Paul Williams. He was more proven than Davey Moore. 11 fights for Davey Moore and I think he won the title with 8 fights. That is not enough fights to be champion in any era.
Davey Moore beat the Hell outta Kaule, who had previously only lost to Leonard. Kaule was a lot better than Carlos Quitana, a fighter that Moore would have never lost to.
well yeah. I would think he could beat someone good , but when a fight gets tough he does not have the experience, and even a guy with 30 fights would have a big experience level over him.Duran had near 80 fights.
a decent fighter who could hang with guys like Margarito and Martinez. I see Williams extending the fight and stopping Davey. I am not saying Paul was the same level as Roberto, but he was big and had a good punch and a decent chin. He could take Moore into the later rounds and stop him. Buster Drayton beat Davey and stopped him.
An on form Drayton was twice the fighter Williams was and Moore was never quite as assured after the Duran loss. Great underrated fight that was, though. Williams is a lanky volume punching punchbag.He'd be lucky to be many of the 2nd tier 154 fighters of the 80s.
You keep saying that. Muangsurin and Sahaprom say you're horrifically wrong. Moore faced a few top ten guys. It's bull**** that you keep saying this.
Have you seen the fight with Kalule? He was in there with Moore all the ****ing way. Charlie Weir was a tremendous puncher as well.
I'm not sure. Moore was a solid offensive fighter and he'd hit P-Dub fairly regularly, but bar Sergio II Williams always showed a pretty reliable chin. I could see it though.
Davey Moore lost to an old-ass Duran, therefore he'd knockout Paul Williams, who barely could barely beat a prime Margarito or Sergio Martinez.
If you actually were witty, you wouldn't have to use "window-licker" as your fall back 100% of the time. I mean, it's a nice insult, but it's your only one.