Is David Tua overrated ?

You're right - we can't prove anything in the old vs new debate. Which is why we (to the best of our ability, based on what we know about the eras/fighters) make assumptions all the time. If we didn't, all discussions would come to a halt - since it's basically impossible to prove anything.

Like, for example, when you pick Tommy Burns to beat Wilder - isn't there an assumption involved in this prediction? Like Burns' old-time skills would be too much for Wilder to deal with? If that is not an enormous assumption, I don't know what is!

 

I'd hope that he'd opt to outbox Tua, because trading punches with him at close quarters would be putting himself at needless risk. Lewis did just that and he had as much power as anyone.

I mentioned earlier that I'd give someone like Schmeling a better chance at beating Tua than most from that era, since almost everyone back then insisted on in-fighting for large stretches of a fight and Max was one of the handful of guys that was able to box and win fights at range. I'd go one further and state that someone like Carnera might actually have beaten Tua, since Tua was absolutely hopeless at fighting taller fighters who kept a jab in his face, not even particularly good fighters either, just ones who'd be able to keep their wits about them and not tempt fate by trading on the inside.

But I don't care who you are, if you bring the fight to Tua you're giving yourself an excellent chance to be put to sleep.

 

You'd think such a thing didn't need to be said, but evidently not!

 

Fortunately, Jeff Wooden was around to show us just how easy it was to nullify the KO offense of Tua. A little extra work-rate and Wooden could even have turned that MD in his favor.

I’m sure Joe Louis would be fine.

 

Neat, changes nothing Tua was a good heavy who would beat a primitive small heavy like Corbett who does not impress I’d like to hear your argument for Corbett beating Davy?

 

Like I said above, lots of lesser fighters could give Tua trouble, then he'd end up smashing world class fighters to pieces.

Is Jeff Wooden a better fighter than Moorer or Ruiz? Is he better than Maskaev? Or Rahman?

 

It’s not inconceivable that Wooden was better than the version of Moorer that Tua faced. Moorer’s “world class” days were well, well behind him.

Ruiz was better than Wooden but, then again, Ruiz was better than Tua, too - in the same way Lewis was better than McCall. This is only underlined by the fact that Ruiz was also 5 or 6 years away from reaching the ring rankings, when he lost to Tua.

Fortunately, Wooden didn’t get caught flush by Tua, after the bell had rung, like Rahman was.

And, who didn’t knock Maskaev out? Again, referring to Maskaev as a world class fighter when he was 10-1-0, at the time Tua met him, is quite funny.

 

Jeff Wooden didn't.

 

I'm not saying that (A) heavyweights with the combination of great chin and power should always be considered head to head mosters (over fighters with different combinations of strengths/weaknesses); rather, (B) I am just observing that they often are. In cases such as Tua's, neither the resume or all-round skillset necessarily back it up.
However, I think it's easy to see why this overrating happens, and I am certainly sometimes guilty of this laziness myself, hence my suggesting that (C) 'they will naturally come out well in discussions.' To clarify, I think it may be because the, umm.... 'granite canon' (?!) ... is pretty rare when compared with other combinations of attributes (for example: power+weak chin, granite jaw+low power, granite jaw+stamina, power+reach, volume/output+low power, etc). Sometimes we are lucky enough to get a Tyson or a Foreman, but I wouldn't say the 'granite canon' - my new expression! - is a particularly common beast, especially if both chin and power can be considered historically elite, such as in Tua's case.
In summary, I don't think that either (B) or (C) are "erroneous assumptions" on my part
If, however, you were referring to (A) as "erroneous assumption," then you were agreeing with me all along.

 

Love is in the air. That is all I have to say here and no more.

 

Based on what? Baer killed some guys in the ring and he knocked out some durable guys too despite being sloppy.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

And we have much less footage from Max.

 

Nonsense, tell me more about these Baer-like punchers in later eras

 

This content is protected

 

He was much better in his early career when he was more active and in better shape. He's one of the most devasting punchers in history. He'd destroy some of the smaller heavyweights that came before him like Dempsey, Marciano and Johnson. He'd struggle against boxer movers who could stay away from him for 12 rounds.