Dominick McCaffrey v Pete Rademacher 15rds

I don't see what you could possibly object to in what I have said.

If being a top fighter in Sullivan's era, makes you anything in the 1950s, then you would have to pick McCaffrey over Rademacher!

 

If... ok, I get it!

In other words, you don't actually believe McCaffrey would beat Rademacher. Thanks... now I feel much better.

 

Yes I do think that McCaffrey would beat Rademacher.

I am saying that you could pick Rademacher, but only if you thought that the C crop of Rademacher's era, were better than the A crop of McCaffrey's era.

The equivalent of McCaffrey in Rademacher's era, would be somebody like Archie Moore!

 

Obvious there were no rankings back then, so it is difficult to be certain exactly who was the top contender.

When Sullivan fought McCaffrey, that seems to have been viewed as the fight that needed to happen.

I can't see another contender, who people were more interested in Sullivan fighting.

 

Damn... for a brief period of time I was so happy, because I thought there was still hope for you. And then you go and spoil it all with a post like that...

 

You leave me no choice but to say that, because it is the bottom line.

That aside, we can see from his surviving record, why he would have been at a bit of a high point when he fought Sullivan.

 

What do you find unreasonable about my post?

I am genuinely curious!

 

You do realize that the odds are strongly against some incredible performances being omitted from his record. The odds are that, if anything is missing, it is pedestrian performances against little known opponents, with roughly the same win/loss ratio as his existing record.

Rademacher KO2

 

The problem is that his record is almost certainly incomplete, his opponents records are incomplete, and his opponents opponents records are incomplete!

Talking about his "record" is meaningless!

What we do know is that he was one of the best contenders of his era, and Rademacher was very far from being one of the best contenders of his era.

A pick in favor of Rademacher, must assume a vast disparity between the two eras!

 

You are, without a doubt, the most disingenuous poster on this site!

Others come up with almost as much nonsense as you do - but they probably can't help it. You, on the other hand, is too intelligent and knowledgeable to actually believe the often surreal opinins you pretend to back. I think we all know, that you don't really believe that (for example) Tommy Burns would beat Deontay Wilder... so why are you saying silly things like that?

 

You still haven't answered my question.

What part of my post do you object to?

Is it unreasonable to say that McCaffrey was a far more highly regarded contender in his era, than Rademacher was in his?

 

I don't care how highly regarded McCaffrey was rated in his era. Nothing in his record indicates he would have any chance at all against Rademacher. And of course you know that!

You're just picking these "fights", because you think defending your ridiculous opinions with clever worded posts, makes you look smarter than the rest of us. You do have a way with words, I'll give you that - but all it does, is make you look like an arrogant, condescending *****.

 

Everything about his record, says that he would demolish Rademacher, if their eras were equivalent.

He was one of the best contenders of his era, and Rademacher was C class in his.

How hard is that to understand?

You are just making yourself sound like a religious zealot, who says that anybody who disagrees with them is mad or delusional!