View Single Post
Old 07-31-2012, 12:05 PM   #19
KuRuPT
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,868
vCash: 500
Default Re: Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
In THEIR TIME Langford and Ketchell were middleweights , Jeffries was old and post retirement and layoff , Joe J I counted , Jackson (like Thompkins ?) was less than a full fledged middleweight and d rest were either old , small , some other handicap or probably a combination of more than 1 handicap come fight time .



Your post show how clueless u r .
As usual .
You didn't count McVey then... what was wrong with him? I.e. what excuse are you going to come up with this time? When Johnson beat Langford... HE ALSO wasn't a HW, and crushed Sam with ease. So because Sam gained some weight THAT was going to make a difference against a Johnson who also filled out? I'm guessing stupid posts like this are par for the course with you. The facts are these... in an all time sense... Langford is better than anybody on Listons resume... and it's not even that close. You can say whatever you want about Jeffries, but again, in an all time sense he's also better than most anybody in Liston's resume. He was the favorite going on, and despite what people say, was in a good shape for the fight. The difference though is you have an ACTUAL HW in Jeffries who did have ring rust but was still a big stong ACTUAL HW... Liston had a big size advantage on Patterson (Liston's best name on his resume). You do realize Ketchell put weight on and was no longer a middleweight right? Just like you realize Lanford wasn't either when they fought but the opposite way.. Is their any part of your post that you got right? Point is, Super Middleweight Ketchell.. Shit even O'Brien are better all time fighters than anybody on Liston's list bar maybe two names. Next time you make a post.. actually try and get some part of ti right and not look like a complete idiot.
KuRuPT is offline  Top
Reply With Quote