My top 20 Welterweights, all time

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Nov 12, 2007.


  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007
    :lol: :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.
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007


    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?
     
  3. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    I assume you have footage then.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah, that's right, I watch it in a crystal ball through the eye on the end of my ****.
     
  5. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    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.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007
    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.
     
  7. dmille

    dmille We knew, about Tszyu, before you. Full Member

    2,269
    69
    Aug 1, 2004
    When did Terry Norris prove himself at 147?
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007
    Don't talk to him, he has an udder where his face should be.

    Instead of milk, bull**** comes out.
     
  9. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    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 ****.
     
  10. dmille

    dmille We knew, about Tszyu, before you. Full Member

    2,269
    69
    Aug 1, 2004
    When did Terry Norris prove himself at 147 lbs aka welterweight?
     
  11. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    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. :D
     
  12. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    Now we're talking.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007
    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.
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,164
    48,399
    Mar 21, 2007
    Not really.
     
  15. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    You're short on wits, but long on temper.