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

Just because a belief is widely held, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

I don't have a problem with being in the minority, if I think that I am right.

 

Problem is, you are always in the minority!
At some point, if i were in your position, i would be thinking that just maybe i may be wrong.

 

Then there is not much point in you having any opinions.

 

Just as a newbie, it seems the discussion goes back and forth around how good the guy was in his time versus how the two men would compare if they were in the ring together.

Burns was the champion and defended the title several times, so I guess in his time and place he could be viewed as more accomplished than Wilder. But Wilder is 6' 7" to Burns 5' 7" and somehow I don't think Burns would win if the two actually fought.

As for this thread, I just don't buy into Galento being the more accomplished because Nova was higher in the ratings than Rahman.

In 1963, for example, Patterson was rated above Ali. Would a 1963 win over Patterson be more impressive historically than a win over Ali in 1963? I just don't see that.

Basically, all #1 contenders aren't created equal.

Or another. Don C was the #2 contender in 1955. I don't believe Cleveland Williams was ever rated as high as #2. Therefore beating Don C is more impressive than beating Cleveland Williams? I don't buy that logic.

 

Why not, when 85% agree?

 

If that is important to you, then you might as well just hold a poll, and adopt the opinion of the majority!

 

Did he? Surely Tua's résumé > Galento's

And Galento's only real notable wins coming over Lou Nova, and him losing 20 something fights makes this quite irrelevant.

 

Smashed it

 

It is similar to attempting debate with those Extinction Rebellion people.

They will not, under any circumstance or overwhelming evidence, admit they are wrong.

 

H2H, Tua >>>
The highest ranked HWs I'd pick Tua to beat are Ken Norton, Jack Dempsey, Floyd Patterson and Max Schmeling.

I wouldn't pick Galento over any of them.

Career legacy, Tua >>>
Wins over Rahman (controversial), Izon, Maskaev, Oquendo, Ruiz and Moorer, whilst losing (in his prime) to Ike Ibeabuci (somewhat controversially), Lennox Lewis and Chris Byrd

Is imo alot more impressive than losing close to 15 times in your prime, and only picking up one notable win over Lou Nova.

Ability, Talent, Ect. Tua>>>>
Do I even need to explain? I will if somebody asks but it is necessary?

Tbh I can't even see the other side of the coin here. Galento is one of those fighters that people overrate as a by product of overrating a separate fighter.
Other examples would be Rex Layne, Luis Firpo and Primo Carnera.

 

Exactly. My mind's eye sees right through the nonsense.

Just like the other thread where people were picking Firpo over Norton and pretending like it had nothing to do with the fact he did well against fan favorite Dempsey, the same is true of Galento due to his 30 seconds of fame against Louis.

Other than that moment and beating Nova, what exactly did Galento do to warrant him being ranked above tua?

 

That was horrendous, it got to the point where they said he'd be a very tough night for Holyfield! What the ****?

 

That is all that he needs!