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

Ok. Since your last post clarified that you are just talking about resume quality here, I'll limit my response accordingly. I have two main problems with your approach.

First, I don't see how any honest attempt to assess a fighter's resume can completely ignore the fact that he lost a number of fights to unmistakably unimpressive opponents throughout his career. Those kinds of losses to ham-and-eggers, club fighters, and washed up boxers (without extraordinary mitigating circumstances) are a major, major stain on a fighter's resume. They don't just disappear because a fighter knocks off a legit contender or two in other fights. In my opinion, not being able to consistently beat such men reveals that a fighter isn't really much better than they are. It's possible to "get lucky" in a fight or to catch a better fighter on an off-night: it happens--especially at heavyweight. But losing to a bunch of low-level fighters (without compelling mitigating circumstances) is a tell-tale sign that a fighter is simply not a high-caliber boxer. Guys on Tua's level don't have a hard time with so many guys like that.

Second, I think you put an unjustified amount of weight on the contemporaneous Ring ranking of one's opponents. The idea that a win over Nova in September 1939 is basically infinitely more impressive and important for historical purposes than a win over Nova in, say, September 1938, just doesn't make sense to me. And why wouldn’t we take advantage of the benefits of hindsight? Whatever people thought at the time, it's pretty clear now that Nova wasn't really the goods and that the wins that got him his high ranking were overhyped (that part should have been clear back then). Ignoring the obvious contextual information we have about Nova doesn't make our assessment of Galento's win over him more "objective"--it just makes it more incomplete.

 

The most important question, is why would you even care?

That aside, what am I actually being asked?

 

You are being asked who were the better fighters,Tua and Ibeabuchi or Nova and Galento? Seems pretty clear to me.Wouldn't it have been simpler to just answer the question than to reply with two of your own?

 

Regarding the number of losses, I think the fact that Galento fought double the amount of fights in a career 5 years shorter than Tuas should be worth considering.

Also, isn’t it a bit contradictory from a record standpoint to count his losses against him while devaluing his wins? And going along your line of argumentation regarding a high loss count, do you think Marty Jakubowski is a better all around fighter than Emmanuel Augustus?

 

I think the fact that Tua is WAY more skilled, and would likely flatten the primitive and wide open Galento inside a couple of rounds… is something that should also be worth considering.

 

The thread is not a question of head to head. And your comment has nothing to do with Koolkevs argument, which is what I responded to.

 

Excellence?

• Galento was permitted to thumb Nova's right eye until it reached a terrible condition. Finally, Nova went down in the 14th round after being fouled for the last time.

• "One of the most disgraceful fights staged since the days of the barroom brawls. Referee George Blake . . . would have retained his reputation as a great referee had he disqualified Galento." (The Ring, December 1939, page 16)

• The December 1997 issue of The Ring ranked Galento vs. Nova as the third dirtiest fight of all-time.

 

This thread is ALSO a question of head to head!

And I'm not responding to anything Koolkev said… I'm responding to what YOU said. I thought that was pretty obvious.

 

The fact that Galento fought a lot more often than Tua did is worth considering, but I don't think it comes close to explaining losses to the likes of Natie Brown (12-12, 182lbs), Risko (37 losses, 185lbs), Bob Tow (22-16), Marty Gallagher (36-21-5), Patsy Peronni (47-13-7, 185lbs), Eddie Mader (33-19-4), Al Delaney (179lbs), getting brutalized by 168-lb Al Gainer inside of 4 rounds, etc. I think it takes quite a leap of imagination to believe Tua has similar struggles against those guys. It's possible but I don't see any reason to find it likely. Seems more likely that Tua mows the vast majority of those guys down very easily.

I don't see anything contradictory in paying more attention to his numerous bad losses than his one or two decent wins. Certainly more defensible than the converse imo.

I haven't seen enough or thought enough about either Augustus or Jakubowski to answer your question intelligently. Now you're talking about a different echelon of the sport, an echelon a lot loser to Tony Galento's level than David Tua's. Augustus is a tricky case, and I think he has some mitigating circumstances (being a short-notice "opponent' for much of his career--the kind brought in to take losses on his opponents' home turf, allegedly taking dives, suffering robberies, etc.). Better than his record suggests, though some guys who didn't follow his career in real time overrate him by quite a bit because of Mayweather's claim that he was his toughest opponent.

 

Yeah, their h2h abilities in general. Not one of them against the other.

And I know you’re responding to me, but you’re falling out of context. I get that some people can’t following an argument beyond one post. And if I had a lower IQ I might be able to enjoy this conversation.

 

Fair points.

Galento went to KO Natie Brown in one round. Brown also went the distance with Louis whatever that’s worth. Risko was a seasoned fighter when Galento fought him, who had fought guys like Tunney and Sharkey. And Galento fought him less than two weeks after his last fight. That kind of matchmaking is unheard of in Tuas day. Some of the other losses seem inexcusable, however I don’t know much about the those fights and what the circumstances were.

I still see a bit of irony in counting his record against him for his losses while not exactly doing the same for his biggest wins.

I think Galento shares a similar level of mitigating circumstances with Augustus, and had Galento been a more modern fighter, we’d all be more familiar with those circumstances. Galento was banned from fighting in one state due to his fighting style by a bantamweight commissioner who swore he could defeat Galento. It opens the possibility that he may not have gotten some decisions his way either. And again, he often took fights weeks apart from each other, some times against top level boxers.

I think it’s safe to say that Augustus has about as many wins as he has losses, and yet was a better overall fighter than countless of fighters with a far shorter number of losses.

 

I am a frequent Tua detractor and feel he is commonly/regularly overrated including in this thread. But in this instance I feel he is clearly superior to Galento based upon the proposed question. I have yet to be swayed by any of the contrary arguments although I am willing to be, I just have not seen a good case for it yet. Yes Galento has the win against Nova which I think more of than some others here do. But his loses seem to be swept away a little bit to neatly for me. My issue with Tua is that I feel he fell short of the greatness which some want to heap upon him. However he was much better imo at that 2nd level than Galento was. I am not even sure I could rate Galento above Tua based upon that, but certainly not in a h2h or skill based comparison...I’m just not sure why we continuously contrast the same less than greats when all the agenda really is, is to rehash the modern vs past debate ad nauseam on here over and over again.

 

Galento was the better trash talker...but that’s it lol he’d probably mewder da bum that believes Tua was better but he’d be wrong.

 

So when you run out of arguments, you resort to trash-talking?

Sad... I expected better from you.

 

Running out of arguments?
You’re not even following the argument. You’re making zero attempt to meet me half way, and to understand or respond to my points in the spirit they were made. You’re making abstract points that dont follow conventions of argumentation. It’s like me inventing a language right now, and telling you that you’re running out of arguments if you don’t respond using the langauge I just invented. But hey, if I had a lower IQ, I could enjoy this conversation. Really.