Why the hate for Tony Galento????

All true - and underestimated could be very dangerous. He wasn't a good contender, but he wasn't Butterbean.

 

No he was a bonafide fighter, and if you walked into his wheel house with your hands down you would be in trouble.

 

In fairness to Galento's detractors, you can see why they would be skeptical of him.

He doesn't look like a contender, obviously had a very poor training ethic, wasn't thought very highly of by many at the time, and he doesn't look very good on film.

Be that as it may, a person who studies his era and his career, will see that there was a bit more to him than meets the eye.

He was in truth a very successful contender, and a fearsome puncher.

He would probably still have beaten Lou Nova if it had been a clean fight!

 

I think the underlined is possibly wishful thinking. He could usually best the fringe contenders but mostly came second against the better guys.

 

What is it that you know about Galento's era and career that you think his detractors don't?

 

It is not like Nova was handily out boxing him, and he mauled and fouled his way to a stoppage.

Galento was countering Nova, and having the best of the encounter punch for punch.

I actually think that his win over Nova, has more credibility than Tua's win over Rahman.

 

Galento did everything but gouge his eye out,he thumbed him all night ,what's more he admitted it!

 

A knowledgeable boxing fan who is not a specialist in the 30s, will have a pretty clear idea how good the best fighters of that era were.

When it comes to the tier of fighters below them, they will not quite be able to see the context of their best wins.

Today everybody knows that Derek Chsorah is a very dangerous fighter, but a person looking at Boxrec in eighty years time might not see it.

 

I understand this, but that was not the only thing that was going on.

Galento basically found a way to counter Nova consistently.

For the record I regard Nova as being a much better fighter than Galento.

 

I think that Nova fight was a fluke to be honest. Nova wasn't all-timer, but until Louis destroyed him he was a very good contender who didn't have problems with dirty boxing. He beat past prime but motivated Maxie Baer twice in brutal fights and Maxie certainly hit harder and was more dangerous than Galento.

Maybe Galento found a way to beat Nova, but it's possible that Tony simply got lucky, it happens sometimes.

 

Nova just wasn't very skilled. According to this contemporary account, Galento really exposed him.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/1939-article-on-galento-nova.623767/

 

Some of us know quite a bit about his era, and we consider it to be an exceptionally poor one.

I get why people who aren't capable of recognizing the differences between weak and strong eras might assume that Galento was much better than he actually was though!

 

He wasn't very skilled, but he was tough and had power. Posting article criticizing a loser after the fight is not a convincing argument. Nova wasn't great fighter, but he was dangerous contender.

 

I have a feeling that you are not an expert in this era.

What makes this a weak era then?

 

Yes and no.

Before he fought Galento, there wee people actually picking him over Louis.

A bit of a Gerry Cooney situation seems to have been happening.

Obviously Nova was seen as a bit of a bust after Galento beat him, but then Baer battered Galento, and Nova bashed in Baer again.

After this, he was seen to have gained a measure of redemption, like Joshua after the Ruiz fight.

He was never going to regain his old credibility, but he was taken very seriously again.