Originally Posted by Flea Man
I'm taking Moore, but I'm pitting him against the best welterweight version of Shane weighing in on the same day. But yeah, I was giving Shane a small chance, I still think he was quicker of hand, essentially I was saying he'd fare the better out of those three stylistically. Would you agree?
What about Trinidad? A Reid-esque fight? If so, could Moore do better? I'll take Trinidad but I'm all ears.
Could only do one or the other, I agree with that too.
Tito? I sway back and forth on that one.I've probably argued Moore's case for it being very close in older threads, but i'm not sure who i'd go for gun to head.Moore had a fair bit more offensive ability and power than Reid or Vargas so it's less likely to be the same sort of "competitive for 6 or so rounds with shakey moments then tito grinds em down" outcome.
More likely to be brutal and filled with give-take till near the end, which could come at any time past the early rounds.
As far Mosley goes i hear you, though ive just never saw what folk see in the post-Forrest Mosley.He became almost as worn looking as post-Honeyghan Curry offering up few strong showings other than the margarito fight.Guess the sun shines on an old dog's **** once in a while.
I just think how Mosley was cowed by hard right hands and a butt or two against Forrest and can't see him having the will to win against most of the better talented offensive fighters above Welter.He'd be inconsistent at 147 enough as it is, without having to take chopping right hands from the likes of Moore, McCallum etc