Tweet
Kind of see where you are going with that Sonny but think you are being a bit harsh.
For example I'm always a bit dubious of how highly Les Darcy gets rated by some, obviously a very good fighter but when people starting putting him in at top 10/20 atg MW I think they may be guilding the lilly a touch. At the end of the day he was dead at 21 and if you drew a line across many fighters careers at 21 or even 24,25 you would have an extremely slanted view of them. Think of Benetiz,Curry, Nunn, Norris etc etc
Kind of the James Dean syndrome I think of it.
Taking the 3 fighters you have mentioned, I would struggle to find 20 fighters with a resume of strong as Langford's. Whilst I wouldn't have backed him against Johnson who should have given him a shot and likewise Dempsey I think given the range of weights he fought at you would have to admit he would have picked up a world title or two had he have been given his shots?
Wills is a tricky one, great fighter with a better resume than Dempsey.
Should Dempsey have fought him? Yes. Do I think he would have beaten Dempsey? No
I think Wills place in history has been enhanced by Dempsey not fighting him ironically.
Re Burley should he have gotton a shot? Yes. Would he have picked up a world title? Possibly. I think he would have had the beating of Zale or Graziano but unfortunately the figure of Robinson looms dark over his era. I think that SRR avoided Burley, as he was not the best guy to fight weighing up risk v reward, but I don't think Burley would have beaten Robinson.
So kind of see your point ( excepting Langford) but think you might have overshot a bit.
I'll always score you a lot of points for honesty though, criticising those 3 is always going to get you a lot of criticism.
For example I'm always a bit dubious of how highly Les Darcy gets rated by some, obviously a very good fighter but when people starting putting him in at top 10/20 atg MW I think they may be guilding the lilly a touch. At the end of the day he was dead at 21 and if you drew a line across many fighters careers at 21 or even 24,25 you would have an extremely slanted view of them. Think of Benetiz,Curry, Nunn, Norris etc etc
Kind of the James Dean syndrome I think of it.
Taking the 3 fighters you have mentioned, I would struggle to find 20 fighters with a resume of strong as Langford's. Whilst I wouldn't have backed him against Johnson who should have given him a shot and likewise Dempsey I think given the range of weights he fought at you would have to admit he would have picked up a world title or two had he have been given his shots?
Wills is a tricky one, great fighter with a better resume than Dempsey.
Should Dempsey have fought him? Yes. Do I think he would have beaten Dempsey? No
I think Wills place in history has been enhanced by Dempsey not fighting him ironically.
Re Burley should he have gotton a shot? Yes. Would he have picked up a world title? Possibly. I think he would have had the beating of Zale or Graziano but unfortunately the figure of Robinson looms dark over his era. I think that SRR avoided Burley, as he was not the best guy to fight weighing up risk v reward, but I don't think Burley would have beaten Robinson.
So kind of see your point ( excepting Langford) but think you might have overshot a bit.
I'll always score you a lot of points for honesty though, criticising those 3 is always going to get you a lot of criticism.
Comment