David Tua versus Jim Corbett

He was a promising fighter who was ranked in Ring's year-end top 10 a few months prior (and would appear again in the 2 following years) and had already beaten solid veterans and other undefeated prospects. He also had an accomplished amateur background. Certainly no novice, especially compared to some of the 19th century fighters we're discussing here.

What's your basis for saying this?

It's all academic anyway, as I don't really see Sullivan landing any flush, fully-leveraged punches on Moorer's chin.

 

I'm stating categorically that when he defended his title against Corbett he was a physical ruin.And you are in denial!

 

In denial of what?! Nobody can say Sullivan was in shape for the Corbett fight.

Fat retired John L Sullivan would probably beat the **** out of you, me, and every single poster in this forum. And many people here box or have boxed.

You make him sound like some oaf from the local pub.

It's John L ****ing Sullivan. Throw some respeck on his name!!

 

The Sullivan vs Corbett bout was the standard 3 minute/ 1 minute rest though.

 

But fought on turf.

 

Has Corbett gotten up yet?

 

It's a shame this thread didn't include a poll.

 

You could always make another.

Or, now that you bumped it, ask Seamus to add one.

 

The fact that he was ranked previously helps your argument in some ways, but it also arguably makes him the second best man that Tua beat.

Given that this guy lost every time that he stepped up, he is probably not a good man to have as your second best win.

You are still left with the issue, that Tua is not beating men who can hold a ranking at the time of the fight!

All that we really know about Sullivan, is his dimensions, his stance, and that his strengths were speed power and finishing ability.

Would it be unreasonable to speculate that such a man would beat Moorer?

 

Wow… has it really been 3 years? One of the weirdest threads ever!

 

What about Michael Jordan? Would you pick him over Michael Jordan?