David Tua versus Jim Corbett

Actually Corbett has come under a lot of criticism from the "hard headed classicists" on this forum recently.

He is very much a classic fighter whose star is on the wane among his own supporters, but Tua is still a pygmy next to him!

 

I don't know. There are two gentlemen in particular who frequent this forum who seem to think extremely highly of Corbett (one recently called him one of the best outside fighters he's ever seen on film), and neither have backed down an inch--at least not publicly, anyway.

 

Well no, he couldn't. That was why he was knocked out.

 

I repeat: the only surviving evidence shows Sullivan to be a bumbling oaf. Sullivan stood like an oaf against Kilrain. O'Reilly's slobbering hagiography of Sullivan depicts Sullivan throwing an uppercut like an oaf. The manuals from Sullivan's time show boxers who fight like oafs. Sullivan's "skills" on film transcend the mortal limits of oafishness. For good measure, Sullivan's successors also looked like bumbling oafs on film.

Maybe the History Gremlins conspired to destroy all the good stuff?

Or maybe Sullivan is exactly what he looks like.

 

He is infallibly courteous and well-spoken. But I'm half-convinced that he's actually a computer program that develops all of its boxing opinions by processing data from Ring ratings, boxrec info, and any complements that old school fighters receive on this forum! I could be wrong though.

 

The older the story, the bigger the fish.

 

you are spot on. all These "Boxing historian wannabes" are just delusional. corbett would get anihalated by tua.

 

Guys, LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE!

There's no contest.

As for Tua being a pygmy ... Corbett may have an inch or so on Tua in height but you can fit three of him in Tua's width.

 

Who knows, there may have been. Hope he won them

 

i bet guys like you also believe that the earth is flat. your Analysis is pure fiction.

 

"am more considered opionion" to you…….bat**** loonecy to the rest of the world...sure have it your way.

but lets face it: you could be sitting ringside and watch tua flatten corbett in 10 seconds……...you could even have corbett himself telling you that he cant hold a candle to tua……….you still would insist that corbett would have beaten tua.

but thats okay. the world Needs People like you……...to entertain the rest of us.

 

I understand why some people think Steinitz is the father of modern chess but I just don't see it. Modern, as in today, looks nothing like how Steinitz played. If we call that hypermodern.... then Modern-ish should be Lasker, Capa or Nimzowitsch or Botvinnik... if we go back further, Steinitz credited Morphy as his inspiration, and I'd also choose him over Mikhail