Joe Louis vs David Tua

I suspect there were others, but I am not sure who, off the top of my head.

 

Of my top 10 CWs, they're the only 2 who I'd pick over Tua, and even then I'd be hesitant to pick Holyfield in his CW form.

Toney may be able to do what Byrd did.

 

Now people question Max Schmeling goodness... I'm done...

 

Of course he finally beat someone. After 7 attempts of trial and error, he finally got some work done. In what other era could you go 26-6, lose to 4 fighters with double digit losses, before beating another couple of fighters with XX losses and 1/3 lose-ratio and finally go for the crown? Real punchers of course need another 11 rounds to stop your white Riddick Bowe. After another gifty 16lb weight advantage with the 25 losses 50 wins Braddock, the golden path finally stopped showing nothing against Louis.

Sure as hell 26-0 Rahman, 26-3 Ruiz, 26-1-1 Sullivan, 26-3 Nicholson or even 26-5 Maskaev could never hold a candle in a tight devision like this

Honestly, Baer was as good as he did on camera: At looking shyte and losing. With a good amount of weight advantage most of the times, too! Put him into a tight professional era fighting winners 10lb heavier than himself, even you should guess the result.

He´d better be a real trimmed 190 (210 walking), durable and crafty on his feet. Btw, last time I checked Louis lost to an even non-trimmed CW and got clowned by another non-trimmed 174-pounder, so.....

 

No ****ing way. I REPEAT. No ****ing way the 188 pounds version of holyfield is beating Tua. The green hw evander who was roided muscled and weighed over 200 pounds had problems with bert cooper and got badly hurt and knocked down, Tua would smash cruiser evander. Would stop him by tko. He was not strong or tough enough to take the damage from a tank like tua at 188 pounds. And usyk would get brutalized. Michael moorer was better than usyk and he was destroyed by Tua

 

The fighters of Baer's era had more losses, because they did not have long amateur careers, and wait for it...

They actually fought the other top fighters of the era!

They didn't get a title shot if they didn't!

That is why their records didn't look so pretty!

You criticize Baer because he had a weight advantage over most of his opponents, but he had to go through the biggest lineal champion in history, in order to win the heavyweight title!

Louis's problem was that he was fighting ranked contenders on a regular basis.

Tua rarely did, and when he did he generally lost, whether they were big, small, durable, chinny, defensive, or face first!

If you could get a top ten ranking, he was in the fight of his life!

 

You don't have any clue how good was double m h2h under the hw division. He was a natural cruiser. He never fought at cruiser because the money was in the hw division and he was too big for 175,still he did beat holyfield, get out of here please!! If you think that cruiser usyk would beat a prime Tua you believe in santa claus

 

We tend to look back at many of the very old fighters with fondness, but let's be real here.

Tua is a bad matchup for Louis. Louis was about 200 lbs in his prime, while Tua is 225. Louis wasn't a boxer like Lewis reach and height advantages. He's more of a (small by today's standards) stalker/puncher, a style that really suits Tua.

Tua is powerful enough to give Ike brain damage. I don't think Louis can beat Tua.

 

If you say so... I know more than you do but we'll let that slide.

He was a natural 190* CW. He was not a natural 200lbs CW, Usyk is. Since you're being snarky and questioning ****, how much do you know about Usyk's CW career? He is literally ALL sorts of wrong for Tua.

He beat one of the worst versions of Holyfield's we ever saw in the 90s... And got beaten like a drum in the rematch.

Okay then. You know Byrd beat Tua, right? Usyk is better than Byrd. He also does things better which you need to beat Tua, AND has a better chin.

 

Tua has one notable accomplishment.

Never in the history of gloved boxing, has one man been acclaimed by so many, based on so few accomplishments!

 

Michael moorer was clearly a natural 200 pounder he did not look fat or overweight or inflated at all at 222 against Foreman so he would look perfect at 200 pounds, anyway 190 and 200 pounds what a nonsense 10 pounds of difference.

this version of holyfield was better than usyk and every tomato can that usyk did beat!!!

Chris byrd was MUCH FASTER and elusive than usyk. And he weighed 215 against Tua he was a hw when he fought him.

 

Okay... He wasn't. But okay. I also never said it made much of a difference, but you're the one who acts like 10lbs is a difference for Frazier and Walcott...

The fact you think Usyk beat cans tell me all I need to know. We're done here.

 

No!! Frazier weighed. 205-210 in his prime years and could carry 217 too.and walcott at 30 years old in 1944 weighed 190 pounds.so the difference was more than 10 pounds but anyway
the weight was not the reason cause i pick Frazier over Walcott

Was the version of holyfield that moorer did beat better than usyk and any rival of usyk yes or no?

 

How completely relevant is the power lifting when you take a look at Joe Frazier, who i know you regard highly, lifting? I'm not saying it hurts but it sure these things certainly didn't bother Smokin' Joe.