David Tua versus Jim Corbett

My theory is that there are two very different types of fans who get into classic boxing in two different ways. The first group are guys who were serious, long-term fans (or practitioners) of boxing first before branching out out of curiosity and examining some of the old-school legends. The second group are guys who found their way to classic boxing not because they were actually huge boxing fans but because they were enchanted by the lore and the mystique of older champions.

I think there are very big differences between these groups that affect how they understand the sport and how they view film. In my experience, people in the first group occasionally come away very impressed by film of particular old fighters but often also see in the film evidence of those fighters' limitations and shortcomings (especially re: older heavyweights). People in the second group, on the other hand, have a religious-like belief in the greatness of the older fighters (it's basically dogma for them), so it is practically impossibly to shake their faith with even the clearest film footage. Some of them are actually impressed by footage that the rest of us consider ridiculous.

Just my biased take on it.

 

spot on.

 

40 pages later, Tua still can't box. He's limited outside of power.

 

Though I think Sullivan's statues is skewed as hell, due to his prime in the 1880's being when reporting was far worse, and when bareknuckle was bigger (which a lot of people know nothing about), and so people know nothing about when he was in his prime, and only know of his years as champion when he was way past it. It's hard to know exactly how to rate someone like Sullivan who is really far ahead of weak opposition.

 

Forgot to mention the third group who aged into being classic boxing fans when all their favorite fighters all retired and became "classic."

 

Matured?lol

 

Tua bymurder. No co test.

 

That footage of Corbett is atrociously bad. Ive seen 14 year old amateur sparring matches that look like Holmes vs Norton in comparison.

I cannot take anyone seriously if they think Corbett beats tua if that footage is him being serious and not messing around.

 

It's my experience that power can often take you a very long way.I'd guess Tua can box as well as Fitzsimmons,who at
157lb s ko'd Corbett with a single body shot which incidentally was ------
A left hook!

 

I'd don't see why. All the evidence I've seen suggests Fitz was somewhat unorthadox, but highly skilled.

I think one of the big reasons he beat Corbett was better strategy.

 

Which specific evidence are you referring to?
Fitz expected to get Corbett out inside around 7 rounds after getting his nose busted up and his lips shredded he told his corner "he ain't so easy to catch ,go bet I'll ko im inside 14rds!
He beat Corbett because, though he couldn't hang with him for boxing ability he gradually slowed his rapid progress around the ring with body shots, after taking a boxing lesson for the first 10rds being dropped along the way .
At around 70lbs heavier than Fitz with at least comparable power , I'd give Tua an excellent shot of doing the same, though I wouldn't give Corbett a snow flakes chance in hell of dropping Tua or even marking him up significantly!

 

Not long. Corbett too light. While Jim was the father of the modern sport I still see him as an arm punching , strange throwing fighter who's speed would not do well holding off a lighting bull like Tua .

 

You really can't talk about Corbett's ability by using him losing to Fitz, then use how much trouble he gave Fitz as evidence of Fitz being bad.

It'd be like saying Tua is bad because he lost to Ike, and Ike is bad because he had trouble with Tua.

 

I've asked you for specific proof Fitz was skilled,you haven't provided it.


Light punching Corbett made a mess of his face before being worn down.
I rate Fitzsimmons over,Sullivan, Corbett, and Jeffries.That doesn't mean I think he was a skilled boxer.
Tua would cut Corbett in half!