though stil a good fighter,Winstone was faded after the epic 2nd Saldivar fight(i dont think Saldivar looked quite the same in their third fight either actually). Incidentally, the first fight between the two is the actually the best and closest back and forth fight, if not as brutal.
Apparently the Don Johnson loss was controversial to say the least. Some thought Winstone won 7 of the 10 rounds. Haven't seen it though so can't comment. On Pac vs. Winstone, Pac would have a chance of stopping Winstone, and he'd need to in order to win the fight because I don't see him doing anything but getting outboxed with his one dimensional attack. Winstone was no defensive master imo, and would get hit alot, but he was also pretty rugged, and the more textured and multi-layered Saldivar had to go to all lengths to stop him (in a fight where Winstone was clearly past it mind...) I'd favour Winstone ever so slightly against Pac, but I can see Pac getting him out of there too. On Charles and Burley, don't get me wrong, I think they look pretty good, but not near good enough to measure up to their ostensible p4p standings. There's plenty of fighters below both in a p4p sense that I'd look at for instruction on how to fight and picking out greatness than those two. As for Ramos vs. Morales, yep, Eric gets beat down. Not really a question in my mind.
I think winstone was one of those rarer textbook fighter that was better at defending against wild hooks and awkward attacks than great straight punches.Most classic textbook types seem to go the other way. I agree with you on how a fight would go.pac would either score a shocking early KO as he almost did with Marquez and he would do well early, but unless he's able to do enough damage in the first 2 or 3 rounds, it would be him getting him style mapped and worked around thereafter.
Haven't seen either of the Don Johnson fights myself, but even if the first weren't a robbery, I don't think it's much of a mark against Winstone given that he avenged the loss quite clearly from what I know. Anyone have any info on Guerrero? He was a rated contender at one point, was he not? Not that it matters, because I actually agree with Addie that by the time of the Winstone fight he looked a pretty useless fighter. Still, it's one of my favourite masterclass performances of all time.
It's no Kalule vs Ho Joo though. Guerrero went the distance with saldivar and Laguna a few years back.He probably looked a bit better against fighters that stayed in front of him more i would guess, but i haven't seen any more of him to be sure.
You've yet to upload that one ya lazy *******. I've been hearing about it for so long I feel like I have seen it.
Even though I agree with Swarmer that Whitaker has the best resume of the last 20 years, I still agree with you here Vic. There's a lot of fighters in the history of the sport with a better resume than Whitaker that rank below him on most people's lists. I suppose that's understandable though if you place a premium or at least a lot of merit on ring dominance. Not many had a more dominant prime than Whitaker. Love how even calling Hatton not that bad is controversial around these parts.
fitzsimmons was great, but he doesn't look that good on film. and i think whitaker has a really good resume. he settled at the right weights, beat who he needed too, didn't 'lose' until he was finished. he did a lot in fewer than fifty fights.
Not as many were dominant past prime either. His style is one that exists to bore for the majority of a fight, and especially against a mover like Corbett who he has a style disadvantage against. He blocks, he feints his way inside and then slams a huge one into a vital point. Pretty boring for 23/25 rds, but extremely effective. It is what it is.
I'm not sure how controversial this one is : Joe Calzaghe is not even among the top 10 British fighters of all-time.