What do you mean it was my claim he could not win a title in his own era? It's not a claim its a cold hard fact. Was there another title he had in his back pocket that I don't know about? Isn't this a match up to beat prime Charles? Why are you deflecting from the thread? I never said that Tua couldn't win a title in other eras. I said he couldn't even so much as get a title in his own era when there were 4 thus he does not beat a master boxer like Ezzard Charles.
Tua had enough trouble getting title fights in his own era, never mind titles! Is it possible that he was never actually that good!
Okay its a fact that he didn't/ couldn't win a title in his own era ,the champion of who was Lennox Lewis.Does that preclude him winning a title in a different era? If not your comment is irrelevant. What's the matter ? Still got the hump about my showing that Archie Moore had been the number one contender for the LHVY title for years before he got his chance at it? Thereby proving he was in his prime a decade before you say he was! I see you didn't get back to me on that!
He didnt have too much trouble beating men who held versions of the title. Charles by the way never beat the champion for his crown ,he won the vacant title by beating old Walcott ,beat him by decision in a rematch in which the result was booed,and was kod by a left hook in their third fight. I haven't picked Tua but anyone not giving him a chance needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Charles easy UD. Why the hell is Tua rated so highly on here? There are fighters who are much better and achieved far more than he ever did yet don't seem to be rated anywhere near as high on here.
In terms of skill there's no comparison between the fighters, Charles is the greater fighter but the size strength and power advantage that Tua possesses can't be ignored. If Tua had those advantages but was just some stiff from the modern era then I'd be 100% on Charles, but you can't ignore those attributes when you look at Tua who could put his punches together well when in range with great power and no little speed. Tua could be out boxed and he would be up against one of the great technicians of all time but I just think somewhere along the line in one of the exchanges Tua would take him out.
Charles would have to bulk up to prevent him being overwhelmed. Say Charles adds two stone, gets to 215 or so pounds. He has more than enough skill to box Tua and he will also have the strength to prevent being over run. Byrd beat Tua fairly routinely. He is no bigger than Charles.
Charles would also be appreciably slower and much more likely to get caught by a big bomb ,if he bulked up I would have no hesitation in picking Tua to knock him into next week as Walcott did . Byrd was also a southpaw so he presented a completely different puzzle for Tua to solve. Byrd is 6'1.5" and weighed 215lbs for the fight.
He would but worse fighters than he have bulked up successfully and did so to prevent being overwhelmed. He would be more likely to be caught, but less likely to be knocked out if he was caught, with the extra weight. James Toney lost a lot of speed by bulking up but he was still quicker and more skilled than his opposition and it was only in the rematch to Peter he really found his match. I see no reason why Charles couldn't have the same success and no reason why he would willingly give away so much weight to a power puncher.
So because Moore was number one contender for years he couldn't have been prime? That is contradictory. So what does this have to do with Ezzard Charles vs David Tua? What does Tua bring to the table that Charles hasn't seen or unequivocally loses to.
I mentioned Moore because you said he was still prime because he had recently won the lhvy title I showed he was the number one contender for that title 10 years before he was given the chance. You didn't reply on that thread but as soon as I used ONE WORD on this one that you thought gave you an opening you were in like a whippet.That is duplitious Thats why I mentioned it on this thread. In answer to your question ,what did Rex Layne bring to the table,? He beat Charles.
It isn't key to this thread. Thee was no point in me replying on the other thread because it is a contradictory post. I'm pretty tired of replying to you. Evey time I ask a question you just respond with another question of why past prime Charles got robbed against Rex Layne.
I think the problem some posters have is they refuse to see the potential of bulking up. The extra strength will stop a man getting overwhelmed and bullied in the ring. If he can do that and retain his skills he'll be successful as Toney proved.
