Wilfredo Gomez

At virtually all "crossroads" fights (sporting events. etc.) the loser usually comes up with a justification why he lost.....Gomez said he
underestimated Sanchez.

Sanchez in his last 6 victories had defeated fighters with a total
record of 255 wins and 13 losses (including the rematch with D. Lopez)

It was Gomez's responsibility to understand what Sanchez's record meant.

His swollen eyes, and being driven to the canvas, brought the point home in a very hard way.

 

Gomez and Jamie Garza would've been a thriller.

 

The classic 122 lb Gomez, when facing a formidable opponent that presented a potential threat to him like Zarate, for instance, he would have been virtually unbeatable. He utilized in nearly equal proportions his catlike cleverness and boxing ability with his deadly power to a degree that would have made him dominant against ANYONE.

 

atsch Yes, the way Morales "schooled" him to win by 2 points then get stopped twice, and the way Marquez "schooled" him getting put flat on his back 4 times and winning zero out of 2 fights. What a '****.

 

Great post. Gomez at his best was a talent comparable to almost any other. An incredible fighting machine.

 

That's an interesting and rather surprising call mate. Why do you think Tito looked better than Morales did in his prime?

I think I would probably favour Morales as being slightly better in terms of ability myself.

Tito was a destroyer at welterweight sure, but his opposition was not exactly stellar. Oscar clearly beat him when they met, and although Tito then excelled at lightmiddle, he was always prone to being dropped, and the way that Hopkins, Winky and Oscar outboxed him does lead me to think a certain style of fighter could always have and would always beat him.

By comparison, Morales wasn't perfect either, he too had his flaws in his prime, he sloppily allowed guys like Zaragoza and McCullough have more of the fight than they should have (ie he could've boxed them better), and he did lose his two big trilogies, but Morales was a bit more versatile I think. He boxed Pacquiao superbly in their first fight, and he brawled equally well in the third fight with Barrera. He was excellent against Jesus Chavez, and solid against guys like Ayala and Chi.

Taking each on their best night, I think peak Morales is the safer bet to win against a range of opponents at his best weight.

What do you think mate?

 

I think Tito had a pretty good reign at welter. Man for man is was as good, possibly better then Erik's at 122. Plus he was plenty dominant against some very solid fighters.

I guess you gotta wonder how does either fair against the others opposition. Its kind of hard with the size disparity. But Id say Erik loses to the guys Tito did, including the loss that didnt get counted.

But I dont know if a 147 version of Barerra could take on a rangy, competently skilled wrecking ball like Tito. He took on a short, distracted and lazy wrecking ball in Hamed but I dont need to tell you the differences between those fights.

**** its hard to say..sorta making me dizzy right now thinking about it.

 

Except Sanchez. He never did look 100% at Feather. Great fighter, one of my favourites.

 

Anyone whos seen his fight with Davila will be in no doubt as to Gomez's boxing ability. A master.

At 126 he doesn't impress me too much.

Best 122lber ever; no one lasts the distance over 15 with him, not Morales, McCullough, anyone.

 

Gomez is one of the best fighters to watch ever. He was the Sugar Ray Robinson of the SBW's. The man is the total package just lacked that added greatness that the creamof teh crop had.

 

It was pretty much a schooling though, could have been wider than 2points, could have been 4points and thats after Morales went moi macho in the last round going southpaw to prove a point, which if he didnt could have made it a 9-3 fight.

Think Manny beats Gomez though, especially 126 and above

 

Christ, stop bumping up old threads with half-assed throwaway comments.add something substantial at least.

 

No chance was Morales-Pacquiao an 8-4. It was closer than that for sure.

 

Morales was more diverse than Tito Pop, but Tito's physical presence and power made him a more dominant force imo. He was just that little bit better at his best weight because of those reasons, and Morales' diversity does not set that off.

Morales would have lost to a similar sized DLH too imo, and probably still would have had a battle from a fading Whitaker (if we take his struggle with an old mechanical Zaragoza as any evidence) and Vargas too (if we take his struggle with a basically one armed Jesus Chavez as evidence). Give that he struggled with Guty Espadas too he probably would have had his hands full with an Oba Carr as well.

I personally feel Tito would knock a fighter like Barrera out, even if Barrera did outbox him along the way, and he could have knocked Pacquiao out too though I can see him losing that one too becuase of Pac's speed.

Tito did get schooled pretty badly by Hopkins, but Morales probably would have been schooled by Hopkins too if he went and fought a Hopkins at 130. Not as badly though.

I won't look too deeply into the Winky loss, as I wouldn't look too deeply into the Raheem loss for Morales, given that they were pretty much past it by that stage.

I think Morales would have more success against boxer types than Tito, but Tito would have more success than Morales against the guys that liked to fight off the front foot or stand their ground occasionally. With Tito's power and stalking presence though, he's always a chance to end a fight against a slightly chinny boxer.

But I must say, I never really thought Morales and Barrera were as good as DLH and Tito when they were all around in their primes.

 

So there wasnt 1 of PAcquaios rounds that couldnt have gone the other way? I'd disagree