Ten fights in title bout sim Corbett UD Tua DQ Corbett UD Tua TKO Corbett UD Corbett UD Corbett UD Corbett TKO Corbett UD Tua KO
No I will never get tired of scrutinizing assertions that are made without evidence. I am sorry if you find this inconvenient.
But this isn't a match of two guys waving mythical titles around (degraded ones contested only among white folks, btw)... It is a head to head match-up. Tua had to get thru Lennox Lewis, the greatest superheavy the sport has seen, to get a title. Corbett had to tip over an old color line drawing drunk who had twice been in alcohol induced comas, suffered various 19th century chronic maladies and had a broken arm that never set correctly. Head to head, these situations don't even compare. Only in your magical 12-sided dice role playing game could they be equivalent. Tua would steamroll Corbett and his fancy dancing thong strung @ss in under a round.
Yes but Tua didn't just lose to Lewis, he lost nearly all of his key career fights. The least that you would have to say for Corbett, is that he was probably the best heavyweight in the world at one point. You are essentially arguing that guys who were well outside the top ten in era A, were superior to the best fighters of era B. Even if we make a strong assumption that the sport had evolved over this period, it would not quite justify such a far reaching claim.
No, I am saying that Bobby Crabtree would have been an elite fighter back in those days. Do you really think that Corbett or Sullivan would haul their blanched Irish @sses in to the ring if Ibeabuchi or Lewis or Hasim Rahman were waiting in the other corner?
Are you aware that Corbett would be a light heavyweight today ? Because i don't think you would pick any light heavyweight from today to beat Tua, that would only make sense if Corbett was far superior to modern top light heavyweights like Bob Foster and Michael Spinks and i don't see it. I think Corbett was nowhere near as good as Ezzard Charles for example, a light heavyweight/heavyweight who i would pick to beat Tua.
11-4-3 is generous, Unforgiven. It assumes that Corbett's fight with McCoy was legit. Only when somebody backs the "hard headed classicist" into a corner.
Yes. It would be very unreasonable. Look at "Ethics of Boxing and Manly Sport", by John Boyle O'Reilly, p. 62, on Google Books. Refer to the picture that says: "Upper Cut, As Sullivan Strikes It (Instantaneous Photograph)." After you've finished laughing, see if you can't answer your own question for us. Go on. I'll wait.
In Sullivan's defense... when you have a wounded foe you can wind up on that punch... ergo Liston below... https://www.flickr.com/photos/boxingmemories/5601861216/
Id pick Michael Spinks to do the do against Tua before I'd pick Corbett. In fact, I think a much stronger argument could be made on Spinks behalf.
But the caption says "as Sullivan strikes it", Seamus. That sounds like it's his regular practice. The Kilrain fight photos look incompetent. Sullivan's footage on the speed bag and "feinting" with Corbett are laughable. What are the odds that the only surviving technique snapshots from Sullivan just happen to all look bad?
Can't you see that a statement like this, requires a much more detailed justificatio, than simply saying: "The sport has improved since then to an unspecified extent." In as much as you could even establish that. anything that is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Yes and no. We have a much clearer idea how good Spinks was, but Corbett did a lot more work north of 175. I would favor Spinks over Tua for whatever it is worth.
