I missed out on most of Molina's career but stumbled upon the guy through his trilogy with Tony "The Tiger" Lopez. He seemed like a great fighter but for some reason, He never seems to get any credit when the discussion of great PR fighters comes up. He seemed to have enough power to hurt Lopez and some underrated technical ability. So basically how good was Molina and how was he viewed in his prime? On top of that, how would Molina do if he was dropped into today's SFW scene? Any responses would be appreciated.
His name pops up from time to time in the classic section. I've also only seen a handful of fights, so I certainly am not an expert on the man. My view is that he was a good allrounder, and quite a 'cute' fighter, but tough. I always felt he'd have given fellow Lopez nemesis Brian Mitchell a really hard fight, based on styles.
Would a fair comparison (not necessarily in terms of career achievements but the type of fight he brings) to John John Molina be Ken Buchanan? A sort of technician who can spoil anybody on a given night?
Mmm...I see what you're saying, but Buchanan was on another level for me. Molina for me was a bit of a dark horse at 130 in the early 90's...like you say on his best day he could conceivably have beaten all the 130 pounders of the era, although he'd have to fight out of his skin to beat the likes of Nelson, but sure, he could have. If memory serves, he was fighting pretty respectable opposition well into his 30's, and giving a good account of himself. I think his trilogy with Lopez deserves more recognition than it generally gets, becasue it was a good one.
Molina was a good fighter. He was De la Hoya's first tough fight, a lot of people at the time even thought John John won it.
I'd say he was more like a better version of Casamayor. had more talent than Tony Lopez imo, but didn't put it together as well or as consistently.
Right I'd agree....I thought he won the first Lopez fight though. He had Lopez ready to go in round 8 but just couldn't seal the deal. All credit to The Tiger for surviving.
I always though Molina was a very good and underrated fighter, as was Lopez. I'd favor either of those guys to beat anyone currently at 130. Both of them came around in a pretty strong division and had impressive title reigns. I do believe Lopez beat him fair and square in both their first and third fights. As has been said, Molina had the more natural talent, but Lopez's toughness and caginess sometimes neutralized that.
I agree on the third but could you tell me why you thought he won the 1st one? Just want to hear a different take on it.
I thought Molina built up a big early lead, but then backed off and let Lopez take the late rounds. Plus Molina's KD in the early rounds was negated by a point deduction he lost later on, if I remember correctly.
I thought the same thing except I still felt like Molina BARELY eeked it out. Then again the blame ultimately HAS to fall on Molina, Taking on Lopez in Sacramento means you have to take the fight. He just didn't do enough in the end and that's ultimately the way it works sometimes in boxing.