1980's Tony tucker article. 26-0.

[brownpimp88]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[QueensburyRules]

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.

- -Blame DKing for flashing his M/O wad of cash less than the agreed upon purse that allowed Sr to slip his family bonds on to the high life of wine, women, and illicitude.

[HOUDINI563]

Age is different quite obviously per fighter. Walcott, Moore and Charles were FAR from shot when they fought Marciano. Louis skills had eroded measurably however.

Mike Spinks was the only light heavyweight champion to move up and win the true heavyweight championship and he did it without a single heavyweight bout in preparation. He did indeed best Holmes in their rematch. Holmes was looking to ko Spinks early and by round 8 was exhausted. Spinks swept most of the later rounds for the win.