Why was Bramble able to basically beat Mancini so comfortably? (not easily each time, but just outclassed Mancini, and left Ray frustrated and beat up)
Mancini's team got the idea that he could beat any slugger (probably planted by the way he ran through Arturo Frias) but needed to avoid slick boxers (like Howard Davis Jr.) ... when in fact I think the opposite was true -- Ray's lack of defense and finesse was going to catch up with him when he fought a brawler type sooner or later. Bramble was a skilled toe-to-toe fighter and was strong enough (even though he didn't really look it) not to get steamrolled by Ray. Bramble was a well-schooled catch-and-counter fighter. Hands high and tight, elbows tucked in -- when Ray (or anyone else) hit him on the glove, he'd come back with a short, straight punch from that hand which would usually get there before the opponent's glove was back in place to block: Ray would throw a left hook, Livingstone would catch it with his right glove (or elbow if it was to the body) and Bramble would throw a quick, straight right back as the hook retreated. Over rounds, this wore Ray down and Bramble really took over as Mancini lost steam. To Ray's management, this looked like a good matchup on paper ... but in reality it was just the opposite. I would also note that Mancini had been in a lot of wars and was probably getting a tad shopworn, and the Kim fight definitely took something out of him.
'' Ray Mancini was never the same after the Kim fight " Bob Arum http://www.si.com/vault/1982/11/22/626517/then-all-the-joy-turned-to-sorrow#
Those were tough tough fights for Ray. Going in, nobody really thought a ton of Bramble though. Respected, sure but not looked at as cream of the crop of that division. What a tough set of counters Bramble was landing though. Clean. Both hands. And did he ever throw combinations. Rarely and I mean rarely, was it a single shot. That was his time to rise to the occasion and he did. Trouble is a guy like Bramble cannot maintain it & is the type to never have a bunch of title defenses. But on that initial championship night, he's a handful.
I was 15 when the first fight happened and had only been following boxing hard core for 6 months. Yet, even I knew Mancini was overrated. He had had a lot of trouble with Orlando Romero, an obscure Peruvian WBA rated guy. He had stopped Chacon, but Chacon was moving up and absorbed a hellacious beating against Boza in his previous fight. He was clearly there for the payday against Ray. Bramble used his strength, stamina and above average defense, especially his high guard, to let Mancini wear himself out, then pounced when Ray got a bit fatigued in the championship rounds. The ending was as decisive as it gets and only Mancini's popularity and excuse that he was "overtrained" got him an immediate rematch. The rematch was more competitive but the judges had it closer that it was. I keep hearing that Mancini was "never the same" after the Kim fight. But, Mancini was, quite simply, never a great fighter. A great fighter would not have had so much trouble beating the obscure Kim in the first place.
Wasn't it Kim that was the "fatality" on Mancini's record. Remember the "never the same" charge was applied to Ezzard Charles too, after a similar situation with Charles at his prime.
