Dick Tiger vs. Rodrigo Valdez

Richard Ihetu takes this, and possibly by stoppage.

 

It's been done a few of times. Opinions are usually pretty split on it.

I still maintain Valdez simply has a good style for Tiger. Although he could box somewhat, he did tend to slug and his defense wasn't that good. Anyone who gets caught up in a toe-to-toe fight with Tiger is going to get beat. Tiger can do pretty much anything Valdez does, but is better in most areas. Essentially, I'd say Valdez was a poor man's version of Tiger. Plus, Tiger was proven against a far better level of competition through his career.

 

I think that Valdez was certainly capable of fighting the right fight and outpointing Tiger. Valdez also had the power to "emphasize his point" let's say along the way, and who knows, maybe he would benefit from the counsel of Gil Clancy as well as his buddy Emile Griffith, who both knew something about dealing with Tiger. Valdez was capable of boxing when against the right opponent, like Briscoe for example. He wasn't just some wind-up brainless slugger.

 

I think Valdez could show excellent defensive technique at times. I thought he fought pretty brilliantly in the second Briscoe fight, though he tended to coast at times, letting Briscoe outwork him through sheer workrate before dropping the bomb in the 7th. I think his tendancy to let off the steam through stretches of the fight was his biggest weakness, though I always considered Tiger more or a boxer/slugger who picked his spots than a pressure fighter like Briscoe. Therefore I don't think Tiger is necessarily a bad style for him, and I definitely think Valdez has the guns to go to war with him. It would be a hell of a scrap, but if I had to bet I'd go with Tiger's persistance down the stretch and strength inside narrowly getting the better of Valdez. Could be wrong, though.

 

Tiger on points.

 

Valdez, who had similarly quick hands, was probably only very slightly behind Tiger for strength, durability and endurance.

Difference is, Valdez cracked harder.

Anyone talking about Valdez' coasting of rounds must also acknowledge Tiger's, surely.

And I bet the people claiming Tiger was more proven and using it in their favour are the same people who'd pick Marvin Hagler over Harry Greb.

 

It could go either way on the day. As it is i'll pick Tiger, simply to dog it out in a close one.

 

I'd take Tiger by UD.

 

Then they are c***s,because Greb is more proven at 160lbs than Hagler imo.
Weighing 160 ,or thereabouts,Greb beat.
Jones
McTigue
McGoorty
Wilson
Gibbons. M
Gibbons. T
Gunboat Smith
Tunney
Norfolk
Renault
Levinsky
Flowers
Mantell
Madden
McCoy
Weinert
Smith
Downey
Dillon
Miske .giving him 24lbs .
That pisses on Hagler's resume at 160..
Hagler's best wins at the weight, were over a 2 Light middles ,and a former light weight.

 

What a great fight this would be. Tiger would be the slight favourite but I think it´s close to 50/50. Valdez has all the tools to beat tiger but he tends to brawl at times. If he does so I expect Tiger to do just more. If Valdez manages to box he may take the division but Tiger had some skills too and wasn´t too bad in cutting the ring I think. Hard to decide.

 

i'd take valdez over tiger.

 

Why you felt the need to remind me of this, I don't know.

 

Actually, it was put up to forestall your prediction that someone would disagree.
I don't allways have you in mind when I post.






Darling xxxx.

 

Bump