Not really a classic topic but one that can probably be applied to any one of the forums. When I say a “ Good “ fighter I’m not talking about elite or great. We’re not talking about the best of the best the way that many of us have a habit of comparing everything to.. when you consider that about 98% of anyone who enters this sport never goes anywhere, losing records are FAR more common than winning ones. For me anyone who had more wins than losses is somewhat “ good”. An example would be something like 16-4-1-9 is actually not a bad record. A lot of it also depends greatly on the quality of one’s competition but even so. If you end up going 16-0 against 16 opponents who were all 0-5 well then at least you’re not among them in being a trial horse. Jesse Ferguson was a journeyman but I’ve never considered him a bum. He retired with a final record of like 26-18-0-16 and competed against some damn elite opponents. I thought he was a good fighter.
Good post. Ferguson was a solid fighter and a pro's pro. I'm going to name another good fighter that never accomplished a lot as a pro but always impressed me with his defensive ability. Buster Mathis Jr. The guy was well schooled and slippery as hell.
I agree. Mathis was a mobile fighter with some skill and potential. Actually had a pretty good record and fought some top guys. Probably should have gotten DQ win over Bowe after Riddick hit him when he was down
