Sadd is rated in that link I just posted (in Group 4). I see his name. He's certainly included in those ratings. Gilroy beat him a few months after that. And Gilroy was the ONLY British middleweight ranked among the top 37 middleweights in the world at the start of 1942. So he can certainly make a claim his grandfather was the best British middleweight of that era who didn't win a British title. I don't see any other British middleweights - champs or otherwise - rated higher than him in the world on that list, do you? And there are a lot of names on those lists. There was no middleweight in the UK rated higher than him at that time. That's kind of a big deal.
The operative words are ," of that era," he makes no such qualification. Bottom line,do you think Gilroy was better or worse than Michael Watson?
Bottom line? When did this become a Michael Watson thread? How should I know who was better? How would you know? How many times did Gilroy and Watson fight? How many Gilroy fights have you seen? Was Gilroy all but beaten to death by Don Cockell in his last fight like Watson was in his last fight? I'm not arguing who the best British middleweight was who never won a British title. I just don't get why you guys bash this poster about his grandfather any time you get into an argument with him about a totally different topic. His grandfather was rated above every British middleweight in the world back then. If he's proud of him, fine. He can make a case for his grandfather like anyone else can make a case for their favorites.
busted flush? He beat the #8 and a recent #1 contenders. yes he was. Matthews was rated #8 at heavyweight when he fought Co-kell in 1953. He was still rated in the top ten after the fight. I have that issue of The Ring. Here are the ratings as of August 14, 1953 Champion-----Rocky Marciano 1-----Roland LaStarza 2-----Ezzard Charles 3-----Dan Bucceroni 4-----Nino Valdes 5-----Tommy Harrison 6-----Bob Satterfield 7-----Heinz Neuhaus 8-----Don Co-kell 9-----Earl Walls 10----Harry Matthews This was the month that Valdes defeated Charles. In his review of the Co-kell-Matthews fight, Nat Fleischer mentioned Charles, LaStarza, and Moore as the three top heavyweight contenders, with Don C not being in the same class. Fleischer might have written this before the Charles-Valdes fight. That’s ridiculous. The film shows a very competitive fight. Anybody beating Lastarza at that time deserved recognition...and got it. You can’t rewrite history. Even today A guy looking like Cokkell beat Anthony Joshua.
Its my thread but was hijacked by him, that's no problem but I reserve the right to introduce whatever topics I like into it, if you dont like that you can always depart.Ive nothing against his grandfather .My problem is someone revising boxing history to glorify his relative. He will tell you the only reason he wasnt British champion was there was a deliberate conspiracy to prevent him from becoming one and ,as another poster said when he first proffered this excuse, its pure fantasy. Now I think we have spent enough time on Mr Glenn especially since he wont debate on a public forum. What began as me posting what I thought would be an interesting clip of a colorized bout has taken on a different life>Ive humoured you by not calling in "In Color" since you objected to the term,but quite frankly I'm rapidly losing interest in the future of this.
Here's a 45-second clip that shows some of Marciano's elite footwork, balance, haymakers, defensive technique, reflexes, and all-around technical skills. As Perry would say, watch and learn something. https://streamable.com/wa9wu
