Def. Galaxy I read the title of the thread.
I can't and wont argue if people want to rate fighters like Pep, Saddler, Bassey, Miller etc. etc. Everyone has their own reasons and ways to compiling a list.
I don't rate them because how can I compare what I see on my screen (as far as names, wins and loses vs. someone whom my eyes have seen fight I see what they can do and what they can't do). I can only read how good these fighters were. As I've said before these articles/reports were written hundreds of years ago by not so acredited writers. I also remember reading a report on SRR fight by 2 different writers during his career in the 1940s and the 2 writers told almost 2 differend fights it was like they both had seen 2 different fights, now mind you this was the 1940 now imagine articles/reports from the 1800's & 1900's? These guys could exaggerate and write just about anything. I don't argue the fact that they werent great fighters like Greb, Loughran, McVea you name them but how do we REALLY know these writters didn't exaggerate?
Which is why I would just rather stick to fighters I've seen fights of and know about. It's just my opinion and how I rate fighters. I can't compare a fighter I've seen vs. A fighter I've read about that to me is impossible and I refuse to go by someone elses words. I'd rather let my own eyes and mind decide.
I've just always been more impressed with Henrys work as a Welterweight I def. agree that his work at Feather is top caliber but I'm more pleasead with his work at the other weight and I've rated him as such.
Maybe it's time I give Henrys career at Feather a 2nd look.
Miller I've not seen enough of to have him listed...
I can def. see by his career he was def. a top fighter but numbers and names can only tell you so much...
Chocolate was def. a better Jr. Light his opposition there and record exceeds that of his Feather career.
Bookmarks