who wins?? This happening at welter. a prime mcgirt was a slick and shifty cat who could also lay the whammy on you if you didnt watch out. oscar was..........well, you remember oscar at welter: great jab, great left hook, good right, solid chin..........but a little robotic. oscar has the edge in height being 5´11..........mcgirt was only around 5´6. but mccgirt was pretty hard to get with a jab. he knew what upper body movement was all about.....so he might be able to nullify oscars advantage in size. and that creates problems for oscar. remember pernell vs oscar. mcgirt wasnt as slick, but he hit harder than the pea. so who wins???
ODH, his hand speed is the deciding factor I think ,I liked Mcgirt,he was a very well schooled fighter ,had a lot of Old School moves ,eg Walcotts "walk away"and the shoulder feints ,but Oscar has the height ,reach and speed to take a decision imo.
Oscar's probably a little too big and rangy, but a '91 McGirt would still give him fits. Buddy's main weakness was stamina and DLH's unlikely to tax that. Buddy's mix of shifty movement and good punching skills is likely to make DLH reluctant and shift the bout to one of those close, tense low action battles that so characterised DLH's welterweight career against the better fighters.
Oscar is a legend, and McGirt is not . This is not a fair matchup. McGirt was totally overrated. I remember how he acted cocky when he had papers for Meldrick to sign after Buddy stopped Howard Davis. McGirt was trying to say that Taylor was ducking him and not signing, then Taylor beats him up in round 1 and McGirt literally quit. What makes Buddy even competitive with a guy with Hall of Fame skills like Oscar.
To go tit for tat on such a ridiculous post, and answer with a ridiculous comment, I'd say the fact he did about as well against Whitaker with one hand as Oscar did with 2, and Buddy was facing the fresher, better version.
