Hello CF, I hope i may ask, in your infinite wisdom, who was the better pound for pound fighter, Bud Taylor or Freddie Miller? Please respond when time allows and thank you! Sincerely, slakka
Just incase your thread doesn't take off SLAKKA, i'm gunna throw you a lil some some to help your thread out. A powerful song from the now deceased Tupac Shakur.. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl54ABY8VgY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl54ABY8VgY[/ame]
To be perfectly candid, I'm biased towards Freddie, due to being part Syrian, and therefore partial to the man who supplanted him for the featherweight title in one of boxing's best rivalries. (Like a lot of Syrian fight fans, I'd like to see Sarron join him in the IBHOF, even if it does primarily serve to further pad Armstrong's reputation.) All kidding aside though, Miller has a far deeper resume, and had 250 consecutive bouts without being stopped. (And the two times he was halted, it was by TKO, not because he was counted out.) Beat Arizmendi, Chalky, Panama Al, Sarron, Cochran, Wickwar, Phil Zwick, and he twice single handedly blocked Nel Tarleton from ever becoming a world champion (and went into Liverpool both times to beat Nella over his own championship distance specialty). The wins over Zwick (both by knockout) and Brown demonstrate how he could deal with much taller opponents. Bud was certainly no slouch. He handed Babyface his first two defeats and blocked Canzi from a quadruple crown, but the sheer volume of what Freddie did overwhelms Taylor's dossier. 12 successful FW Title defenses trumps 0 BW defenses. P4P or straight up, this one's no contest.
Agreed about Sarron, who did a lot of good work in one of the featheweight division's better eras. As for the question, I'd pick Miller, too. Taylor has one of the better nicknames in the sport's history, and the two best names on his ledger...but caught them on the way up, rather than when they were at their prime. Miller faced fighters who were nearly as great, and was a more dominant champion. Plus, had they faced one another in the ring, it's pretty likely that the smooth, slick boxing durable southpaw would probably have schooled the Terror from Terra Haute over the distance. Think about it this way: when Ring compiled a list of the 20 best featherweights, Miller was inserted in the number four slot. And even if that might be a little high, he did enough good work to earn serious consideration for a Top 10 ranking at 126. As good as Taylor was, you'd have to stretch to accord the same type of ranking to him at bantam or feather. So, like Duo said, Miller gets the nod as far as this comparison is concerned.
Following up on Drew's comments, Miller's historical standing may also be aided by the fact that it was Sarron and not he who succumbed to the awesome challenge of Armstrong. In 152 bouts, nobody else ever took Petey out. If Hank had gotten on track a year or two earlier than he did, Armstrong-Miller could have been an interesting alternative to Armstrong-Sarron. Freddie lost his final shot at Petey the month before Henry got to Sarron. If Miller had won that one, does he get to the IBHOF as early as 1997? (Sarron would win his next 11 bouts before Angott retired him. An opportunity to succeed Hank would have been fair, but Petey moved up to 135 and Joey Archibald lucked in.)
