Kid Gavilan - head-to-head monster?

I always think it's madness when people claim someone who's never come remotely close to being battered in his life would get battered. Picking him to be beaten on the strength of the weaknesses you have seen in his make up in conjunction with the strengths that his hypothetical opponent posesses, yes, that's very normal thinking. But the onyl reason I would pick someone to be battered in a purely fantasy match up is of someone of a similar style to his hypothetical opponent had battered him in reality. I know you're going to say that Floyd is a katrillion years behind Gavilan as a boxer but the fact that he's hardly took many punches clean just makes it seem rather crazy to claim he's getting battered to me. In the interest of being objective I can only look at empirical evidence, and there's nothing to suggest Mayweather's getting smashed around the ring and battered from what I've seen. If you think Gavilan wins then yes I agree, he was better than Floyd and also a lot bigger naturally, if you're saying it's a shut out and a drubbing then I disagree.

Judah did enough with his fast hands and punches in bunches to convince me that Gavilan sustains it and wins. Gavilan also faces someone in Floyd with as great a defence he has ever experienced. Take from that what you will.

 

Fair enough, though incidentally i'd say the jab is one area where Griffith at his peak was better than Jose.He could disrupt with it like Napoles could, but was better at also really racking up points with it. doubling and tripling and rarely ever telegraphing it.

 

Well I don't think Galivan has been in with anyone like Starling. I'd hesitate to pick a winner but I think Starling is technically better, defensively more sound, looks stronger, a bit more intense. I'd actually favour him, Gavilan does a few things better granted

I think the 80s post Fab 5 WW pack are probably the most underrated WWs in history

I think this is a tad of an exaggeration although I'd agree Napoles always beats Griffith, who I'd agree always didn't quite dominate enough in his big fights

I think Flea would actually be more of a fan of FMJs if he didn't consider him a *****, he's a Kalambay and Starling fan after all. I actually think Mayweather is an outright better boxer than Galivan. Judah is more of an intense frontrunner but he didn't really ever get on top of Floyd either, he was missing allot early if you watch it again. Floyd does have a few issues with the southpaw angle, doesn't create the angle for the jab so well and consequently has to come forward against them to throw power shots. I don't think Gavilan utilises his height well enough to outbox Mayweather so get's beat to the punch

 

Antonio Margarito and Golden Johnson

 

Ratford won. Twice. :deal

 

Everything i've read says doug was a clear winner. It's not like it was a one off he beat him twice as well.

I concur though doug beats him h2h and should be favoured above him.

 

PP, it's not down to Floyds personality, more his career post-Cadtillo I, where he's fought too sporadically and not impressed me as much as he did before :good

On Starling, I'll go into that in more depth tomorrow.

 

LMAO at Starling being more intense than Gavilan.

I'm a big starling fan but the guy coasted along quite content to show of his defensive skills near enough every other fight.It's the main reason he wasn't greater.

 

Yeah, and Gavilan was a scarily intense demon-faced fighter. Scary looking bloke in full flow.

As for Starling, one of my favourite fighters, but too many instances of him coasting, showboating, and not punching enough when he was in front. His overconfidence cost him a few times.

After (and during) Molinares he seemed to drop his hands more and let his hands go more, but he was slipping by then. I thought Blocker edged him. Gavilan has the jab and punch variety to breach his defence enough to score more, indont see Moochy forcing his inside game on him too often, at mid-range Starling was quality but Gavilan way more consistent. Starling didn't win fights from that range, even if he was more than capable there.

 

The odds may be favorable to do it, or metaphorically speaking I think the underdog might not be much of an underdog.

 

It was about 20 hours after my first post thank you.

 

Leonard
Duran
Hearns
Napoles

 

20 hours spent exclusively watching Gavilan footage, no doubt.

 

Close decision loss by a Cuban in an American fighter's backyard? Wouldn't be surprised if he beat Ratford too.

Especially when you hold your own with one hand.

The Saxton fight was a typical Saxton set-up farce. Anyone that watches that fight knows it was rigged all the way. One of the softest sparring sessions you will ever see.

The Womber fight was close, but I still thought Gavilan edged it. The crowd got excited by Womber being in the fight though... You know how that goes...

Yes.

Gavilan was a fantastic fighter, and imo he is a borderline top 10 all time guy when you cut through all the bull.

IMO he is every bit the fighter that a Barney Ross was, say. He was just unfortunate to be born Cuban.

 

Everything I can find suggests the ratford loss is on the level.

How you mean rigged?

I'll look further into womber.

Not sure how I rank him to be honest but i'd imagine top 20 etc.