1949 heavyweights v. 1999 heavyweights

He had enough trouble with the corpses and light heavyweights in his own era.

An era populated by Chris Byrd’s would not be good news for him.

 

Light heavyweights? Apart of the southpaw byrd tell me what happened with michael moorer? Kod in seconds? At hw moorer was clearly better than Charles and moore.byrd was naturally bigger faster than them ,more durable and harder to hit

 

The difference between Moorer and Byrd, lies in the fact that Byrd was a top contender at the time, and Moorer wasn’t any more.

Marciano was hunting live Byrd’s, not dilapidated Moorhens.

Put Tua in Marciano’s era, and he likely pulls a Moorer against one contender, and suffers a Byrd against another, and something between against another.

 

You know that tua destroys any version of moore so it is irrelevant,he just did not have the correct style or the chin to take this huge power,i can say that Charles,archie moore ,louis and Walcott all them were well past their primes when fought rocky,the fact they were ranked at that time just proved as ****py was the "hw"division in the rocky era. Sorry but as good as were these guys pfp ...h2h tua would destroy all them

 

If Tua was this wrecking machine, then why did he always come up short against anybody who could hold a ranking?

I consider Tua to be grossly overrated head to head, and I wouldn’t bet your money on him beating any elite heavyweight!

 

Your answer is that tua was not as lucky as marciano for his weak era

 

Sorry, but I can’t buy that.

He might have been unlucky to share an era with Lewis, but he was not unlucky to share an era with Byrd and Rahman.

They are just the kind of contenders you have to beat to get to the top in any era.

He just wasn’t that good.

Worse, he hadn’t reached his limited best when Ibeabuchi beat him!

 

Assuming Owens would get faster with age is a very bold assumption.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No.

My answer is that Tua was never that good.

He didn’t just lose to the greats of his era, he also lost to the best contenders.

 

Eh,it's not really that bold. It's probably a 50/50 proposition. Bolt was as fast as he got at 23. Gay wasn't. Gatlin and Lewis weren't. Ryan Bailey was but Mike Rodgers wasn't. Nesta carter got faster.

With Owens chances were probably against it as he received some criticism for not improving much from high school (although that was before he went nuts at the big 8 meet). I think he would've got down to 10.10 or even 10.0x and gone over 27 feet (8.23 m) for sure.

 

Why did he stop running?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Again, this whole idea that somebody who could not make it in his own era would be champion in another. It's utter madness.

The top fighters of different eras represent exactly what was required to succeed in that time. It's not better or worse, it's just different.

It simply is not enough to decide what era produced the type of champion you prefer the look of and rather galling to downgrade the era you have absolutely zero knowledge of its contenders, system in place etc.

First you have to establish if one era (as a whole) really is weaker than another. Using harder facts than poking fun at the type of fighter the era produced BECAUSE of the conditions and rules of the time.

Then, if that is achieved, you then decide if a lifetime contender who always fell short at elite level somehow (in the era you prove as being greater) has the champion metal to dominate like he never did in real life. Can he champion an era?

It's one thing saying who might beat who, but beating a string of current rated contenders one after the other is a tall order even for the best of champions.

How can one insist a "fall short" contender from one era can achieve this in another time zone under conditions he never fought under?

 

He wasn't allowed to. After the olympics the us olympic comitee wanted him to run more races around Europe. He wanted to make some money. The olympic comitee aid that he had violated his amateur status and,voila no more track and field. Ever.

 

You'd think he would've kept running. It's what he did. Nobody would've stopped him from doing events where he tried to break his records.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the term ATG is thrown around to loosely. Just look at the meaning. ALL TIME GREAT! That means they would be the best in every single era. At their best they are unbeatable. I don't think you can have a debate about two all time great fighters but you can debate over which two fighters would win which in turn would declare the winner an ATG. For instance Ali vs Louis. You can't consider both of them ATG's. Of course people can consider Ali an ATG and others Louis an ATG but no two fighter from the same division can be ATG's unless they were in the same era and fought to a draw. Now that doesn't mean fighters who don't meet the criteria of ATG aren't great in themselves. They could possibly beat the best from every era EXCEPT that one fighter.