Just finished watching the Chang set I bought and wondered between the four above, who you all think is better or had a better career. I've been a big Watanabe and Lacier fan, who I have 8 fights of, and Chang really impressed me. I put Roman, because he beat Lacier and Watanabe and had a great career.
Chang is the best - both H2H at his own weight and career-wise. Watanabe was more talented than both Laciar and Roman but from what I've heard about him wasn't the most dedicated fighter. Hence the short career.
what about Bebis Rojas ? anyway , on blind , based purely on records which proved working 4 me : tier #1 : Santos Benigno Laciar , Bebis Rojas , Fidel Bassa , Sung-Kil Moon , Jiro Watanbe tier #2 : Ray Medel , Jesus Rojas , Jose Ruiz Julio Cesar Borboa , Robert Quiroga , Jung-Koo Chang , Nana Konadu , Gilberto Roman tier #3 : Hilario Zapata Back 2 topic : meaning that Roman was d worst of d 4 u mentioned
Watanabe was unlucky not to get the decision against Roman. You may appreciate this: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=32033&more=1
Roman really gets underrated. The guy was a virtuoso, a predicessor to Marquez and Lopez and he had plenty of bad luck of his own. I think he's roughly even with Chang, ahead of Lacier and Watanabe.
I just watched Santos' fights vs. Herrerra and Mathebula. He really was a terrific fighter and I now have a hard time ranking these 4, but know Roman I have below Lacier. Probably I would have Lacier and Watanabe 1 & 2
I think Chang is the clear number one of those four. Second would be Watanabe. Roman and Laciar are about even IMO.
Agree. Although Laciar has a notable (a very close one though) win over Hilario "Little Whitaker" Zapata. The tiebreaker?
