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

Here we have to look at the circumstances of the wins.

Ruiz and Maskaev were novice fighters, who would be contenders somewhat later in their careers, at the point when Tua beat them.

Nova was the current #1 Ring Magazine contender when Galento beat him.

The Nova win is unequivocally more impressive.

 

If our position is so ridiculous, then why can you only respond to it with bluster, as opposed to reasoned arguments?

 

I don't know about unequivocally.

Rahman was 26 years old and 29-0. His later win over Lewis impresses me as making this the best win either man ever had.

Ruiz was 24 years old and 25-2. This was a fight of two young guys coming up.

Maskaev was 28 but only 10-1, if with an extensive amateur career. How green? Well, I will give you that one, but on margin.

All three of these men were older than Tua.

Nova had 27 fights going into the Galento match. Ruiz 27 going into the Tua match. Rahman had 29. I don't see green here.

The Nova fight is one I would like to be able to see a film of, because off both men's filmed efforts against Baer, this seems an odd result, especially Galento apparently winning almost every round. I would think a jabbing and moving Nova should have made Galento a punching bag.

 

Maybe the reasoned arguments for why Tua was a better all-around fighter have all already been made?

By the way, I’m not sure that you’ve actually made a single reasoned argument for Galento being a better all-around fighter in any of your numerous comments in this thread...

 

What would be the point?.
The entire debate would just go round in circles for the next 50 pages.

If i was on the losing side on 2 of the largest overwhelming polls on this website i would seriously question my judgement regarding these discussions.

 

Quite possible.

 

Yes, but in Janitor's mind they don't count, since they don't back up his opinion - and therefore must have been put forward by uninformed posters, who need to learn more about boxing history, before they are worthy of being in a discussion with him.

Here's what he has said in this very forum:
"The more dismissive somebody is about an earlier era, the more you have to teach them about it, just so that they can continue arguing with you!"
If this isn't the height of arrogance, I don't know what is!

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/1954-heavyweights-v-2004-heavyweights.569952/page-3

 

Galento's thumb had a lot to do with that win.Nova went to hospital after the fight ,there were real fears he might lose the sight in one eye.l

 

I'd say being superior in the following departments would be a reasoned argument for winning the vote.
Handspeed
Foot speed
Chin
Boxing ability
Defence
Two handed power
Conditioning/stamina
Maybe all of us who voted for Tua need to be educated some more?

 

I think there's a lot to be said for the mental side too. Certain fighters can just find a way to win, while others tend to fold. Really a combination of toughness and strategy (which while they sound like sperate things, in practice, I think they go together a lot).

To be clear I'm not making an argument on which was better at all with this. It's just an aspect that gets overlooked sometimes IMO, and it's really the closest single element to ATGness IMO.

 

Strictly speaking the question was who was the better fighter, not better boxer. You could make the case Galento was the better fighter because he was the better wrestler, gouger and elbower.

 

I wouldn't disagree with you there.How many times was Tua stopped? How many times was Galento?

 

But not the better offensive fighter!

 

I don't think either were great in that department.

 

I understand where Janitor is coming from arguing that Galento defeated the #1 contender,

but, being the #1 contender is not exactly a real accomplishment such as being the champion. It was an opinion and not necessarily shared by everyone nor reflective of what esteem the fighter was held in.

For example the #1 contender coming out of 1940 was Max Baer. This doesn't mean he was considered second only to Louis, as when he fought Nova in March of 1941, Baer went in a 2 to 1 underdog (according to the narrator of the film). So the higher rated fighter was not considered the better fighter.

This seems to me to be the flaw in the logic Janitor is using. Being higher rated at a given point doesn't automatically translate to being considered the better fighter or to being better over a career. So hard for me to see considering a win over Nova better than a win over Rahman, or Ruiz.