope he lives out the rest of his life in peace, though that drug charge ain't gonna help.

Of course there was a difference between the Tyson of 1987 and the Tyson of 1997....that difference was his associates and influences. When he had the old corner around him, he had the stability he needed because of his inward insecurity. He had all the physical ability you could want in a fighter and Rooney and the team he had in the '80's helped him maintain by giving him focus; they kept his "wild side" in check, more or less. But, the fact is he wasn't mentally stable and boxing is 90% mental....that would cost him in a big fight.

Judging a champion or a fighter isn't about judging how they are with their corner, it's about judging them. And Mike without the old team was missing a key element in his equation for success. He probably would have lost the Tucker fight had Rooney not reeled him in and helped him focus. That's what Aaron Snowell and Jay Bright didn't do in Tokyo.

Mike, on his own without the Rooney corner, is in trouble and history bore that out.

Mike Tyson77
01-27-2007, 04:36 PM
Dude, I'm a Tyson fan. Have been for years. He broke my damn heart when he took that bite; and actualy, I'm over it and hope he lives out the rest of his life in peace, though that drug charge ain't gonna help.

Of course there was a difference between the Tyson of 1987 and the Tyson of 1997....that difference was his associates and influences. When he had the old corner around him, he had the stability he needed because of his inward insecurity. He had all the physical ability you could want in a fighter and Rooney and the team he had in the '80's helped him maintain by giving him focus; they kept his "wild side" in check, more or less. But, the fact is he wasn't mentally stable and boxing is 90% mental....that would cost him in a big fight.

Judging a champion or a fighter isn't about judging how they are with their corner, it's about judging them. And Mike without the old team was missing a key element in his equation for success. He probably would have lost the Tucker fight had Rooney not reeled him in and helped him focus. That's what Aaron Snowell and Jay Bright didn't do in Tokyo.

Mike, on his own without the Rooney corner, is in trouble and history bore that out.

I agree with all that. He wasnt the same when Rooney was out of the picture.


I guess why I hold Tyson in such high regard is because he brought me into the sport. Im a boxing fanatic and have too many favorite boxers. But if it wasnt for Tyson I wouldnt know anything about them. A part of me would be missing if I didnt have this sport. I owe Mike alot.

K-DOGG
01-27-2007, 04:37 PM
I agree with all that. He wasnt the same when Rooney was out of the picture.


I guess why I hold Tyson in such high regard is because he brought me into the sport. Im a boxing fanatic and have too many favorite boxers. But if it wasnt for Tyson I wouldnt know anything about them. A part of me would be missing if I didnt have this sport. I owe Mike alot.

Nothing wrong with that, bro. I owe Muhammad Ali the same debt of gratitude. ;)

Mike Tyson77
01-27-2007, 04:44 PM
Nothing wrong with that, bro. I owe Muhammad Ali the same debt of gratitude. ;)


Did you ever get to watch any of his fights live in the late 70's? That would have been cool. Im 19, so Ive missed many a great fight and all of Tysons.:( :

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 04:47 PM
You call me biased and illogical, yet you are so biased it's pathetic.

In regards to who had a better heavyweight resume between Spinks, Conn, Moore, and Foster. Well, it depends on how you look at it. Conn beat ranked contenders Lee Savold and Bob Pastor, who were far better than the version of Cooney that Spinks dismantled and he also got the better of a prime Louis for the better part of 13 rounds while Spinks got the better part in one fight of an old Holmes, who did NOT get a late start in his career. That says "Conn" to me; and the "Spinks win" does not speak more highly of Tyson than the wins over Gibbons and Carpantier for Dempsey.

You're deluding yourself.

savold is a joke, beating him means nothing. Pastor and savold were never like cooney. Cooney had a time frame in which he was held in a very high regard an he has more skill. Hell even stefan tagnstad has beat a few ranked fighters.

Joe Louis was not in his prime after the world war 2. Spinks is better than conn and he accomplished a hella ova lot more, it shouldnt be debated.

How long was he heavyweight champ, never. How long was he 175 champ, 6 months maybe? Spinks doesnt have to beat up leonard, curry and hearns to prove anything. Conn's major wins were at 147 and 160 for god's sakes.

realheavyhands
01-28-2007, 01:02 AM
tyson was at his worst when douglass was at his best.. tucker was a veryskilled heavyweight who had everyskill and could punch. tyson was hit by 1 clean punch in that fight.. tucker trained for the fight of his life and put on a great performace but it wasn enough ..

K-DOGG
01-28-2007, 08:35 AM
Did you ever get to watch any of his fights live in the late 70's? That would have been cool. Im 19, so Ive missed many a great fight and all of Tysons.:( :


Yup; but the only one I can say "for sure" that I saw live was his loss to Spinks. :( I must have seen him fight before that; but I don't remember which ones. I just remember asking my dad why he doesn't just knock Leon out...and dad saying, "Old Ali underestimated him".

I'll never forget that. :(

K-DOGG
01-28-2007, 08:39 AM
savold is a joke, beating him means nothing. Pastor and savold were never like cooney. Cooney had a time frame in which he was held in a very high regard an he has more skill. Hell even stefan tagnstad has beat a few ranked fighters.

Joe Louis was not in his prime after the world war 2. Spinks is better than conn and he accomplished a hella ova lot more, it shouldnt be debated.

How long was he heavyweight champ, never. How long was he 175 champ, 6 months maybe? Spinks doesnt have to beat up leonard, curry and hearns to prove anything. Conn's major wins were at 147 and 160 for god's sakes.

:nonono: You might have well just slide naked down a razor into a vat of alcohol.

1. Cooney never beat a ranked fighter in his prime and he wasn't even in his prime when Spinks beat him. The version that fought Larry was far better.
2. Both Savold and Pastor were better than that Cooney.
3. Tangstead was garbage.
4. Louis fought Conn BEFORE WWII the first time.

brownpimp88
01-28-2007, 03:14 PM
:nonono: You might have well just slide naked down a razor into a vat of alcohol.

1. Cooney never beat a ranked fighter in his prime and he wasn't even in his prime when Spinks beat him. The version that fought Larry was far better.
2. Both Savold and Pastor were better than that Cooney.
3. Tangstead was garbage.
4. Louis fought Conn BEFORE WWII the first time.

Norton became a ranked contender after his win over cobb, nice try buddy. Gerry Cooney is way better than those cans and spinks is better than conn by a ****in mile.

brownpimp88
01-28-2007, 03:14 PM
:nonono: You might have well just slide naked down a razor into a vat of alcohol.

1. Cooney never beat a ranked fighter in his prime and he wasn't even in his prime when Spinks beat him. The version that fought Larry was far better.
2. Both Savold and Pastor were better than that Cooney.
3. Tangstead was garbage.
4. Louis fought Conn BEFORE WWII the first time.

Norton became a ranked contender after his win over cobb, nice try buddy. Gerry Cooney is way better than those cans and spinks is better than conn by a ****in mile.

K-DOGG
01-29-2007, 02:18 PM
Norton became a ranked contender after his win over cobb, nice try buddy. Gerry Cooney is way better than those cans and spinks is better than conn by a ****in mile.

That's it?

Bottom line is Norton was OLD, end of story. The Cooney win over Norton proved nothing; and if that's all you've got...and it is, you've got nothing too.

Cooney would have more that likely been beaten by both Savold and Pastor because both had light-years more experience that did Gerry.

Oh, and the primary reason Cooney was "held in high regard" was because he was white. Yes, he had very good power; but he received a title shot before he was ready for it because of his complexion and the money that would bring in....he was paid on par with the Champion and was even introduced last in the ring, where the champion normally is. Gerry's a great guy from what I understand; but that was a dark moment in history as Gerry was the last of the Great White Hopes, even if he didn't want to be. Thank you Don King and the Wacko Twins. Don't believe me...ask someone else.

And Spinks isn't better than Conn by a ****in' mile. Skillwise, I'd say they were pretty close. Spinks reigned longer and beat tough competition, so ranking him ahead of Billy is understandable; but don't insult the Philadelpha Kid by saying he wasn't in Spinks' league......he was.

brownpimp88
01-29-2007, 03:38 PM
That's it?

Bottom line is Norton was OLD, end of story. The Cooney win over Norton proved nothing; and if that's all you've got...and it is, you've got nothing too.

Cooney would have more that likely been beaten by both Savold and Pastor because both had light-years more experience that did Gerry.

Oh, and the primary reason Cooney was "held in high regard" was because he was white. Yes, he had very good power; but he received a title shot before he was ready for it because of his complexion and the money that would bring in....he was paid on par with the Champion and was even introduced last in the ring, where the champion normally is. Gerry's a great guy from what I understand; but that was a dark moment in history as Gerry was the last of the Great White Hopes, even if he didn't want to be. Thank you Don King and the Wacko Twins. Don't believe me...ask someone else.

And Spinks isn't better than Conn by a ****in' mile. Skillwise, I'd say they were pretty close. Spinks reigned longer and beat tough competition, so ranking him ahead of Billy is understandable; but don't insult the Philadelpha Kid by saying he wasn't in Spinks' league......he was.

conn is in the same league as foster and harold johnson. Spinks is elite, nuff said. By the way, u said in a previus post that norton would have lost to guys like shavers and cooney either way. Norton was 30 when he first became a somebody, so i dont know why the age factor is used. He beat a respectable contender right before this fight and then cooney squashed him. he cant handle vicious punchers.

K-DOGG
01-29-2007, 03:55 PM
conn is in the same league as foster and harold johnson. Spinks is elite, nuff said. By the way, u said in a previus post that norton would have lost to guys like shavers and cooney either way. Norton was 30 when he first became a somebody, so i dont know why the age factor is used. He beat a respectable contender right before this fight and then cooney squashed him. he cant handle vicious punchers.

The age factor is used because it was real. He was old, damn near 40. Whether or not Cooney would have beat a 30 year old Norton is conjecture. The fact that he beat an OLD Ken Norton is what is real and should hold no more ground than Jack Johnson beating an OLD Jim Jeffries or a Mike Tyson beating an OLD Larry Holmes. It is what it is.

And Billy Conn WAS Elite, regardless of what you think. You based an earlier post on Louis beating him after WWII, which was not the fight in question, which shows your lack of education on history concerning Conn, so therefore your opinion on his eliteness is one without evidence, merit, or credibility. The weakness in your game weakens your opinion. Conn was a Great Light Heavyweight. Whether he is slightly bettter or slightly worse than Spinks is up for debate. Whether he is in Spinks league is not.

brownpimp88
01-29-2007, 03:57 PM
The age factor is used because it was real. He was old, damn near 40. Whether or not Cooney would have beat a 30 year old Norton is conjecture. The fact that he beat an OLD Ken Norton is what is real and should hold no more ground than Jack Johnson beating an OLD Jim Jeffries or a Mike Tyson beating an OLD Larry Holmes. It is what it is.

And Billy Conn WAS Elite, regardless of what you think. You based an earlier post on Louis beating him after WWII, which was not the fight in question, which shows your lack of education on history concerning Conn, so therefore your opinion on his eliteness is one without evidence, merit, or credibility. The weakness in your game weakens your opinion. Conn was a Great Light Heavyweight. Whether he is slightly bettter or slightly worse than Spinks is up for debate. Whether he is in Spinks league is not.

I'm sorry wasnt archie, joe louis and walcott all near 38-40 when rocky beat them, yeah its useless now. Stop using double standard, ken norton was a late boomer.

K-DOGG
01-29-2007, 04:01 PM
I'm sorry wasnt archie, joe louis and walcott all near 38-40 when rocky beat them, yeah its useless now. Stop using double standard, ken norton was a late boomer.

So, you're telling me a 38 year old Ali who was stopped by Holmes should be judged on the same scale as a 38 year old George Foreman who was mounting his comeback or a 45 year old Foreman who won the title. Age is equal across the board regardless of each fighter's career.

You're reaching, bud.

K-DOGG
01-29-2007, 04:03 PM
In direct answer to your "age" question. Louis was on the skids; but Moore and Walcott were on a plateau of sorts. Or, the Louis win means nothing, the Moore and Walcott wins do because they were better at 38 and 42 than Louis was at 37.

brownpimp88
01-29-2007, 04:03 PM
So, you're telling me a 38 year old Ali who was stopped by Holmes should be judged on the same scale as a 38 year old George Foreman who was mounting his comeback or a 45 year old Foreman who won the title. Age is equal across the board regardless of each fighter's career.

You're reaching, bud.

what did ezzard do during that time frame, yeah he kept losing. He was a done fighter. Archie moore was never a good heavyweight, he fits the same category as foster, gods at thier own weight, when they move up they will fold. You were downplaying ezzard's win over joe louis, yet rocky's win somehow counts.

K-DOGG
01-29-2007, 04:21 PM
what did ezzard do during that time frame, yeah he kept losing. He was a done fighter. Archie moore was never a good heavyweight, he fits the same category as foster, gods at thier own weight, when they move up they will fold. You were downplaying ezzard's win over joe louis, yet rocky's win somehow counts.

No, I wasn't. Rocky's win over Louis is just as meaningless as Ezzard's. And I never said Ezzard wasn't past his best when he challenged Rocky. He was, just as Holyfield was past his best when he challenged Tyson.

Moore had been on the outside looking in for a long time by the time Maxim finally gave him a shot at the 175 Lb Crown. So, he had a bit of a following at that time, to say the least. Also, he moved up and beat one of Rocky's top contender's Nino Valdes, which added legitimacy to his challenging for the title 'cause Valdes was in line at the time Archie took him to school. It would have been akin to Spinks moving up and beating Tim Witherspoon and then challenging Holmes. Add to that that Archie was talking a lot of smack and the fight was made.

Did Rocky beat Archie at his best? No; but he beat a great light-heavyweight, who weighed just as much as he did when they fought and had weighed more in other matches. Most of Archie's reputatation is built before he was given a shot at the title, not afterwards, though his wars with Johnson, who was also great, did add to it.

brownpimp88
01-29-2007, 04:38 PM
No, I wasn't. Rocky's win over Louis is just as meaningless as Ezzard's. And I never said Ezzard wasn't past his best when he challenged Rocky. He was, just as Holyfield was past his best when he challenged Tyson.

Moore had been on the outside looking in for a long time by the time Maxim finally gave him a shot at the 175 Lb Crown. So, he had a bit of a following at that time, to say the least. Also, he moved up and beat one of Rocky's top contender's Nino Valdes, which added legitimacy to his challenging for the title 'cause Valdes was in line at the time Archie took him to school. It would have been akin to Spinks moving up and beating Tim Witherspoon and then challenging Holmes. Add to that that Archie was talking a lot of smack and the fight was made.

Did Rocky beat Archie at his best? No; but he beat a great light-heavyweight, who weighed just as much as he did when they fought and had weighed more in other matches. Most of Archie's reputatation is built before he was given a shot at the title, not afterwards, though his wars with Johnson, who was also great, did add to it.

I remember a while back, yogi was telling me that what michael spinks did at heavyweight was "nothing". LoL, name 1 light heavyweight champ that did what he did, name 1 light heavyweight that would have beat the prime mike tyson.

K-DOGG
01-29-2007, 05:46 PM
I remember a while back, yogi was telling me that what michael spinks did at heavyweight was "nothing". LoL, name 1 light heavyweight champ that did what he did, name 1 light heavyweight that would have beat the prime mike tyson.


Well, comparatively speaking, he really went 3-2 at heavyweight, beating an old Holmes (really) once, then losing, then beating Tangstead, who was nothing special, and then beating a more or less washed up Cooney, which was impressive becaue Cooney was still dangerous.

So, it depends on your point of view.

But the fact that he won the World Heavyweight Championship is impressive.

brownpimp88
01-29-2007, 06:02 PM
Well, comparatively speaking, he really went 3-2 at heavyweight, beating an old Holmes (really) once, then losing, then beating Tangstead, who was nothing special, and then beating a more or less washed up Cooney, which was impressive becaue Cooney was still dangerous.

So, it depends on your point of view.

But the fact that he won the World Heavyweight Championship is impressive.

he won a linear belt, foster and archie had thier chances to do it and they failed. He defended the light heavyweight belt 10 times during a deep era and fought 3 contenders before he even won the belt. I would put him ahead of foster, even though foster would have a good chance at beating him.