Why does size matter?

now thats established, when will you answer his question? its been a few pages/days now, and the neutral reading this would be tempted to think you are stalling in order to duck him.

 

Whipping Langford isn't anything notewothy?

 

Bingo.

 

Bill Tate and Harry Wills were doing the same... McVea and Devere did the same thing, too. When a guy has 200 fights, there is a certain percentage of off nights.

 

I don't know about this guy as a fighter, but 1950's Olympic weight lifting champion Paul Anderson did fight and was unsuccessful.

Jack Torrance and Bill Neider (sp) were world shot put record holders who flopped as fighters.

I don't think sheer strength equates to punching power.

 

I remember that Jack Gibbons (who was a panelist on a post Friday night fights twin cities panel show) said about this fight that Langford suffered a severe cut in training a few days before the fight, but as it was a big payday for him, he went on with the fight with the cut bleeding profusely from the first punch.

That said, Fulton was certainly one of the better contenders around at the time, but obviously far short of Dempsey or Wills.

It should be pointed out that while Fulton was tall--6' 4" or more--he was not all that heavy, his weight given as 208 against Dempsey.

 

Oh, you're a neutral reader on this topic, eh? I clearly had no idea what he was asking so I havent been trying to "duck" anything.

 

It would be highly flattering to Fulton to label him the Michael Grant of his day.

 

It always does

 

I'm neutral yes. flop for trying to use that as some baleout. You made the mistake, you pay for it, dont blame your faults on me.

 

Neither has anyone. Can't really rate him at all then, can we?

 

Hardly makes him comparable to any of the big men we have today though, does it?

 

This content is protected