BoxRec

Who takes it?

Tubbs by dec, although I don't think I'd be able to stay awake beyond the first few rounds.

Byrd's usual advantages are voided, but if Tony fought one of his sleepwalking bouts Byrd could win by trying more. But forced to pick give me the natural, quick-handed heavyweight in Tubbs

Byrd by decision, he was faster and better defensively.

Byrd by decision. Would be close but clear.

Tony Tubbs by wide decision. Fres Oquendo and Davaryll Williamson made Byrd look awful by moving away and counter punching him.

Tubbs is a stylistic nightmare for Byrd, Tubbs vs Byrd is a nightmare for all of us.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Tony Tubbs by wide decision. Fres Oquendo and Davaryll Williamson made Byrd look awful by moving away and counter punching him.

Tubbs is a stylistic nightmare for Byrd, Tubbs vs Byrd is a nightmare for all of us.

Well said.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Tony Tubbs by wide decision. Fres Oquendo and Davaryll Williamson made Byrd look awful by moving away and counter punching him.

Tubbs is a stylistic nightmare for Byrd, Tubbs vs Byrd is a nightmare for all of us.

Byrd had slowed down by that point, he was at his best before he won the paper title and Tony wouldn't have laid a glove on him. Agreed it would be horrid.

Nile4000 wrote:Tony's boxing ability was tight, and Byrd would be befuddled, and overwhelmed, losing a wide unanimous decision.This would be prime Tubbs, of course.

Is that the guy that bumped titties with your boy in the worst Heavyweight title fight in history?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:Tony's boxing ability was tight, and Byrd would be befuddled, and overwhelmed, losing a wide unanimous decision.This would be prime Tubbs, of course.

Is that the guy that bumped titties with your boy in the worst Heavyweight title fight in history?

Yeah, I guess so But he caught Greg at the right time in his career, with his frustration with Don King, among other things.Prime Greg owns Tony, though their boxing skills are about equal.

They'd probably split 10 fights and none of them would be watchable. Two pedestrian paper belt guys that somehow are romanticized on this board, Blubbs more so than Page.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They'd probably split 10 fights and none of them would be watchable. Two pedestrian paper belt guys that somehow are romanticized on this board, Blubbs more so than Page.

Indeed, though Page could have been something special

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:Tony's boxing ability was tight, and Byrd would be befuddled, and overwhelmed, losing a wide unanimous decision.This would be prime Tubbs, of course.

Is that the guy that bumped titties with your boy in the worst Heavyweight title fight in history?

Saad you're unable to subjectively evaluate Tubbs b/c you hate that fight so much. Tubbs had very quick hands, and fighters far slower than Tony were able to land leather on Byrd.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:Tony's boxing ability was tight, and Byrd would be befuddled, and overwhelmed, losing a wide unanimous decision.This would be prime Tubbs, of course.

Is that the guy that bumped titties with your boy in the worst Heavyweight title fight in history?

Saad you're unable to subjectively evaluate Tubbs b/c you hate that fight so much. Tubbs had very quick hands, and fighters far slower than Tony were able to land leather on Byrd.

You love Tubbs far more than I dislike him. It's just the worst fight I've ever seen. Byrd was a better fighter than any version of Tubbs I saw. Winning 3 rounds against Riddick Bowe is the most impressive thing he ever did.

Byrd was at his best making big stiff powerhouses like Thunder and Vitali miss. The handspeed and in-and-out style of Tony Tubbs would be very troublesome for a fighter who strangely couldn't get out of the way of Wladimir Klitschko's jab- even Haye and Ibragimov managed that.

I don't see how anyone can complain about Tony Tubbs being romanticised while simultaneously trying their best to discredit him with false claims. It's one extreme to the other. To say Tony Tubbs won only 3 rounds against Riddick Bowe is frankly silly. That was a one-sided win for Tubbs and that is and always has been a widely held view, and no one was romanticising Tubbs in 1991.

Yeah, Tubbs schooled Bowe something fierce.

This board is the only place I've ever heard anyone say Tubbs won, even here you're the first to say it was one sided. It was a good effort, he clearly didn't win.

Sorry, Saad, need to pull you up on this. Tubbs was ahead on the cards when Tyson stopped him…or at least he was on my card.

Tony did have fast hands and good feet. A good contender and that's honourable enough in my book.

But he had worse stamina than the guys around today...that's saying something...

Truth is he was on a par with the average Klitschko victim.

That's a perfect description. I'm not saying he was terrible, he's just better in this forum than the guy I watched fight. He could beat Byrd, I don't think he would.

Byrd he was the far more consistent fighter and more elusive and faster.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Yeah, Tubbs schooled Bowe something fierce.

This board is the only place I've ever heard anyone say Tubbs won, even here you're the first to say it was one sided. It was a good effort, he clearly didn't win.

You seem to be laughing in the face of known and accepted facts. There is a great deal of comtemporaneous media covering the controversy of that fight.

It's famously a bad decision and yet you want to pretend it isn't because of your prejudice against Tubbs. This is troll behaviour, which you are the first to mock others for.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Yeah, Tubbs schooled Bowe something fierce.

This board is the only place I've ever heard anyone say Tubbs won, even here you're the first to say it was one sided. It was a good effort, he clearly didn't win.

You seem to be laughing in the face of known and accepted facts. There is a great deal of comtemporaneous media covering the controversy of that fight.

It's famously a bad decision and yet you want to pretend it isn't because of your prejudice against Tubbs. This is troll behaviour, which you are the first to mock others for.

I have no prejudice against Tubbs, he's just irrelevant to me. I watched the fight live, there was no widespread backlash. You're inventing it. It was a better than expected performance from an underdog that some fans have turned into a bad decision years later. Of course you're taking it to a level that nobody else ever has. If anyone is trolling, it's you.

Anyway, you'll need a better topic to induce a flame war than Tony Tubbs allegedly dominant performance over Riddick Bowe. The laughter is for the ridiculousness of it all. "Famously bad decision"

Ezzard wrote:Tony did have fast hands and good feet. A good contender and that's honourable enough in my book.

But he had worse stamina than the guys around today...that's saying something...

Truth is he was on a par with the average Klitschko victim.

Give me a break . .who has either Klitschko fought recently with Tubbs' handspeed or boxing skills?

And I never was nor am a fan of Tubbs. He is what he is . . a underachiever who was well schooled and had fast hands/natural quickness but often fought lazy, lacked a big punch, and had stamina issues.