Who was the best overall fighter: Tua, Rahman, or Golata?

could give a rats ass about , coulda, woulda, shoulda, all the potential in the world means absolutely nothing yet when he got his chance, who of those three made it happen?

that's the answer, and its not even debatable. Rahman.

 

^

Rahman in terms of actual achievements in the ring, but Golota had all the potential in the world. What a waste of talent...

 

Tua is the most overrated heavyweight of recent memory, all we here is the mythical prime Tua like he ever had a string of impressive wins/resume.

As for the question I would pick Golota over a three yet even he isn't without his obvious weaknesses.

 

Golota did have what appeared to be many of the tools needed to be a top fighter but he had just one major fault . he was severely mentally flawed .


Tua was a good fighter but was limited when you consider his overall skills


Rahman I suppose on achievement but he wasn't that that much to shout about was he

 

From the surface I'd like to say Golota, but the problem is he is mostly known for his losses. He had tremendous talent and was a perennial contender but he was chinny, and his mental issues prevented him from going further than he did. To be fair, an argument could be made that Golota beat both Chris Byrd and John Ruiz only to get the short end of the stick in each instance, meaning he would have held 2/3 of the HW title at the time but it was never meant to be.

David Tua appears to be the most capable of the three that's mentioned. His Tyson-esque style incredible power (left hook) and chin seemed to be a prerequisite for guaranteed success in the HW division but unfortunately he came at a time where the division was talent laden and his commitment or lack-of was necessary to move up the ranks. What appeared to be promise turned out to be a mirage as Tua put forth a luke-warm effort against Lennox Lewis in his first and only title shot.

Rahman was an ordinary fighter who got lucky against an arrogant Champion with a chip on his shoulder. In spite of that, he did what neither of the two were able to accomplish; he became the man who beat the man; that alone ensures he ranks the highest.

As for the best overall?

Tua was lazy and limited, Golota was mental and chinny, and Rahman was simply too ordinary.

I guess the fighter that I'd pick would be Golota. At least when his mental state improved he showed grit and determination that he never showed early in his career; his problem seemed to be the most fixable I guess not to mention that he was a more polished fighter.

 

Well said.

 

I think Golata had the most potential.

Rahman has a win that trumps anything either 2 have done though.

 

Its close for sure though I always felt Andrew had really good skills....he wasnt as dynamic as Tua and didnt have the pop of Rahman but overall he was a better boxer just had a pea brain.

 

i would agree with this.

Rahman knocking out lewis was grest archivement. Rahman also had some terrific fights as well. his war against corrie sanders was brilliant.

 

since golota was robbed twice in title fights, you have to go with rahman.

 

Rahman is the stiffest, least mobile fighter I have ever seen in the ring in a professional prizefight. Tua has the skills to be considered a heavyweight Gatti. Golota had some tremendous skills, but was a mental midget with severe anxiety. So I say Golota was the most talented, just mentally weak

 

Tua was the best of the three.

Rahman's chin was glass.

Golota? Well, he was just mentally ill-equipped to be a fighter.

 

Golota was also weak when punching ya in the nutsac
:smoke

 

:good

:smoke