Which of the following would beat Tubbs at his best?

Its kind of a weird question, Tubb's was so seldom close to being in shape to show case what his skills could do. John L didn't have any of boxings later learned skills so Tony should outpoint him, Corbett would be likely too small but with Tony's lack of condition who knows here, Burn's was too small and while he had a good right hand it didn't carry the Marciano power to make up for it so Tony takes it, Tommy would keep his jab in Tony's chest for the win, Conn should take a win again because of Tubb's lack of training and Billy's full tank of it, and Rex Layne would put up a decent losing effort, IMO. I realize the post asked "at Tony's best", but I only saw him in reasonable shape once.

 

All of them. Tubbs, like most HWs in the 1980s, was shockingly mediocre. People talk about how bad this era has supposedly been - outside of Holmes and Tyson, the 80s was worse.

 

I wouldn't favor any of those over Tubbs. Maybe Conn or Tommy at their peak would have a chance but neither was really faster than Tubbs. He would just bulldoze this list in a fortnight.

 

Just did. The idea that a fat mediocrity like Tubbs, who fought in one of the worst eras in HW history, would beat any of these guys - including Corbett- is absurd.

 

different sport for many of those guys.

but pray tell, what exactly is 'tubbs at his best'? because quite frankly he doesn't have too many wins worth a **** at world level.

 

Tubbs was a bum. Horrible hwt who never even bothered to come into the ring in shape. B

 

Why does it matter if the 80's would classify them as cruiserweights? In those guy's time they were HW's and it wouldn't matter if Tubbs was back then they'd still be called HW's and would fight him.

 

I would give Conn and Loughran the best chances...in fact both would have beaten Tubbs. Quite an effort going on to make an all time great out of Tubbs...YAY!!!!....keep that historical boxing revisionism going!!!

 

Yep. Next we can look forward to Buster Mathis sr.