Which of the following would beat Tubbs at his best?

In that clip I posted, neither Page nor Tubbs threw more than one 3-punch combo for a whole round.

That clip is roughly the same length as the two Corbett clips we're looking at.

 

That's exactly what Corbett is doing at the of this clip.

https://streamable.com/xjtn

And I never said Corbett is more dangerous than Ali, so you're preaching to the choir on that one

 

Yes. I would certainly question that statement.

And yes, size difference is one of the advantages a fighter has over another. In this case it's not nearly enough to break the bank.

Corbetts speed would be too much for the physical advantage. Loughran vs Carnera is a great example of this.

 

To me, it's obvious that, say, Fitzsimmons is a much greater puncher than Tubbs, right? So I combine that with the fact that I know that he can throw 1-2's. And therefor I think that Fitzsimmons has a great chance of throwing better 1-2's than Tubbs. So thats my basis.

Right right. So what I'm saying is that size isn't always enough to guarantee a win. Many examples of this in history, right?

My strongest disagreement with you is that Tubbs was quicker than Corbett. I mean, I think it's ludicrous. You look at how fast Corbett moves his feet, how quick he can change direction. The way he ducked Fitzsimmons first big hook by bouncing off the ropes a la Ali-Liston 1. Anybody should be able to see that and obviously see that he's faster than Tubbs.

Tubbs had the speed to compete at the world stage. Corbett had the speed to compete at the ATG stage.

 

It's not wishful thinking, it's an observation. Which attributes do Fitzsimmons lack that make for a great 1-2?

You would be astonished at how slow Tubbs would look on a camera from the 1800's.

 

This era equivalency argument regarding heavyweights is intellectually bankrupt. It is the realm of zealots.

 

I think that Tubbs is something of a beneficiary of the era equivalency principle to be honest.

It would be a lot easier to prove that the 80s was a weak era, than it would to prove that somebody like Corbett fought in a weak era.

 

Let’s put it this way.

Corbett’s era was stronger than the era that followed it, and the era that preceded it.

Tub’s era was weaker than the era that followed it, and the era that preceded it.

Anything beyond this is hard to prove.

 

That is where we get into the territory of assumptions.

I think that most people would agree that an era where the average size of the contenders, is not necessarily stronger.

Furthermore the size argument does not necessarily work in Tub’s favour; because a light heavyweight took the title under his nose.

I also don’t think that we can assume that Corbett’s unorthodox skills would not work in Tubs era, because similar unorthodox fighters do crop up from time to time.

 

I don’t accept this.

I don’t think that there have been any significant advances in technique since the time of Walker and Loughran, indeed technique may have regressed in some respects.

I am not sure whether there had been significant advances in technique since Corbett’s era, but I think that the evidence is tenuous at best.

At the end of the day there are only so many moves in the textbook, and only so many things that you can do with them.