I remember the furore about Gardner being so bad, and it was ridiculed. But did Chuck actually have a better career and perform better on the night? I would like to compare both:
GARDNER
Career - Chuck did actually beat Mike Tyson and Charles Atlas... Well not the well known ones..
http://boxrec.com/boxer/899
Performance - Chuck actually landed a couple of jabs, and shows some decent footwork for a fat old man. But he gets spectacularly kod in only 60 seconds
https://youtu.be/IDbwVmu7nXA
MARK DE MORI
Career - he did beat Ed Mahone on points, stopped Rob Calloway, and drew with a debuting Alex Leapai. But apart from Haye, no former or future champs. He also got stopped in 1 round by a journeyman Cruiser weight who he out weighed by 45 pounds.
http://boxrec.com/boxer/237842
Performance - he didn't land a single punch, and threw about only 6 before getting spectacularly knocked out. He lasted 131 seconds.
https://youtu.be/ds0FPgmuXi4
It's a tough one...Gardner does seem to slightly have the better skills, his fight against Tucker is also on https://youtu.be/Ddu7XuvWWmw But De Mori has the better power and lasted twice as long as Gardner. Chuck did beat 70 legend Young, did fight 4 future or past world champs....but obviously has more losses!
I am going to have to think about this one.....
