Prime George Foreman vs prime David Tua

I believe it was round 8.

I was equally perplexed someone brought up the Byrd bout in support of Tua

It (somehow) got even more ridiculous when he brought up Foreman's wins over Frazier and Norton as a negative for Foreman.

 

This is a weird phenomenon that some people do to hype up a boxer in a h2h discussion. It seems to be more prevalent with modern boxers. A very infamous example would be Samuel Peter. He gets tons of mileage for his loss to Wladmir and people favor him over others using that fight as a positive. Just the other day, Redbeard tried to use Chisora losing to a 1 armed 40 year old Vitali as a positive to argue Chisora beats Joe Louis.

The only time a loss is acceptable as a positive is if a boxer blatantly got robbed or it was a very close decision against a high profile boxer (you could for instance use Emmanuel Augustus and Castillo's losses to Floyd Mayweather, Walcott against Louis, etc). A boxer whose lesser on paper but turned up and did great on that night can help boost their h2h credentials and overall ranking in terms of raw ability/skill.

But using Tua getting outclassed by Byrd is just... hilariously bad. Ike is a bit different since that was a very competitive bout, but Ike was and is highly overrated and was a contender at the time who didn't reach his full potential and didn't have a belt.

 

I have Redbeard on my ignore list, hes been banned on numerous accounts including his last account "ShortRound".

When he made a thread about Usyk being better than Lennox Lewis, and dissing Lewis for an 8 round fight early in his career vs Ossie Ocasio then I realized he wasn't worth my time.

Here's Lewis thread BTW have a good laugh at this load of nonsense.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/oleksandr-usyk-lennox-lewis.691543/

 

I'll be sure to check it out.

I didn't even bother addressing his arguments in that thread once he said Arreola beats Louis. He's a hardcore modernist who automatically sides with the more recent boxer regardless of style and ability.

 

I agree Tua is overrated, but I think the examples you give as the only times a loss can enhance a fighters standing are too limiting.

Billy Conn (Louis 1) and Duran (Hagler) being 2 examples of losses that were neither robberies, nor very close decisions (Duran/Hagler was on the official cards, but history generally views it as clear Hagler win), yet enhances the rating of both of the "losers" in the eyes of the majority.

The perception of Azumah Nelson's standing was improved, at the time, following his KO defeat to Sanchez.

Bruno's losses to Lewis and Witherspoon arguably do more for him than any win.

Even the most common pick for p4p GOAT, SRR, will have had his standing marginally enhanced for some, as a result of his losing effort vs Maxim.

 

Agreed.

I take @Glass City Cobra 's point because the use of a losing performance to explore the better qualities of a fighter can sometimes be taken to ridiculous extremes.

But there are levels in boxing and a great performance against the highest caliber of opponent in their prime, which nonetheless ended in defeat, can quite often be considered a high quality loss, in my opinion.

It's not just about the numbers and letters, but more about the quality of the action in individual bouts, I think.

 

Ok but that's a weird example because I would never compare Tua to Butterbean. Even Cooney's wins over ancient versions of Norton, Young, and Lyle are literally 10x better than Butterbean's entire career.

The point being wins are far more important in evaluating a career/h2h ability. I wasn't saying there is nothing of value we can ever learn from a loss or the end result is all that matters. In Tua's case, there isn't much in the fight with Byrd we can point to that helps him in a hypothetical against Foreman so it's strange to bring that fight up at all.

 

In the case of Tua's loss to Byrd, there is very little to redeem.

Tua was a big favorite, fought unintelligently and was beaten handily.

 

Then he's probably not a very good h2h boxer at HW since he has a stylistic advantage over Louis who had slow feet and did even worse in the rematch.

And that's the irritating part about a lot of Foreman threads. Instead of actually addressing the matchup they spend a lot of time simply downgrading Foreman or tearing apart his resume.

One difference between Foreman and Tua in their respective fights against Young/Byrd is that Foreman actually tried to knock Young out and went for it while Tua just became clueless and went through the motions unable to turn things around. That is part of the reason Foreman lost stamina and Tua didn't. But I can already predict people like NoNeck will respond by using that as a negative for Foreman and praising Tua for making it to the final bell displaying "better stamina" ignoring the context and not criticizing Tua for failing to make adjustments or try to go for a KO.

 

Foreman is much better than Tua and should win but if he fought as poor as he did vs Lyle he could be in trouble.

 

If that is the case, then the argument is even stranger. How does one measure the extent of embarrassment, anyway? Seems an entirely subjective viewpoint.

In any event, it is well known that Foreman's discipline and mindset had gone AWOL, prior to the Young bout. Conversely, I seem to recall a big deal being made about the great shape that Tua was in, during the build up to the Byrd fight.

Tua had Byrd in front of him for significant periods of the bout, without being tied up or clinched, and was unable to deliver. Anything he did land just bounced off Byrd. For a touted 'power puncher' that has to sting a bit, especially since Ibeabuchi had temporarily turned Byrd into a dribbling wreck some years earlier.

Also - Take round 7 of Foreman/Young and wonder whether it is a round that Byrd would have survived. It's doubtful, in my opinion. Whereas, apart from an early stoppage loss to Shavers, Young had picked himself up off the floor against Shavers in their second bout to earn a Draw and beaten Lyle twice, fighting him on even terms. His whiskers had been well tested before Foreman had and missed his chance in that fateful round 7. But it should be no surprise that Young demonstrated toughness against a below-par Foreman.

Moreover, Byrd isn't necessarily better than Young head-to-head, anyway. Indeed, the opposite to that position could well be argued. I don't particularly care but, either way, there is not a massive amount in it.

Ultimately, Tua on his best day got mugged in a fair fight. Foreman, on his worst day, against one of the most awkward, negative tricksters around, got perhaps what he deserved.

 

Yeah - I got that

I wasn't being literal either and I wasn't having a dig... ...honest.

I'd guess differently. Byrd doesn't make it out of Round-7.
I'd also wager that Foreman would find many more opportunities to land against a Byrd, who was less inclined to clinch and tie up (This was one of the pillars, if not the pillar, of Young's strategy against Foreman).

 

Well - My comment was addressing your guess that Byrd wins Young's fight against Foreman. So, it is situational in that sense.

As for what tactics Young would employ against Byrd's opposition, that's a different question.

 

Lots of talk about Foreman vs Young and Lyle when it wouldn't be the version of George being used, it would be the guy from 2-3 years earlier. There's really no debate that Foreman lost something after that first loss no matter to what degree (it might be) one argues it.

He was also one of those fighters who greatly benefitted from fighting very regularly, particularly given he often knocked guys out extremely quickly. Your common fighter, even at ATG level is getting far more rounds in and there's nothing better than real rounds in a real fight. At any rate you wanted to keep him close to that 6 month mark and not much more at the outside if you could help it. Well over a years break going into Lyle as well as it being his actual comeback fight from the Ali loss was stupid in hindsight. They must have severely overrated a transitioning Foreman at this point as well as underrating Lyle.

Mike Tyson is one who benefited enormously from having his fights kept extremely close together. The reasons overlap heavily with Foreman's while also branching a little outside of his.

 

I don't recall Byrd being much of a clincher or inclined to tie up his opponents anyway, and not all of them had the physical stature of McCline. Perhaps more important is that he didn't show that much of an inclination to do so against Tua, nor did he against Ibeabuchi.

The impression I have is that Byrd was not as physically strong as Young or many of the opponents he actually faced. I can't see him favoring that kind of a physical contest with Foreman. It doesn't resonate with me.