why do so many old timers look so bad on tape???

Today's featherweights are a fair amount bigger.

They get to take their blood out and put it back in after the weigh in, 30 hours or so before the fight.

 

i think a lot of if has to do with the evolution of the athlete in general. athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, have dietitians, and trained more effective/and sport specific. between training fast twitch muscles with plyometrics and taking correct(legal) supplements even the most novice athlete can make imporvements

 

That's Zapata.

 

Is there any point in me saying I was joking?

To address your analysis (again) concerning Barrera's reach, speed, jab and size disparity, it could well prove accurate, but I disagree for the following reasons:

- Saldivar was at a size disparity his entire career. It played little part; in fact, he made it work for him. He could loop the overhand left from the outside as he did against Winstone, and even if it didn't land it brought him into range, partly disguising the follow-up blows to head and body that his opponent hadn't anticipated. He was still able to land his jab on any opponent despite his reach and was pretty good at avoiding the opponents jab into the bargain, which also brought him into range.

- The jab. Any footage of Howard Winstone clearly shows that he had a magnificent jab, one of the best in featherweight history IMO. Timing, precision, variety, decent snap, everything. Barrera had a great jab himself, but it wasn't as good as Winstone's in an overall sense. Despite his late career evolution, Barrera had less success when he tried to box Morales, Marquez, Juarez and Pacquaio. They were able to take his jab away from him to a certain degree; he actually looked better (excellent in fact) when he stepped in against Marquez and Morales and let his hands go rather than trying to box from range. He'd land the jab against Saldivar of course, but he wouldn't be able to control him with it just as he couldn't control Morales or Juarez in the first fight(though he was in twilight of his prime by then I suppose). Hitting Hamed, Kelley and Tapia with the jab won't prepare him for what Saldivar would bring (which isn't to say that he wouldn't have a fair deal of success with it before you say anything).

- Speed. Like I said earlier, Barrera wasn't faster than Laguna or Legra. Not an issue.

- Saldivar being a counterpuncher. He was, but he was an aggressive counterpuncher who could also lead and close the distance in a second if he wanted. He could also be painstakingly patient, just as he was against a swift moving target like Winstone, conceding a few early rounds while he got Winstone's measure and built up a head of steam in the championship rounds.

- 12 rounds. Barrera was a bonafide 12 round fighter with no evident stamina issues who could generally control the pace of a fight against certain types. But Saldivar beat both Laguna and Legra over 10 rounds and stopped Seki, Winstone and Ramos all inside 12 as well as other opponents. He knew when to step it up whatever the distance was, be it 10,12 or 15.

I could go into deep waters where Barrera's merits are concerned, the man was a fantastic fighter and probably my favourite in recent years (it took me ages to build up the guts to watch Pacquiao batter him like that and still pains me now). I'm just not as blind to the few flaws he had in his armour as I once was. But it's a bit rich to accuse me of being biased when you yourself are openly so towards Barrera.

Agreed.

Don't talk like a wally, you're too good of a poster to resort to kid's tactics like that. If you can't take criticism where Barrera is concerned, that's up to you. See above for my thoughts on the man. A great, great fighter as I've always said. Just slightly outmatched in key departments in this fight and doesn't bring anything to the table that VS can't ultimately handle (not not struggle with, key difference). I'm not the only one who thinks so, not that it would bother me if I wasn't without meaning to sound arrogant.

You've given Saldivar his dues to the extent you know about him, no doubt. I wasn't questioning that.

By the way, my eyes were rolling in the back of my head with sleep last you *******. I nearly cried when I saw that initial reply all broken down and quantified. Lengthy replies aren't my strength.

Now **** off

 

I can only base my opinions off footage I have seen, Tin. You understand that. Saldivar does not look faster than Marco, his technique doesn't look as flawless as Barrera's, and I see more variation in Marco's combination's. I don't think Saldivar would have beaten Marco at 126lbs. I wouldn't say I have been biased, I've outlined what I think both men's strengths and weaknesses are, whereas all you've done is highlight Saldivar's strengths and how he can exploit Marco's shortcomings.

Footage doesn't lie, people do. Saldivar isn't as impressive as hyped based on the footage I've seen. Care to explain why that is?

No chance. :good

 

Either you haven't see enough of him or you don't appreciate certain styles as much as others. What you have to learn to do is analyse how effective rather than how aesthetically pleasing boxers are. Do you think Monzon looked particularly impressive on first glance? I for one used to think Michael Spinks was damn near unwatchable because of how awkward and gangly he initially looked, but upon watching and studying more and more footage I grew to love watching him. Sometimes these things take time.

 

Who know's who is judging the footage truly accurately though, addie?.And even if you are, sometimes fights play out in ways they shouldn't.For instance, how can you truly come to the conclusion Saldivar was a lesser version of Marco(personally i don't think they were that similar, other than their basic stance)when he did better against almost of the A level men he fought and certainly coped better with the straight punching jab/right hand fighters.

Some fighters have a "more than the sum of the parts" feel to them imo.A lot of the greats in fact.saldivar has it when i watch his fights.TO me, he's like Marcinao in mentality and steady relentlessness, but with much better technical chops.IF someone sees that in Barrera it's all good.

Though i'm no big fan of him and don't consider him a great, i thought Tito Trinidad had it to a lesser extent, as long as he wasn't fighting very good movers or defensive specialists.I'd have picked him t grind out KO's of all of the top recent featherweights if he were the same size, despite being clearly deficient in some ways.

 

Perhaps, Pea. You do make a great point regarding sighting the difference between being effective and aesthetically pleasing. It has been a trouble of mine and perhaps still is. However, I just want to clarify my position again. I do think Saldivar looks good on film, very good, and I have no complaints with people picking him against Marco Antonio Barrera. He hit hard enough to hurt him, and he was an accurate puncher in volume in his own right. However, I have a problem accepting that he was a better combination puncher when we consider accuracy, speed, and variation.

Michael Spinks is one of my favorite fighters of all time, I've always thought his awkward delivery was immense. I heard someone say he had no snap in his punches a few weeks back. Nonsense. When he threw with mean intentions, you would cringe at the TV because you knew if they landed someone would most likely be on their back. He was a slow starter though, and sometimes he'd throw a lazy lead uppercut...which does seem rather amateurish. Apart from that, love to watch him fight.

By my own admission, I have based all of my opinions on Saldivar on like an hours worth of crappy youtube footage.

 

Great points you make Sweet Pea!:deal I'll agree with this and save my fingers any more typing.

 

Which is? Footage I mean.

Watch more footage then is all I can say. You'll find that some people may disagree, and with good reason. You could say that Benny Leonard doesn't look all that impressive based on the sole footage against Tendler (which is actually more in the original spirit of the thread ). Doesn't matter, people still pick Leonard to beat loads of people in fantasy matchups based on footage of the people he beat and on reliable accounts by people who know more than you or I do. The footage available of the men Saldivar beat speaks for itself and is relevant to how he'd fair in an imaginary fight.

I'm far from the definitive authority on Saldivar, but he looks very good on film to me with no obvious weaknesses, an observation backed up by the fact that he dominated a brilliant era filled with contrasting fighters. If I remember rightly, you used to think that Chavez was a slugger at some point (I could be wrong)? Saldivar is the kind of man who requires a bit of watching to appreciate how good he was. Not like Barrera, whose aesthetic qualities are evident on first viewing. I used to think the same thing about Monzon; in fact, I was downright underwhelmed the first time I watched him. Further viewing made it more apparent how good he was at what he did.

You might not change for opinion on Saldivar, which is your prerogative. But you might. I've noticed that you have a preference for the technically precise classic types like Barrera, Chavez and Canizales with Spinks being the notable exception.

 

I don't think I ever described Saldivar as being a lesser version, and I disagree with you, I see similarities with Marco. The obvious ones. Their stance was rather similar as you sighted, as was their overall style. Saldivar would counter with quick combination's and worked behind a good jab. So did the best version of Marco Antonio Barrera.

I do realize that there's a lot to Saldivar's game that I've not given great consideration, if only because I've not seen enough footage of him. That said, I've been very specific in which way I've compared them. Accuracy, speed, and variation. I can concede that Saldivar could have possibly been more accurate, but I think the other two factors clearly belong to Marco.

 

aint watched Saldivar in a while and i wasnt truly struck by it but i could see he was a great pressure fighter with no real weakness

neeed to watch my DVD of him again

 

The footage presented in this thread and his third effort against Winstone. Is it worth watching his fight with Shibata? As I understand, he'd come back from a lay off and had lost a step.

You're absolutely right regarding Chavez. I was a little clueless at one point, and in some ways I still am, but I'm willing to learn. That'll be why I had footage of Saldivar on it's way too me, because it's not that I want to believe Barrera was better, but that's the conclusion I've come to by watching both fighters. I think I'm going to give him another watch on youtube in a minute.

That's true. I have no idea why I like Spinks so much, it does go against other fighters I like. That said, Myung Yuh is often accused of being more of a work horse than a talented technician and I absolutely love to watch him work. Off topic, but I do think Yuh is a good boxer on the outside, and had a good variety of offensive tools at his disposable.

 

You can educate me on Yuh, I've not seen all that much of him. And you held your own quite admirably in that Spinks-Jones Jr thing a while back I have to say. Spinks was a thing to behold in his day.

Regarding Saldivar-Shibiata, he'd come out of retirement and clearly wasn't the same fighter. He wasn't able to adapt as Barrera did in the wake of physical decline. And he was shot to **** by the time Jofre got to him, though Jofre was about 37 himself.