two ton tony galento....

"On the Waterfront," Scene 1, a would be informant gets thrown off a roof.

Ex-pug Brando, as Terry Malloy to Steiger, his mobbed-up brother Charley. "Gee, I thought they were just gonna talk to him."

Charley, "I donno. Maybe he gave 'em an argument."

Two Ton, goon # 1, "He's been givin' Johnny the Boss alot of arguments lately."

Brando who unwittingly set him up, "Gee he was a pretty good kid, that Joey."

Tammy Mauriello, goon #2, "A canary!"

Two Ton, "Definitely."

Tammy laughing, walking, "Maybe he could sing, but he couldn't fly."

 

I think people who say that Galento was a better fighter are crazy. Toney has never been KO'd in 80 pro bouts, has won a much higher pecentage of his fights, and was a multiple time world champion, albeit in other divisions, but still something that Galento never did....

It should also be pointed out, that most of James Toney's losses were somewhat indecisive, and he never had the benefit of shady officiating as well as mafia promoting. James Toney would have beaten the **** out of Galento at any age and in any weight class.

 

I believe it was Abe Simon who had a part in that movie, not sure about the others you mentioned..

 

OK

That is one example. It might just have been some bum who bet against himself and decided to lie down though. Most fighters of the period were involved in at least one such fight.

Why shady officiating?

Some referres of the period simply didnt call fouls generaly. A lot of them took the view that if both fighters wanted to foul each other they just let them get on with it.

It dosnt necisarily follow that this policy was intended to benefit Gallent.

How is it a pass?

If a fighter lived in Detroit then you would expect a large percentage of his fights to be in Detroit.

As far as I can tell he managed his own career for the most part though he was with a promotor when he got the title shot.

Gallento was a verry good self publicist and that was not unrelated to his getting a title shot.

He used many of the flaws you have highlighted as a publicity gimmick.

 

I am a big tua fan, but I disagree. Oquendo, izon maskaev rahman all easily outboxed tua well ahead on the cards until tua pulled out his late clutch power. Tua was one of the easiest guys to outbox, by B level guys too.

 

Nobody is disputing that Toney is a better fighter pound for pound but at heavyweight the question is a bit more open to interpretation.

 

What in gods name does that have to do with having a good defense?

 

the man could of been a seroius contender if not for his legendary training an dietary habits

 

To assume that Bozo just lied down for the purpose of betting against himself, is just as speculative if not more so than anything I have said. In addition, it was YOU, who claimed that benefitting from fixed fights was the norm of that period.....

Yet the Ring magazine ( one of your favorite sources ), said this about the officiating of the Lou Nova fight:
" One of the most disgraceful fights staged since the days of the barroom brawls. Refferree George Blake would have retained his reputation as a great referee had he disqualified Galento.

Here is another quote in response to the Otis Thomas fight:
" Thomas gave Galento a good fight right up to the end. And on the strengtht of winning one round through a low blow by Galento, had a slight edge on the New Jersey bartender going into the ninth round. The knockout came one round after referee Walter Heisner had stopped the bout momentarily and threatened to give it to Thomas because of the low blows ( Chicago Tribune ).

Sorry but, it doesn't seem to me that your ascertion about dirty fighting as being viewed acceptable even by the standards of those days, holds much water.

He benefitted from it nonetheless, which does not bode well for your claim that he would have been a force in today's heavyweight picture. If such a fighter needed to resort to such tactics during some of his bigger fights, and was allowed to get away with them besides, then he would not have my confidence at being successful in future periods of the sport...

Rather than looking up every single location of every single fight of every single fighter who fought during the 1930's, I'll just pick one name out of a hat, as this is really about all the time that I have to spend on this. After that, you'll have to do your own research.. Buddy Baer was a rated contender who fought Joe Louis, and in fact beat Tony Galento. He lived and fought out of California for much of his career, and in 60 pro fights, only fought 13 times in California. Percentage wise, I think this is a tad more liberal than Galento's 60 fights in New Jersey over a career that spanned 110 bouts....

What exactly can provide that is telling of this claim?

A spectacle yes, but this did not mean that he deserved a shot at the title, nor does it tell us why he'd do well in today's era.

Flaws like what? Drinking alcohol, smoking cigars, and eating junk food just days before a fight??? Is this what stirred the American public in the 1930's? Is this the gimic that I'm supposed to use to say that he's qualified for a shot against Wladimir Klitschko?

 

Toney fought far fewer fights at heavyweight, which should be obvious given that Galento fought his entire career there. Nevertheless, Toney lost far less decisively to the men who beat him, has not been knocked out, and in general faced better fighters, with the exception of Baer and Louis who both destroyed Galento making these exceptions irrelovant.

 

Galento is just like david tua

 

If galento clocked wlad, wlad wouldnt get up. I wouldnt be shocked if galento knocked out wlad either. galento could take some big vlad bombs to land his own. wlad doesnt like powerful durable pressure fighters.

 

He might be top ten for a time but never a titlist. He was never that special.

 

Galento was SLOW, though. Wlad could probably jab, jab, jab, clinch all night.