Tony Galento v David Tua 15rds?

Of course we know Harry Greb was a great fighter.
Yes you wouldn't have to say much to convince me Galento never beat anyone as good as Harry Greb.

That still doesn't help in accurately assessing the skills and abilities of all the men Galento fought.

Numbers don't tell the whole story.
You mentioned Tua's win against David Izon, an opponent who was 18-1 and had just come off a decision loss to Maurice Harris who was 5-6-2. .... and Izon gave Tua a decent fight.

A fighter with a higher win percentage is not necessarily better than a fighter with a lower win percentage.

Yes, that's clearly evident.
Another point is that being a top fighter, contender or fringe contender is absolutely no guarantee to get a win against him or have an easy night.

Good for Tua.

 

[url]http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1941[/url]

1. [url]Billy Conn[/url]
2. [url]Lem Franklin[/url]
3. [url]Bob Pastor[/url]
4. [url]Melio Bettina[/url]
5. [url]Abe Simon[/url]
6. [url]Turkey Thompson[/url]
7. [url]Buddy Baer[/url]
8. [url]Lou Nova[/url]
9. [url]Arturo Godoy[/url]
10. [url]Roscoe Toles[/url]

Just in case you missed it on the other 2 threads.

 

Well, all I said is that it would be a good fight.
I think Galento's better than people are making out. I don't think he's a set-up for Tua at all.

Those are my opinions. It was you who starting pulling stats out and attempting some sort of deep ana1ysis. Yes, I can see how that can be tiring.

Like I said, I imagine two stocky hard-hitting granite-head sluggers locking horns and producing a good fight. Both can punch, both can take a punch.

 

That's fair enough.

I haven't ignored them. But this thread is about a one-on-one fight between the two men, over 15 rounds, with both of them fighting to the best of their abilities.
I think the question of who has the better quality record and consistency is largely irrelevant in this head-to-head scenario.

Good point.
It may be a sign for me to retire. :good

 

:good Cheers. Ok, I'll keep my hand in.
I think we've exhausted the Tua-Galento line for now though.

 

If you have read them, you should be aware they often overrated Louis to a degree, by picking him to KO an opponent early, where the fight lasted a while longer and wasn't as impressive performance as they expected from Louis. Some people continue to do that even today (Perry, in particular). Louis was one of the greatest punchers ever, at any weight, but his defense and footwork were not as polished as his punching skills. He was put on the floor multiple times as the result. Using the times he was hit cleanly by lots of his opponent as a proof that they were better than their record shows, is a wrong way to rate fighters. You gotta look for things that are repeated many times, to judge them, something those experts had an opportunity to do by watching Galento in multiple fights, vs different opponents. Using one particular fight as a proof of anything, is a wrong approach.

They had seen them both in multiple fights, to get a grip of their style, skills and ability. Thus they had a better understanding of Galento's class than you and I.

I have yet to see any expert (contemporary source) praise Galento's skills or ability, other than words coming from his manager. They were not calling him decent either, it was unianimously seen as an awful, disgusting, ridiculous situation.

You can find literally thousands of such fighters in history, who weren't afraid to fight anybody, and did fight good guys, former amateur talent, blacks, etc, etc. That cannot be used as a sign of class ("being decent"), when they mostly had mixed results, win some, lose some, might even beat a top 10 guys, then lose to somebody unranked and unknown.

 

He won 80 fights and lost 26, and was fighting the same level of opponent as just about everyone else was. He beat some good fighters, he lost to some poor ones, but his average is pretty good for the era.
Of all the heavyweight fighters in the world of the time he deserves to be regarded among the better ones.

Galento had no class.
I'm not sure they understood his ability though.

Galento gave the champ a decent fight.
Galento's ability : Galento was ABLE to absorb punches without going down in dozens upon dozens of fights. Galento was ABLE to rally in tough fights and knock men out. Galento was ABLE to hit very hard, and I'm sure the press did acknowledge that.

Galento played up to the beer barrel image, that probably provoked much of the disgust and outrage.

There have literally been thousands and thousands of decent fighters in history, yes.

 

Galento.

Absolutely!

 

Tua has brutal knockout wins against Moorer, Ruiz, Maskaev and Oquendo. The first two names alone put him above Galento.

 

Where that theory falls apart, is in the fact that neither was near the top ten at the time.

Lou Nova and Nathan Man were top five contenders when Galento beat them.

He didn’t just fall off a cliff when he met top ten opposition!