Gavilan vs Ratford: what's the deal here?

I guess Ratford has his number.

 

Yes. Ratford beats him.

 

It does?

The fights I've actually seen of Gavilan against quality opposition tell me a lot more.

He was defo pre prime..but maybe Ratford brought something that upset the Keed a little..either way his best work was later and at a higher weight.

Ratford I think was actually well thought of at the time...he had a patchy start but he was young and green as baby ****.

 

Ratfords hometown.

 

People can use the "pre-prime" alibi but - the second time against Ratford - Gavilan had just dropped a very much disputed decision to Ike Williams, and later in the year gave Robinson a tough fight.
In fact, two weeks after losing to Ratford, Gavilan beat capable veteran Tommy Bell on a split decision.

And if there's any evidence that it was a dodgy hometown decision or hometown fix, it needs to be presented.

Ratford seems to have been a pretty decent fighter. He drew with contender Gene Burton, and only lost to Bell by split decision, according to boxrec.
He was stopped only twice his entire career, obviously tough over 10 rounds.

Some guys just beat other guys, in the boxing game. Even if one is better h2h against the entire field, the other guy might have his beating. I'm sure a lot of great fighters have managers who were shrewd enough to steer them around their Doug Ratfords, but sometimes these things are unavoidable.
No great mystery.

 

The 2nd Dawson fight was supposedly an eliminator of sorts...with Freddie getting a shot at Ike Williams' title a few months after beating Ratford.

Ratford just gave to many good fighters to many good fights to be written off as not a good boxer.

It appears however that Kid developed a lot of skill in those years where he shifted from a two handed swarmer to more of a cerebral boxer type...one of the most all round skilled fighters I have seen..several guys on here who are far more versed on Gavilan's career then I am, say this happened after the Robinson fights.

It's very likely those two losses were a combination of several things...Gavilan not quite being the finished product, Ratford being a quality upset artist and seeing how the Keed's career panned out, he wasn't going to get any favours if the fight was an each way affair.
But I guess it's all speculation on our part.

 

I've seen enough bull**** decisions go against Gavilan to say I'll believe it when I see it.

Wouldn't be the first time Gavilan's dropped a decision where the reports suggest there was nothing wrong with the decision, only for the footage to suggest otherwise.

That said, no one is invincible....

 

Ratford was an aggressive, tough, infighting, hard-punching boxer. So it's possible that the judges scored for the busier fighter.
He was ranked #4 welterweight by the Ring magazing two months later after the second defeat of Gavilan.

 

I'm not sure why the need to rationalize it or explain it away.
You can call it "preprime" if you want, but I'd say Gavilan was well on his way to being the Gavilan we know - and was already a "better fighter" than Ratford, against the field.

I'll say again, it seems Ratford has his number, he 'knew how', he had the tools, the style.

There are probably always one or two journeyman fighters out there who can beat the great fighters, or the best current fighters. Some greats fighters are unlucky enough to come across them, or have managers who stubbornly match them twice.
That's boxing.