I've watched many of his fights and looked up his record, is his KO of a faded Moorer his best win? he beat Rahman then got a gift Draw in the rematch. Seems like his stature has grown disproportionately through the years
If you weight your assessments of heavyweight fighters more towards head-to-head, guys with great chins and power will naturally come out well in discussions. If based more on skill or resume, not so much. That's essentially the story of David Tua on this forum and beyond, as far as I can see.
1 of the top 5 most overrated fighters in history. You, on the other hand Rein, have been one of the top posters for yrs on this forum and have been thouroughly missed. Good morning.
Overrated by some and underrated by others. Bottom line, he could crack, had a solid chin and beat some good fighters but was on the slow side and very short for a heavyweight especially in the era he fought in. A dangerous yet flawed fighter.
Why is it erroneous to think, that great chins and power are seen as advantages in H2H discussions? Of course there are lots of other things to consider - but surely chin and power are not among the least important?
Would he? Tua was being out boxed by a slow Oleg Maskaev and got the KO late when Maskaev gassed. Tua was a good puncher with a top chin but he was very one dimensional, very short, didn't have a jab, and in many fights didn't show the will to win he needed to over come these handicaps. A punchers chance isn't just defined by power, the ability to land it with accuracy and range are factors as well.
No, they won't... but I don't think, that's what Gudetama is arguing. He obviously means, that if a boxer has both chin and power, he will do better in H2H discussions, than if he had neither of those. So what erroneous assumption is he making?
Funny enough that Max Baer doesn't get the same treatmen Tua does, even though he had power+chin on the same level and he was better fighter overall.