No, and I wouldn't pick Tua against anyone who went toe to toe with him. I'd sure as hell pick him against Galento though.
Depends in what era, if fighting in Galentos era where oversights of that nice Mr Queensberrys rule were less frowned upon then Tony wins. Who is this guy, Queensberry? I dont see anything wrong in sticking your thumb into a guys eye. Just a little. - Tony Galento. Bring the fight into the recent present, with the rules being more robustly followed, then Tua gets the win. If the match up could have been made, then the likers of a toe to toe slugfest would have been well catered for.
If you are smart just follow the path of least resistance to reach the top. You can do that the last 30 years in boxing. Could not do so prior. Just look at George Foreman. An ATG for sure and top five in my book but he was able to use the system to do his best to avoid those with the best chance of beating him eventually finding a weak "champion" to fight. Incredible for him that the weak champion was the true champion at that time.
Resumes don't win fights, even assuming Galento's was superior (it wasn't). Tua fought in a tougher era, fought bigger and more resilient fighters and proved himself as one of the most dangerous knockout punchers in the division. His limitations wouldn't be a factor here. He'd have no problems finding the slow, ludicrously amateurish Galento and cracking his jaw. Given the gloves of the 1930s he'd probably kill him.
Not true. The 1930s heavyweight rankings had plenty of very undistinguished guys (some w/ plenty of losses and draws) who were only (briefly) ranked because they knocked off someone who was only briefly ranked because he knocked off someone... And head to head, the group of men Tua beat in '96 to snag his first year-end Ring ranking is a far more formidable group than that which most 1930s heavyweights faced en route to their rankings.