Been watching one of my favrouite fights out of one of my favrouite trilogies. Gilberto Roman vs Santos Lacier II. There not on Youtube which is annoying. Anyway the first bout is a good styles mix as Roman looks to move and box while Lacier takes center ring and looks to use his head movement to get inside and counter Roman. Really sets the tone and the stylisitc difference for the whole trilogy. I had Roman nicking it Lacier: 1,3,7,8,11 Roman:2,4,5,6,9,10,12 Total: 115-113 Roman (7-5) The second bout is the best one. Both guys show excellant skills and are constantly ad******g to each other to stay on top. The bout starts the same as the first as Roman jabs and moves and Lacier takes his time looking to get in and counter. Early on Lacier looks absoloute class using his head movement to step inside Roman and counter with short right ahnds and left hooks. It's the best I have seen Lacier box and he looks absoloutle superb doing so. Roman gets cut up very bad early on. Roman then starts to stand his ground and pushes Lacier back with a solid workrate and stiff shots. Lacier lands some good counters but is getting outworked and Roman is landing fairly decent aswell. Lacier then gets up on his toes and starts boxing superbly as he catches Roman coming in with counters then bounces away, never seen this before from Lacier so it was a brilliant tactical move by him. However in the 8th Lacier abandons the boxing and works his way inside and pushes Roman back - a total role reversal and is amazing to watch. Roman retaliating to Lacier's aggresiveness has to get on his bike and looks to keep the fight at longrange and is fairly sucessfull when Lacier takes a rest from his hard workrate. The 10th provides the best of the action as Lacier still looking to press is met head on by Roman who starts to push Lacier back in an inside battle. Roman really looks strong and is constantly pushing Lacier back but Lacier is landing some really classy counters, which makes the action even better. The bout is stopped early in the 11th due to Romans cuts, abit of a shame was really a greta bout and the scores would have been interesting. All the judges had Roman winning, which I disagree with. IMO this is one of Laciers best performances. Lacier: 2,3,4,7,8,10 Roman:1,5,6,9 Total:96-96 Lacier (6-4) The third fight is when both guys are slightly past it IMO. Lacier especially. I havent watched it in a while so can't remember too much about it, except that Roman gets back to his boxing and keeps the bout at long range to get a well deserved decision. Lacier: 2,6,8,11,12 Roman:1,3,4,5,7,9,10,11 Total:115-113 Roman (7-5) All in all a brilliant trilogy. Anyone got any thoughts on the fights/fighters/trilogy?
I had their first fight a draw (our round by round breakdown is quite different G - what else is new? lol ) and I thought their their third fight was little wider for Roman, but I agree with your breakdown of their second fight. My favourite of the bunch for sure. Laciar for me is quite an underrated fighter. There was no one thing that was exceptional about him, but he was a jack of all trades without any weaknesses, which is what made him exceptional. I don't see any flyweights having an easy time with him. He'd be competitive at the very least with the best in the division. He lost a little something at 115, but even there he was a fine fighter. I thought he edged Zapata, got the wrong end of the stick against Magri and clearly got the better of Juan Herrera in their rematch.
I watched it about a year ago before and had it like this Lacier: 2,3,6,7,9,11,12 Roman:1,4,5,8,10 Total: 115-113 Lacier (7-5) So a draw was fair, What was your round breakdown? It is quite a hard fight to score though, very close. That's fair enough, it was a closeish fight, but Lacier was past it. Did you have it exact same way? if so thats a shocker. And it is one of my favrouite Flyweight fights ever. Definitly, I am a big fan of Lacier. Like his style. He shows in the 2nd Roman fight his full repertoi IMO. The way he counter-punches, boxes and pressures all exceptionally well. He was also very sound defensivly and carried a good dig. I had Zapata a 10-5 to Lacier, he did real well in that fight. I havent seen the complete Magri fight and it has been a while. From what I remember Lacier did real well but kind of drifted in and out of the fight and concentration and Magri outworked him at points. I also remember Lacier's jab being superb when he used it. Have not seen teh Herrera rematch.
I have only watched the first fight. Didn't score it though. Will re-watch it and the 2nd tomorrow and get back to ya Greg. Am just sitting down to watch Marciano vs LaStarza II and Tiger vs Giardello IV :good
Nice one. The second one is a really good fight, I think you would like it how both men showcase a wide variety of skills. Tiger vs Giardello IV is a very good fight, absoloutly love it. Enjoy!
The first two fights should have done for them what the Trilogy did for barrera and Morales reputations...unfortunately that was a seriously hard era to break through to mainstream popularity in, especially for lighter weight fighters.
Their not exactly casual fans type of fights except maybe the second one. Its more a fight for proper boxing fans who appreciate technique and skills and tactics. But yeh they should have been given more notice. Out of interest how do you rate Roman?
Santos Laciar vs. Gilberto Roman I: 115-115 Draw Roman: 3,5,7,9 and 10. Laciar: 2,6,8,11 and 12. Rounds 1 and 4 even. I didn't score the second fight, knowing the result beforehand, but as far as the flow of the action goes I'd say you're pretty much spot on. True words. The Herrera rematch is well worth a watch. Quite an action packed fight if I remember correctly -quite in contrast to the Zapata fight which was a bit of a staring contest at times... Zapata had a habit of discouraging action though with his defense... made throwing punches at him seem futile at times.
Very different scorecard. It was a difficult fight to score though, will watch it again sometime this week. Aye, I was really impressed by the adaptability of both guys but also how well they did when fighting in unfamiliar ways. Very impressive. Will have to find a copy of the Herrera rematch. The Zapata fight aint the best, I think I just gave it to Lacier on workrate. Zapata must thought he could win a fight purely on defence.
Zapata and Laciar seemed to cancel out each other a lot, it's a very hard fight to score imo, and zapata had just been at a really bad place in his career, i don't think he had got his best form back.Far too conservative, though that inconsistency was what made him zapata, so no excuses, and he would certainly have won against a lesser fighter that night. a fight between them a few years earlier would have been a lot more entertaining, i'd say.
Yeah if you favour the guy trying to make the fight, then it's a fight you can score with quite a margin for Laciar, but it was a struggle to find a clean blow landed in that fight for either man. I haven't read that thread dedicated to the worst title fights that was in the classic forum recently, but if it wasn't mentioned, Laciar-Zapata is up there for mine.
I will need to watch it again, I honestly can't remember anything about it. Two defensively sound guys is often boring.
Sounds like a great trilogy genuinely. That's the thing with Roman, from the one fight i've seen, he likes to box, not really laterally, but a little bit on his tip toes, but that machismo in him (and his countrymen) means that when it's time to go for short hooks and aggression, he's certainly not averse to it. Good thread, i'll get back to you on Roman-Watanabe.