Better All-Around Fighter: Tony Galento or David Tua?

Glaento is better in terms of resume, Tua probably better head to head.

 

This is a reasonable take on it.

 

Power =Tua
Speed = Tua
Chin=Tua
Mobility=Tua
Boxing skills=Tua
I don't see that Two-Ton has anything over Tua .
Resume? Who did Tony beat that Tua wouldn't?

 

It is more a case of who he beat that Tua didn't.

Galento at least has a win over the current #1 ranked contender.

That surpasses anything that Tua accomplished.

Beyond that I would say that Tua underachieved, and Galento overachieved.

 

Galento's number one contender would have had difficulty getting ranked at all in Tua's era!
Nova beat a washed up Max Baer, a novice Abe Simon,and an in and out, fringe contender Pat Comiskey.
He was stopped by Savold twice,Mauriello twice,and lost to the highly inconsistent Oma.
Galento was stopped by both Baer brothers,lost to Godoy twice,Gainer,Delaney,Peroni,Galagher,Winston,Walker,Tow,Gagnon and Clisby[2 of Carnera's playmates.Brown,,Risko,Cavalier,Schaaf.Dorval,Gorman,Mayo,Lawless,Alberts. Galento's losses to some of these are far poorer than any Tua ever had!
On reflection I think Tua has the better resume !

 

Irrelevant, and possibly wrong.

Galento basically achieved the highest accolade possible for the era, short of beating Joe Louis.

He beat the #1 contender and took his place.

Yes there were probably four or five better fighters ranked beneath him at the time, and I am somewhat surprised that he was able to beat Nova, but the bottom line is that he did.

Tua for contrast probably had the potential to surpass guys like Byrd and Rahman, but the bottom line is that he didn't.

I think that the verdict of history has to be that Galento was the more successful contender of the two, and perhaps surprisingly so!

 

Body hair?
Cigar-chomping ability?

 

Its totally relevant!!
Being a number one contender in one era does NOT equate to being a number one contender in another, better era!
Here are the contenders in the year Nova was ranked number one!

1938
Joe Louis, Champion

1. Lou Nova
2. Max Baer
3. Bob Pastor
4. Tony Galento
5. Maxie Rosenbloom
6. Len Harvey
7. Clarence (Red) Burman
8. Roscoe Toles
9. Gus Dorazio
10. Tommy Farr

Rosenbloom and Harvey were light heavyweights.Burman was a trial horse,Toles was a fringe contender,Dorazio was amoobed up fighter wh owas never very good.

Byrd and Rahman would have no difficulty whatsoever with Nova and imo Galento!

 

Might as well which 300-pound man can run the marathon. Neither were skilled. Tua, however, had some of the fundamentals down, so I'd say him.

 

If you are comparing resumes, then how the top contender from era A would fare against the top contender from era B, is both irrelevant an unprovable.

You are comparing who accomplished more relative to the era they were fighting in.

In that aspect of the game, Galento has got it!

 

You can't argue with that logic, but does it answer the OP's question? The OP asked who was the better all around fighter, not who accomplished more.

Tua is the answer. Tua's real problem was he was short with short arms for his time. But that would be less of a problem in the 1930's.

Head to head, I'd pick Tua to finish Galento inside 4 rounds.

 

Tua certainly had a much higher potential ceiling than Galento, if that is what you are saying.

I feel somewhat baffled myself, that Tua's career ended in my feeling compelled to make the argument that I just have.

 

More beer = more fighter

Galento it is.