Jim Watt vs Terence Crawford...

Jim would smash the fuker

 

Jim beat better fighters than Crawford. As I stated in the other thread, Watt beat a far more talented fighter in Howard Davis Jr. He was faster, more skilled and slicker than Crawford who is pretty average in comparison. Davis Jr won Olympic gold in 76 and the Val Barker trophy for best boxer at the games beating out the likes of Ray Leonard and the Spinks brothers. Watt would take Crawfords soul.
Billy Nelson is really talking out his arse with that one.

 

how many vodkas is Jim allowed before the fight?

 

Billy Nelson vs Big Daddy.

Now that's a thread to end all threads.

 

:good

 

Well, nobody ever thought Burns had reached Watt's level, had they? :huh

AFAIK he was largely considered the best Scottish (and maybe UK) lightweight since Watt (and 2nd best since Buchanan), not better than him.

So for someone to come along beating him - clearly, though not exactly wiping the floor with him - shouldn't itself launch them suddenly into a realistic h2h conversation with the likes of Watt, should it?

 

crawford would win jim must be in his mid 60s now

 

I don't know, old lad's pretty feisty. He could probably take Crawford on aggressiveness.

 

He really didn't seem to rate crawford, I think we could make this happen :bbb

 

I don't think Crawford is on Watt's level. Even if he shocked Jim and was getting the better of the rounds, a quick Glasgow kiss would soon have Watt back in control :bbb :thumbsup

 

Watt was no mug in his Indian summer. And as O'Grady found out, if things got close, Watt's was not afraid to give out the kisses, Glasgow style! From what I saw on Saturday, Jim in 79/80 is a level above Crawford. But that is with over 30 years hindsight. So to be fair this question should be posed in the mid 2040s...

 

Put it on ice?

 

Yep; much like myself come 2040!