David Tua vs Rocky Marciano

You said:

Then I said:

And explained why.

It's possible that by "he" you meant Robinson, who you mentioned earlier in your post; this is unclear.

My post does, however, address directly your general position in the thread, AND the thread question. So I don't really see why you would respond as you did in any case.

 

I've already dealt with this.

1 - Diminishing returns.

2 - It's easier for a small heavyweight to overcome a size difference than it is for a smaller fighter, partly due to the above and partly due to other reasons I outlined which you ignored, instead dismissing 3) as a "unicorn".

 

I think Maricano would lose to Lewis and beat Byrd. I already stated part 1 earlier in the thread in a post made directly to you, so I can't see how you would "still be interested" in that.

I think that a young Tua would beat LaStraza (like Rocky did) and I think that old Charles would be the best fighter he actually beat if he beat him, which he might.

 

That's fine.

But you keep saying "people here are only ready to believe this of small heavyweights."

But what i'm saying to you is that it's not that people are "more ready to believe it" but that it's actually true. And you, in fact, have accepted that, you just don't believe the diminishing returns part is beyond what is stated. So just accept it for what is actually achievable and has been proven in the ring, Dempsey beating Willard, Langford beating Wills, O'Brien drawing with Johnson, Jones beating Ruiz etc., victories that in terms of bodyweight % would be literally impossible for smaller fighters.

 

I think he would probably win by KO.

But I think he would lose to Walcott, who Rocky smashed out twice. I also think Moore would beat him.

 

of COURSE there are fewer modern examples, modern boxing adheres to weight classes!

Despite this, there are much fewer ye olde examples of these kind of bodyweight ratio differences from lower weight classes.

So the point still holds.

 

I base my pick upon Tua's diaster with Byrd, Moore's wonderful skill on film, Tua's enormous limitations on film, and

What has David Tua done in the boxing ring that makes you think he would beat Archie Moore?

 

Skills and class are the reasons I pick Moore. Physical attributes and styles are not. YOU asked ME what reasons I picked Moore for - and then got sarcastic when they weren't the reasons that you think favour Tua.

What's the point?