BoxRec

From 77-87, there were some real second rate heavyweight title holders.
Mostly from the WBA, but the WBC had a couple too.


Who was your favorite from that era?

I've only done a poll for the best but feel free to comment on who was the weakest too

I couldn't put more than 10 options on the poll, so unfortunately James Bonecrusher Smith didn't make the poll

Sorry James

davie wrote:I couldn't put more than 10 options on the poll, so unfortunately James Bonecrusher Smith didn't make the poll

Sorry James

Hmmm... Smith knocked out Tim Witherspoon and Mike Weaver in 1-round each... He also KO'd Bruno who wasn't as good -- but I thought it was a pretty impressive finish didn't you? That's like leaving Foreman out because he lost to Young. Smith didn't defend well, but he went the distance with Tyson without getting dropped and I thought he was pretty durable. He was slow but he could throw. His range was good. You couldn't relax against him if you were outboxing him.

Tim Witherspoon was the best of that bunch. When he was on, he could fight. In off nights, he was terrible like his nickname. I mean, really terrible.

The second best was Greg Page

Kalan wrote:

davie wrote:I couldn't put more than 10 options on the poll, so unfortunately James Bonecrusher Smith didn't make the poll

Sorry James

Hmmm... Smith knocked out Tim Witherspoon and Mike Weaver in 1-round each... He also KO'd Bruno who wasn't as good -- but I thought it was a pretty impressive finish didn't you? That's like leaving Foreman out because he lost to Young. Smith didn't defend well, but he went the distance with Tyson without getting dropped and I thought he was pretty durable. He was slow but he could throw. His range was good. You couldn't relax against him if you were outboxing him.

It was a purely time based decision. He was the last of the line (if you want you can lump him in with the great era that followed with Tyson, Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield )

I didn't want to leave someone out in the middle.

I probably should have left Spinks out at the beginning to make space for the bone crusher,
seeing as Ali came back and beat him, he didn't really exist in the space between Ali and Tyson

Man, look at that murderers row compared to the wlad era. Spoon the best, spinks my favorite.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Man, look at that murderers row compared to the wlad era. Spoon the best, spinks my favorite.

More like a dreadful row of the murdered...

Spinks was knocked out by everybody and had the worst record of any Heavyweight Champ... Coetzee was flattened a bunch of times... Thomas could barely stand up when he fought the inept slowpoke Morrison... Tate was left for dead versus Weaver---what an ice job... Dokes looked like a lost soul versus Ruddock... So did Page who tried to put up a front... Tubbs was crushed by Lionel Butler... Berbick was murdered several times in the ring and once in real life.

Wladimir isn't done yet -- and was much better than the lazy drug addicts and woeful punching bags above... So are the undefeated Anthony Joshua, Luis Ortiz, Deontay Wilder, and Joseph Parker, as well as the formidable boxer-puncher David Haye... I wouldn't call that 80's group a "bad bunch" ... But they were a mediocre group for sure.. kind of tepid, luke warm, and not too exciting.

The first thing that came to mind upon reading the list was...80's drug culture

p s Tim Witherspoon

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Man, look at that murderers row compared to the wlad era. Spoon the best, spinks my favorite.

I'm with Kalan here, I think the likes of Haye and povetkin would take the majority, if not all of this list out.
I'd fancy Pulev to beat most of them and there are a few other Wlad opponents over the years would beba fair match for some of these guys.

What I've seen of Coetzee, Weaver and Dokes has been far from impressive.

I watched a few with Tucker, Tubbs, Pinklon and Witherspoon a few months back and thought they all looked, as Kalan said, mediocre.

Does anyone want to take a stab at who was the weakest of that era?

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Man, look at that murderers row compared to the wlad era. Spoon the best, spinks my favorite.

I'm with Kalan here, I think the likes of Haye and povetkin would take the majority, if not all of this list out.
I'd fancy Pulev to beat most of them and there are a few other Wlad opponents over the years would beba fair match for some of these guys.

What I've seen of Coetzee, Weaver and Dokes has been far from impressive.

I watched a few with Tucker, Tubbs, Pinklon and Witherspoon a few months back and thought they all looked, as Kalan said, mediocre.

I think pulev is the definition of mediocre. Not that these guys are work beaters, just better than the worst era ever. Getting better now. Weaver would destroy fury

davie wrote:Does anyone want to take a stab at who was the weakest of that era?

Any of them could be the worst on the right night. Not a consistent fighter on the whole list. I'd go page, but it's a coin flip to say the least.

For me, Greg Page.

A very talented boxer who is underrated these days.

(Though i would say the same thing about Pink)

John Tate or Greg Page

davie wrote:I couldn't put more than 10 options on the poll, so unfortunately James Bonecrusher Smith didn't make the poll

Sorry James

I'm glad -- Bone was too good too be in with the Bad!

Thomas and Witherspoon were quite good for a short period of time.

Weaver was an overachiever.

A lot of the names were ravished by drugs and I ain't no choirboy myself.

Hard era to call, as so many of them underachieved for different reasons.

Tim Witherspoon was always my favourite, but for some reason, I always felt that Tony Tucker might have been one of the best of that era

I think I was blinded by Tyson so to speak.

Tucker put up the best losing performance against prime Tyson, despite having a broken hand; he took out Buster Douglas way before Buster beat up Tyson & Tucker himself gave Lennox Lewis a real fright, when he was past his best & Lewis was blowing people away.

Kalan wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Man, look at that murderers row compared to the wlad era. Spoon the best, spinks my favorite.

More like a dreadful row of the murdered...

Tate was left for dead versus Weaver---what an ice job...

Loved the ending don't get me wrong......Rockyesque drama, and lovable. But did you happen to notice who was actually winning until a rather clumsy moment arrived?

Hey a win is a win.....but performance counts too. (E.G. the team who gets the most yardage despite losing, or the candidate with the most votes despite the electoral count) So when "evaluating" a situation...context is good to keep in mind. Now in Foremans case, he does want us to believe that he was setting Moorer up......is that what you think Weaver was doing here?

If so.....I have some land in Florida, and I'm expecting a right proper bid from you. Please contact my attorney for details.


These are the types of statements that make you appear to have lost the wheels to your train.


However....you do appear to be leading to the right answer which is likely Time Witherspoon.....is that correct?

And "favorite" means just that.......not an evaluation of skill, just a sentiment. Leon's attainment of the championship was pretty cinderella like, though I will say that he started out on a pretty good track, being focused and utilizing his potential....and then just blinged out and fizzled like a dud firecracker. Still quite a story.....(I lived in St Louis during the brothers best days....and it was quite a fun ride.)

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Man, look at that murderers row compared to the wlad era. Spoon the best, spinks my favorite.

I'm with Kalan here, I think the likes of Haye and povetkin would take the majority, if not all of this list out.
I'd fancy Pulev to beat most of them and there are a few other Wlad opponents over the years would beba fair match for some of these guys.

What I've seen of Coetzee, Weaver and Dokes has been far from impressive.

I watched a few with Tucker, Tubbs, Pinklon and Witherspoon a few months back and thought they all looked, as Kalan said, mediocre.

I think that they're on a par. And can't believe people really want to split hairs on these guys... There are many victims on Wlad's list who would be right at home in the 1980s as solid but unspectacular (and often inconsistent) contenders.

Agree that they are all very close. Strongly disagree about Glassjaw's opponents. Most of these guys were inconsistent; however at their best all were better than Chris Byrd.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Agree that they are all very close. Strongly disagree about Glassjaw's opponents. Most of these guys were inconsistent; however at their best all were better than Chris Byrd.

Every one of them? You really think so? Some would be roughly equivalent in my book.

I'd pick Byrd over at least half of them. He could beat them all.

Too many people give Witherspoon a pass for the Smith loss.