I'm still deciding which names to include in my ranking and on that from i'm 75% into it. I then need to compile a highlight of each man's resume, evaluate the skillset and decide upon a divisional h2h round robin scenario for each man. So all in all i'm maybe a year away from doing it. I'll have a very rough list by january and then will spend a year refining it.
Here I was sweating releasing my list, thinking if I went first, it'd get torn apart. Some other Canzoneri and McFarland shouts, I see. Maybe I rate Walcott too low. It's tough to wrap my head around him.
Tac, well done post on the much forgotten Joe Walcott...In a Ring interview with Joe Choynski in the 1930s Choynski revealed that just prior to the Walcott fight in Feb 1900 Choynski slipped on an icy street patch in New York, cracking some ribs. He chose to honor his contract, but was in great pain during the fight with little Joe Walcott and lost by a tko in the 7th round. He was an honorable man Choynski, and whether true or not Walcott won the bout...Can you picture the war between the Barbados Demon, and Hammering Henry Armstrong, both in their primes...? WoW...Cheers...
One hell of a fantasy match-up right there. Henry was seemingly unrelenting in his attack. Walcott from all accounts could take as well as he gave. Although its difficult and almost amusing to envision him standing across the ring from the welterweight version of Tommy Hearns, a full 12" shorter but of equal weight.
Choynski weighed 163 pounds, and Walcott 140 pounds. The odds were mostly 3 to 1 or 100 to 30 in favor of Choynski. Walcott-Lavigne I both weighed in at 131.5 pounds (even though it was scheduled at 133 pounds, Walcott and his manager didn't feel that was a problem).
I feel ya. They have clearly tones down Langfords muscles to make modern fighters feel better about themselfs. Here is my copy of the original. This content is protected
So what your evidence proves is Lanford was actually even smaller because no one these days considers afro height. Historians like you and me know that a man was always measured including hair height. To quote Langford " I be measured from the tip of my 'fro right down to my toe." Langford was actually much closer to 5ft which solidifies his claim as the greatest man whos height is close to 5ft.
In essence, yes. Thank you. :hat But you try and tell that to some of these fools. :-( McGrain and janitor still think Peter Jackson was 6'1, flat top. This content is protected Dude was about 5'7, tops, without the fro.