Walcott…by a mile. Norton isn’t as good as his one good win tells you. I rank Walcott in the 15-19 range. Norton somewhere in the 35-40 range.
Fair enough
Agree with everything in this assesment
Maybe pre 30s. His chin was his biggest problem and his poor defense another. Nice offense but he lacked the other necessary skills to make it...
Not championship material. King of C level fighters.
He’s prob not but to be fair there is an argument for him. I have him in my top five HWs ever. that and in no universe would Cleveland be...
The strongest era should have a top ten all in the top 50 plus a strong cast in the background. Plus it should have most of those guys having met...
Almost forgot old Louis and Cleveland Williams as well on the honorable mention list
I’d take Marcianos chin over Lewis Holy or Frazier. Lewis might win but he ain’t smashing him out early.
If Holy could make it to the end so would Frazier ( or Marciano). But he losses a decision here.
If holy could I’m sure someone else along the lines could have. Who knows who would have had the skill and chin to make mike fight their fight....
Idk about that…maybe for the 70s (excluding Holmes n Foreman a big one) 90s many fights that could have and should have happened weren’t made....
Pretty deep legacy wise. People rail on about the 70s and 90s which were the best top heavy wise. But deep? Not so deep. I like my 50s list...
You could be right. I just disagree with your assessment like this is some mismatch. Satterfield beat better men then Foster is what my point...
Well that’s why I said he was inconsistent. I’m not even saying he beats Foster but he does have a much better resume. On their absolute best...
