Maybe, although it's a bit of a moot point giving Johnson was carrying Ketchel Hagler would be the best boxer Johnson faced, his jab, workrate, efficiency and in fighting give him a shot here. Johnson should probably be favoured but Hagler is a great smaller man
Thank You Janitor :good Honestly though who put a better P4P package in terms of skillset and physical ability did Johnson face? Arguably Langford, I doubt Langford had the skillset of a Hagler though
Well I think we at least have to credit Langford with being better pound for pound, and a more formidable puncher.
I don't see why he's better P4P, other than the fact he fought in an era where he had to fight in every few weeks against bigger men who weren't much cop Langford may or may not have been better. Skillwise and depth of era wise Hagler looks the better boxer and isn't really smaller
For the sole reason it affects your agenda, if we look at the quantity of recognised boxers in Langford's era it is far smaller than in Hagler's era. Aside from the point boxers talk about the number of boxers who talked about the explosion of pro-boxers post-Dempsey Exactly less money in boxing means less demand for fighters and actually the social mobility wasn't any worse than it was in the last 30 years, social mobility is pretty weak today, is today a great era? No it isn't And the only form of entertainment in most major cities? You're happy talking out of your ass I see Ahhh a whole 6-7 fighters who fought each other and no one else is the most incredible body of talent in history based on what exactly? And let's get this straight, Marquez schools ******* 3 times but Pacman is out of his league OKAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY
The heavyweight division was so poor that half of the HW contenders were lightheavies or even smaller.
Can you name any era where light heavyweights havn't permeated the rankings? Also, if there is no light heavyweight division, where exactly is a 175lb fighter meant to fight?