Joe Louis vs David Tua

Moorer was crap by the time he fought Tua and had a bad chin. Old Foreman one shot him 8 years earlier and Holyfield had him up and down like a yoyo 5 times and 5 years prior to Tua.

Tua has an incredibly hyped reputation for someone that really didn't get much done in the ring. Power seduces us, and muscles for some as well. Sure he's dangerous in just about any fight but Christ.

 

Gotta admit that made me laugh and there is a fair amount of truth in the comment.

As far as I know Tua only beat three genuine top ten rated contenders ( which isnt a bad effort , Marciano for example only beat six from memory ) Rahman, Oquendo and Moorer. The draw in the rematch with Rahman seemed to be the end of the Kiwi as a top contender.

Cheers.

 

He's like some sort of combination of Mike Tyson, a tank and Satan in here.

 

David Tua destroys cruiser version of evander and cruiser usyk . and thinking that their cruiser versions would beat Tua is just laughable

 

Tua beats the crap of any version of Moorer

 

So what changes when they moved up to heavyweight, that would have made a decisive difference?

I wouldn't bet any money on Tua beating a prime Moorer.

 

If it makes no difference then why did they increment their weights when they did jump up to the hw division? Please janitor stop talking nonsenses.
You can take a punch better specially to the body, your neck is bigger, you are stronger in the clinch, increment your hitting power and it can make a difference because your rival respect your power and you have the power to knock out bigger guys, do you think that a cruiser version of evander would have beaten 1996 Tyson? No way.

lol.

 

He was 205 for the FOTC, his best performance, therefore you take him at 205. Walcott, in his best performance, was 194½. That's a 10lbs difference, or thereabouts. You acted like 10lbs was a massive difference in that thread.

And I agree. I don't pick Walcott over Frazier for factors other than weight.

No.

Yes.

 

So you are cherry picking weights to make smaller the difference of weight but the truth is that walcott was physically past his prime when he fought his biggest fights, it is like picking the weight of 70s Ali because he fought his biggest fights in the 70s. I say that Frazier could be 15-20 pounda heavier than walcott being in shape but Anyway it is irrelevant.

Any version of the 90s holyfield was better than usyk and much better at hw h2h than cruiser version of usyk

 

I'm not cherry picking lol, I'm literally taking the versions you would use for the fight and going by their weights. It's a 10lbs difference give or take a pound or so.

No, as Ali wasn't prime in the 70s whilst Walcott was prime for the Louis fights. He was 34 in the first fight, and he aged excellently.

Yeah the version that fought Lewis was absolutely unbelievable and leaves Usyk in the dust. Go watch some Usyk, man. There isn't a large gap in ability between them. And Usyk in his pomp at 200lbs vs Gassiev or Glowacki was definitely better than Holyfield was vs Moorer.

 

I disagree with everything you said so it is absurd keeping debating anything

 

A few myths to be debunked here.

The one part of the body that every fighter form every era has always developed is the neck.

Bulking up makes no difference whatsoever to a fighter's ability to take a punch.

You cannot put muscles on chins as the saying goes.

It also make little or no difference to a fighter's punching power, which is largely a intramuscular thing.

The only area where it does make a significant difference, is to the fighters physical strength in the clinches.

Could a cruiserweight version of Holyfield have beaten Tyson?

Hard to say, but I would bet the farm that he would have beaten Tua!

 

You hang an awful lot of assumptions, on what you think would have happened, in fights that will never happen.

Can't you see that if you are wrong in one assumption, the whole house of cards collapses?

 

I will not waste time