:yep Here you can clearly see how biased he is. Against Louis it would be one of Norton´s worst matchups I can think of, and even than Hank...
I predict exactly the same scenario! :thumbsup Btw, Hank, you excel yourself every time again!
Very good choice, I would have respond with Burley and Barbados Joe Walcott too! Btw., if you want, read my little article in Great forgotten...
Here you show once again that you have zero knowledge about boxing, especially practice-wise. You can´t define when a prime starts and when it...
Edit
Exactly, it could be that in a discussion some things quickly are contorted, especially with a poster like Clay. I´m not sure what I wrote about...
Like Marciano_Frazier wrote correctly, Marciano chose a tactic to wear these tricky fighters (Moore, Charles) down, not with one-punchs. And like...
He was a great fighter in his era, right. But legacy-wise, when we talk about HW history (of all times) he can´t be great, like I wrote only...
What a surprise that you defend Pernell. Fact is, never mind what the thread creator asked, a great fighter like Charles and the noun journeyman...
Prove it you ****ing liar. You wanna charge me because of lying, than prove it with facts, not with your great passwords. I wouldn´t call Carnera...
:lol: What a intellectual conversation...
Dumb respond for a stupid post. Charles had ca. 120 fights, Whitaker 45, big difference, Charles has also the deeper resume...
Good mention, I would vote Pernell Whitaker.
He simply didn´t impress me against elite fighters that much that I favour him against proven fighters like Marciano, Frazier, etc., he could have...
I can live with such a scenario, but I can´t see that it´s happens. Liston wasn´t the murderous puncher like many of you make him. Some Marciano...
