David Tua vs Rocky Marciano

Why are you saying this?

He wins on work-rate against an opponent that never excelled against truly excellent opposition except on one occasion by very quick knockout.

ATG cruiser beats failed heavyweight (this is a bit harsh, but you get what i mean).

I don't see why you are overcome with disbelief every time someone makes this pick. I know you have your schtick on the forum of picking the big guy, guys who consistently pick the small guy are weird, but this is a wrong horse situation, at least for :good:nut

 

Well I think you're as well taking in all the information you can and trying to process it. I personally prefer the Rahman comparison, but you don't like it - you don't like Rahman, you don't like Lewis, you dont' like Byrd - none of them mean anything apparently.

So you're pretty much protected by your own criteria; for you, unless Tua met an ATG cruiserweight there's no data which is usable. It makes holding a discussion extremely difficult.

Then you complain bitterly about people not giving valid reasons for picking Rocky. It's excruciatingly limiting.

Well it's better than the logical fallacy that I can't use any actual Tua fights to work out how Tua might actually do. I don't know how you handicap fighters who haven't fought the exact type he's about to meet but i do it by drawing information from what they have done, anyway.

Well they were extremely good - extremely good - against fighters of their size. When they fought bigger guys they did very well too. But you wont' allow this because they never met bigger guys who (in your opinion) were the equal of Tua.

So it's kind of end of conversation. Every possible avenue of information is being cut off by the same objection - "Tua wasn't like that so how do we know?"

 

I don't really think it would be that dangerous myself. I think Holyfield would be clear favourite. I think Tua has a puncher's chance and that's it. I don't think Tua was in Rocky's class, and I think class is more telling than size or even style (which is more important than size, up to a point).

 

Strange. Your thinking seems strange.

But it's surely better than getting beaten by Chris Byrd??? I didn't say it was something "to be proud of". I said Tua comes of worse if you look at his worst performances. You said he didn't. You are now saying I said fighting a tough fight with Charles is something to be proud of. I didn't. I just said it's better than losing to Byrd, who wasn't inarguably better (and i think he was worse) than old Charles.

 

I certainly think it's the most important factor. I don't think there's anything odd about it. I think most boxing people would agree that ATG fighters are likely to be better than bigger fighters or fighters with style advantage who are not great. That's probably a pretty standard opinion.

And your statement isn't even accurate. I've said that Liston and Lewis, lesser p4p ATG fighters should be favoured over him; i've even said that there are non-ATG fighters who are better picks over Rocky than Tua.

A lot of what you are saying doesn't seem to be actually based upon our exchanges. You seem to be projecting an awful lot.

 

Yeah, well "undersize heavyweights of yesteryear" are bigger than ATG middleweights, generally by 30 to 35lbs. But if you do Greb v Lee Savold, an awful lot of people will pick Greb. That's because they think the class of the MW will overcome the 30lbs weight advantage. Essentially, you are asking the wrong questions.

Furthermore, you've again failed to engage with me if i'm honest. I named size AND style advantages. Your response is "No, if you're being honest you'll admit that most boxing heads only really apply this line of thinking to the undersized heavyweights of yesteryear." So you'e actually stated above that you don't think "boxing heads" pick class over style. Which is very obviously true.

But you didn't mean to state that - you're just not reading/understanding what i'm saying to you.

 

Let's say the answer is "none" - what difference does that make?

You seem to think that unless someone actually beat Tua, or someone the same as Tua, it's unreasonable to pick them in this case/a related case. But that, itself, is unreasonable.

Especially when Tua was beaten by a smaller guy who could box (Byrd) who wasn't as good as someone like Walcott in the opinion of most.

So even if we apply YOUR criteria - but point it in the opposite direction - Tua doesn't come off well.

 

That's probably because your response - the one i'm responding to - calls into question my public honesty based upon only half of what I said. In other words, you made an incomplete reply which was also an absolute statement. In other words, what I was responding to makes no sense - this would indeed make it hard to follow.