Mickey Walker vs. Kid Gavilan

Exactly right, and rightfully so. If Walker bowled over Welters like a Hearns did but didn't knock out heavyweights then it's simple to see the big men simply took his punches much better, which of course is common sense. Even simpler is that he didn't knock the 147's out via a reign of terror so he is not a huge puncher at 147. His stats simply do not back it up, and no please spare me how the old day fighters he took on all had better chins than the modern fighters and were underrated yada, yada. You seem to think being a top 10 contender pre 1950 or less guarantee's a title belt in modern boxing.

 

Hang on now.

He would have been an underdog against Loughran and Sharkey on the best day he ever saw. I dont see why we should infer from these losses that he was done.

 

The point is that he is clearly a durable heavyweight and even if he was a trial horse type we would not expect a former welterweight to blow him away like that.

A lot is made of the way that Tommy Hearns disposed of cruiserweights of a similar standing in their own time.

 

Want to name these cruiserweights Tommy disposed that a lot is made of? Maynard made a little noise, nothing huge, who else am i missing?

 

It is often cited by fans of the hitman as proof of his punching power.

 

Sure he would have been underdog even at his best, but when we see that he did bugger all after those fights, why shouldn't we infer it?

 

Because that is flawed logic. A fighter can go into the tank verry sudenly as history shows.

 

How is it flawed logic? It's an inferential argument.

When an excellent fighter starts getting Ko'ed in one round (especially against an opponent they have gone the distance with before) its a pretty good bet that they have already tanked, isn't it?

 

Yes but you cannot inferr that sombody is shot for a given fight based on losses that occur after that fight.

What is there to suggest that he was shot before this fight?

Also you can get verry diferent performences against the same fighter. Was Roy Jones better for the third Tarver fight than for the second one for example?

 

You don't necessarily need evidence prior to an event to explain that it happened. Sometimes all we have to go by is the aftermath.

You said yourself that fighters can go into the tank very suddenly. In light of which, do we really need a prior indication of McTigue being shot? He could have been through right at the point of the Walker fight.

That he got stopped so easily, having stood up to bigger punchers in the past (as well as Walker himself) is an indication that he was done by the time of the Walker fight.

Not sure. I think he trained harder. But in any case, he was far past his best both times and if anything just more gunshy the third time round, fighting not to get knocked out as if it would be an achievement.

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the case for McTigue the first time he faced Walker.

And sure, I understand your point, you can have different results between fighters when they have not necessarily dropped off or become the worse for wear in a subsequent bout. I don't think this is the case for Walker-McTigue II, but it COULD be the case.

 

I can't beleieve the negativity towards Gavilan. Mickey Walker was one of the best welterweights of all, one of the best brawlers the division has had. The powerpunches he put into combos were devestating. But Kid Gavilan was greater I believe. The pace he could set was torrid, and he could maintain that pace for the whole 15 rounds. Walker did great against bigger fighters , really a great fighter. But Kid Gavilan would be able to take his punch , his chin was maybe the best (maybe on par with LaMotta and McCullough). Kid Gavilan could fight(brawl) with anyone, his hands were so fast that he could overwhelm opponents, and the combinations he threw when brawling were so skillfull. He was greater than Walker at 147 pounds , and Ithink he would beat him.

 

Thank you

I posted something on your old Jose Napoles thread before. Don't know if you still check it.