Yeah they are biased because they knew 80-90 years later cable would have all the fights and there'd be an internet so they would protect the fighters in those days against modern day guys.
They could be bias toward styles ... kinda like how certain boxing reporters are nowadays.
He was recognized by the American boxing board as their world champion. Wilde was the European and they had a fight to unify. The bout determined the lineal and one true champion in the division.
A lot of the coverage isn't available but the resumes are there and we have to trust what the reporters said about those fights, those fighters and them in a historical sense based on that.
you are biased as ****, you rank them without seeing them yet slam Floyd???
It was a brand new division. You'll have to ask the commission why they American board made him their champ but he was defeated by the European champ who became the first champion in the divisions history.
No way in hell can you even make a damn argument of Jimmy Wilde or Saddler being anywhere close to Mayweather
You only just found out 20-30 mins ago that both were world champions after finding out who they are about an hour ago. There's quite a few historians who are more qualified than me and certainly more than you who would put both ahead of him. I didn't say as concrete. I said "could make case".
Comment