You're not properly evaluating the losses on Norfolk's record. High level of opposition is great, but when you've also lost to every great fighter you've ever faced, minus Flowers who he outweighed by at least 10 lbs, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. He also lost to guys that Virgil and Dariusz never would have lost to. Specializing in beating mid level fighters is worth something.
Lastly, not everyone gets the luxary of fighting in a great era.
Kid Norfolk is one of the few fighter's whose record speaks for itself. He was 5-0 against world champions and he beat every good black fighter (who many of the white contenders would not face), of his time. His only un-avenged losses during his prime were against Hall of Famers Sam Langford and Harry Wills. He defeated both Harry Greb and Billy Miske twice and he knocked out George Godfrey in 4 rounds
The above was taken from a boxing historian on another site.
And losing was common place for fighters such as Norfolk who were routinely jobbed because of their color. We could also talk about the other circumstances of the time such as having to fight injured or with little notice.
Sorry *****, we're gonna disagree on this one. I don't think Norfolk was the best, but I can't rank fighters ahead of him that took on lesser competition under optimum circumstances.
I won't make any more lists so to avoid getting laughed at by such ignorants as JAB. Who btw thinks that the best fighters are the ones that have been on the ATG lists the longest amount of time! With such criterias, you are guaranteed a job in any rubbish American magazine.
You would be better off not making anymore lists since you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stick to talking about Lego's and Silly Putty with the other children.
You would be better off not making anymore lists since you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stick to talking about Lego's and Silly Putty with the other children.
I bet I am older than you. Whatever. I'm sure you'll find some crappy excuse even if you are younger than me. Something like "I am more mature than you anyway".
I bet I am older than you. Whatever. I'm sure you'll find some crappy excuse even if you are younger than me. Something like "I am more mature than you anyway".
I could care less how old you are, your knowledge of boxing history sucks to this point.
I am old enough to have worked out with Steve Collins in 1990, the guy you rank what, 24th all time?
Im sure your list made an impression on a few posters here.:
And it should. It was honest, not after the book like most of the rest! I didn't care what anybody would think of it. Those ARE the guys I think are the best fighters in history. The very order is hard to get right, so I didn't give much damn if I didn't get it 100% correct.
And it should. It was honest, not after the book like most of the rest! I didn't care what anybody would think of it. Those ARE the guys I think are the best fighters in history. The very order is hard to get right, so I didn't give much damn if I didn't get it 100% correct.
Thats fine and I don't have a problem with it being YOUR list. But it does show what little you know of boxing history and that you are immature to take it being criticized so personally.
Thats fine and I don't have a problem with it being YOUR list. But it does show what little you know of boxing history and that you are immature to take it being criticized so personally.
Sorry, had to laugh. Have you been on the other parts of this forum?? MOST guys here will react as violently and some even more violently than I did if anybody ridiculed their opinions like you did. You just don't do that.
Comment