:good Nice. Amsterdam is actually a cracking poster if you're interested in contemporary boxing. He also makes some lovely observations about past eras when he swallows his bile. His testimony to Jack Johnson as the most couragous fighter in history brought a lump to my throat, I tell you.
I been getting some heat for ranking Napoles at 11 - let's hear your reasoning for having him at 10. Lower than I would have expected. Let's hear it - above Burley, how come?
So okay. There's no footage of him. As for the other guy, I watched Burley on utube and from what I could see was just another defensive fighter-a cutie that was short on offense. That don't mean the Sugarman couldn't handle him. Better to replace him with a known quantity-Terry Norris.
Throw out the guys of whom there is no footage if it makes you happy. For me, I will do my best with what has been given. You saw a WW taking on a top LHW contender, and employing a treat he practically invented - slowing the action down with laser precise, powerful single shots. When he had a man's number, he took after him like a monster. Archie Moore, who was beaten unrecognisable described him as a "riveting gun". Punches in volume from all angles. It's pretty clear you're out of your depth here... ...and here.
Well I'm skeptical of someone of whom there is limited footage otherwise it amounts to little more than fables that I'm not buying into. I saw the man. Sorry dude, he looks like ****.
i'm using the same logic Mcgrain uses. He puts a guy in like Langford who competes at different weights. Since Norris is but 3 or 4 pounds over welter I put his name up. Better than someone like Burley but you know McGrain-he thought his fables would cover up for the way he came out on youtube.
Yeah, throw everything in the papers/contemporary accounts/the testamony of fighters who have actuallly been in the ring with the fighter concerned because - wait, why? Don't be sorry. When a wankstain tells me i'm wrong about something, it cheers me up no end.