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

The quality of contenders varies considerably from era to era.
When Nova was number 1, in 1938 the following were ranked in the top ten.

1.Nova
2.Baer
3.Pastor
3.Galento
5.Rosenbloom
6.Harvey
7.Burman
8.Toles
9.Dorazio
10.Farr
Rosenbloom and Harvey were light heavies.
Burman was an in and outer.
Toles was only a fringe contender
Dorazio owed his ranking more to his ,"connections," than his ability.
Farr never won a fight in the US
1939 After Galento had beaten Nova the yoga man slipped to number 7 and then disappeared from the rankings all together.
Tua was ranked for 8 straight years.

 

Didnt janitor make a comment about "consistency" at the top level being a better indicator of greatness than a handful of good wins or sonething to that effect?

Since he's so obsessed with "rankings" and values them more than the obvious eye test and stats, doesn't the fact Tua was a consistent threat and top 10 fighter for 8 years put him above a guy like Galento whose career went up and down like a seasaw and lost C and D level fighters?

Every angle you look at it, I'm not sure how anyone can come to the conclusion Galento was better other than trash talk and raw brawling ability (He was fairly tough and had good fighting sense for a guy who barely practiced).

The funny thing is Jack Dempsey called him an underachieving bum and stopped promoting him when he realized how much of a slacker he was. But of course, people like to cherry pick the opinions of the old greats so they'll find a way to flip it around!

Exactly.

The WBO has Jarrel Miller ranked ABOVE Tyson Fury!

https://box.live/world-rankings/heavyweight/

By janitors logic, hypothetically, if someone like say derek chisora came back and fought miller this year and beat him before joshua, and wilder beats fury on their rematch, janitor would have no choice but to say Derek Chisora was a better fighter than wilder in 2019!

 

Willard was better than both on his worst night

 

Leroy Haynes

 

Then you place too much value upon other peoples validation.

 

Perhaps you have not read all of my previous posts.

I have acknowledged that Tua had a higher theoretical ceiling, which you could interpret as agreeing with some of your arguments.

I have stood firm on my argument that Galento had a better resume, because I am convinced that it is the case.

I have even said that I am surprised that this is the case (in my estimation obviously), but that boxing history throws out that sort of thing.

That is my position.

 

It has been my observation, that he people who are most dogmatically against the old timers, are usually the people who know the least about them.

If you want to interpret that as arrogance, then that is up to you.

 

I know something of the old timers, maybe not as much as some of the super-hardcores on this site, but as I've been following boxing for over 35 years, so I think I know something. Galento always struck me as a crude brawler who was quite limited skill-wise. Tua is not the greatest boxer in history but he surely seems more polished from what I can see, and clearly hit harder. I can't think anything that Galento does better, so for me, it has to be Tua.

 

You could make a strong argument there.

I wouldn't for the following reasons:

Rahman was just starting to break into the rankings when Tua beat him, while Nova was the #1 contender when Galento beat him.

While there are problems with both wins, Gallento's win was the more convincing in my eyes.

Tua's early record against the other up and coming contenders is very impressive, indeed more than impressive, but then when everybody is banging on the gates of the top ten, something seems to go wrong.

I am with you on that one!

I just can't see how Galento beat Nova.

I consider Nova to be one of the best contenders of his era, and Galento just an overachiever with a dynamite hook!

This is the theater of the unexpected though!

 

"Dogmatically"? Why would anyone be dogmatically against the old-timers?

If people don't agree, that Corbett would beat Tua... does this mean, they are "against" Corbett, or somehow hate him? Could it not simply mean, that they believe Tua would be too strong for him?

And when you favour Tommy Burns over Deontay Wilder, and I disagree… does this mean I'm too ignorant, and need to study up on Burns, so I can offer a more qualified opinion (one that agrees with you)?

Can you really not see, how arrogant and condescending this is?

 

You seem to be prepared to assume that some people are dogmatically in favor of the old timers, so why would it be a stretch to think that some people were dogmatically against them?

Of course it doesn't.

No position makes a person dogmatic in itself.

However if a person argued this position, and it became clear that they knew very little about Corbett, including the most basic information in some cases, then you would have to conclude that they were being dogmatic!

Who said anything about you?

Again, obviously not.

I would however ask you to gain some familiarity with Burns's career, before reaching that conclusion!

 

It's always about how those who don't agree with you lack knowledge. If people think Corbett would lose to Tua, it's because they know too little about Corbett.

And if I believe Wilder would beat Burns... then you suggest, I "gain some familiarity with Burns's career, before reaching that conclusion"!

Is there really no end to your condescending BS?

 

I place enough value using my own eyes.
All those appear to agree with me....close to 90%.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself then. Contrary to what you said earlier, it appears that the sole basis for your position that Galento was a better all-around fighter than Tua is the fact that you believe he had a “better resume,” which comes down to the fact that he beat Lou Nova during the brief window in which Nova was a highly ranked heavyweight.

 

I remind you that the OP said resume and head to head.