Ray Mancini v Edwin Rosario

Randall was green vs Rosario the 1st time, well it was his first real test at the higher level. And he certainly improved as a fighter after that.

Mancini would of ragdolled Davis all over the ring, whilst I like Davis as a fighter. Mancini would've clearly beaten Davis we both know this.

Mancini did way better vs Ramirez than Rosario did in two fights vs Ramirez, Rosario deserved to lose the 1st fight and then got stopped in the rematch.

And both fighters lost a close decision to Camacho, whilst Mancini had a 4 year lay off and still pushed Camacho to the limit.

 

See I thought Randall beat Rosario the first time and the first Ramirez fight could have gone either way but Rosario did hurt his righthand.
I actually thought Davis beat Rosario because whil he did get dropped twice he won alot of rounds as well and if that fight wasnt in Rosarios country that might have been a different outcome.

 

It was a good fight but Camacho outboxed Rosario and there was nobody crying robbery at all. And your right Rosario did hurt Camacho in the 5th round and changed Camachos career as well but Hector beat him fair- I scored it 115-113 Camacho.
To be honest Mancini shocked me when he fought Camacho I actually scored that bout for Ray when I thought for sure Hector would be too fast. True Camacho was not the same as he was in the Rosario fight so it would be an unfair comparison.
The elephant in the room honestly is that Rosario did not live a clean lifestyle as a boxer and it would surface even it his prime years.
Thats the one thing that everybody leaves out and it would be a huge impact because like him or not Ray always showed up to fight.Rosario did not.

 

I actually watched Randall vs Rosario 1 last year, I can't remember how I had it but it was close. But Randall was green at the time when he fought Rosario, yes Randall had 20 odd professional fights. But just look at his opposition prior to Rosario fight, alot of fighters with losing records and club fighters. That was Randall's first real test as a professional, and I think he improved after this fight.

As for Ramirez vs Rosario 1 it was close, but it felt like one of them close fights that for sure Ramirez won. He pretty much swept all the rounds in the 2nd half, and appeared to have done enough for me quite clearly.

 

Whilst Camacho may of not been quite the same fighter he was vs Mancini, he was still undefeated with a record of 33-0. And the fact Mancini was coming off a 4 year lay off when he fought Camacho, also has to be taken into consideration.

 

No i wasn't, but it was said that Rosario couldn't go the distance with Mancini because of his pressure, i was just pointing out that Chavez was in a different league to Mancini as far as pressure fighting is concerned. I think Edwin would beat Ray Mancini because i think he was simply a better fighter.

 

Got his ears boxed off??? What the hell you talking about? Rosario had Camacho out on his feet twice and very nearly stopped him in the 5th. It was a close fight and i actually had Rosario edging it.

 

Fair enough.

 

He did hurt Camacho in the 5th but he was never close to stopping him. And in the 10th rosario did stun Camacho in the last 30 seconds but Camacho wasnt close to going down.
The problem is that Rosario after the 5th just followed Camacho around until the 11th round.
And people have a short memory but the first two rounds of that fight was easily all Camacho and he even stung Rosario with a lefthand.
What Rosario should have done is just went after Camacho after the 5th but he didnt and he waited way too long to attack again.

 

Camacho wasn't the man he was by the time he fought Mancini. Granted Mancini hadn't fought for years. The story of the fight was mostly about how disappointing the fight and Camacho were.

For me saying Mancini had a "strong" argument to beating Camacho is overstating it.

Rosario's win over Bramble is easily the standout - by far.

What you fail to mention about Ramirez is that Rosario pounded him down twice and was not far from ending him. No-one ever remotely treated him like this and the effect of Rosario's punches was astonishing in context. Ramirez was ridiculously durable and it was this that allowed him to outlast a tiring Rosario who went HARD trying to stop him.

You've commented how much better Mancini did against Ramirez but the difference between their performances against Bramble is night and day - Rosario DESTROYED the guy, actually had him not wanting to get up. From memory Bramble was rated P4P #3 in the world at that point.

For me Rosario had the better career overall. He actually did get the nod in a close affair against Ramirez the first time and Randall, tho green, turned out to be like Julian Jackson (who had faced virtually no-one before McCallum) in that his showing was an excellent one. That Jackson was extremely green seems to escape attention for the most part.

His win over Howard Davis who was on top of his game was a ripper. You underrate Davis. He was bracketed with the likes of Rosario, Mancini and Camacho for some time. At his best, and he was at his best for Rosario, he was greased lightning and had also started fighting more stationary to gain some power.

Even after the grueling loss to Chevez he came back and upset the promising Anthony Jones....he was considered shot at this point by many. Even more impressive within context he pummelled Loreto Garza to win a title at 140 two years later. Drugs took a heavy toll on his career and definitely curtailed him somewhat. Yeah it's his fault and he had some losses but at his finest he was a heckuva fighter.

 

he grant definitely doesn't know this. He lived the time and will remember Davis was considered a very valid threat to guys like Mancini, Rosario, Camacho and co around 83-84.

 

Please note that i said nothing about a "robbery" whatsoever. Considering a fight a robbery is light years off calling one "controversial" which was my actual statement. "Close" fights are usually controversial as people will see things differently and both will have their supporters. Camacho - Rosario was absolutely a close fight. We've had excellent scorers in here favor Rosario and I've seen plenty of cards side with a draw. From memory at least one mag edged it for Rosario. UPI had it for Camacho by 1 point.

I can't score that fight for Ray personally. Fair point about Camacho not being the same.

That's good insight per Rosario's substantial lifestyle problems. Of course in fantasy matchups we take the best versions.

 

Camacho was 33-0 and still a force when he fought Mancini, yes he may of fought more cautiously after the Rosario scare. But there was still no real evidence in his one sided victories against Davis, Boza Edwards, to suggest he still wasn't a very elite fighter.

Mancini hadn't fought in 4 years and was coming off two losses to Bramble, he had no warm up prior to Camacho fight. And didn't fight again for another 3 years after the Camacho fight in a loss to Haugen, i would say Mancini was further removed from his peak than Camacho.

And i wouldn't say it's overstating that Mancini had a good argument to beating Camacho, look at eyeonthering it has a 50 percent controversy rating with fans being split on who they thought won. I looked at YT comments for the fight aswell, and plenty had Mancini winning the fight. And even a poster here on this topic @Cobra33 thought Mancini won the fight. I would say Mancini has as much argument to winning the fight as Rosario did, and i thought personally Camacho clearly won a close fight vs Rosario in range of 115-113 but again i know it was close.

As you well know style makes fights i already said the win over Bramble was a good win. But i don't necessarily think that just because Rosario blew away Bramble who beat Mancini, that Rosario necessarily blows away Mancini in the same way.

Firstly Bramble hadn't really fought any known punchers prior to Rosario fight to my knowledge, he fought Mancini x2 who he matched up well against as Bramble had a solid defence and was physically strong. Mancini wears you down with an accumulation of punches and isn't what i would call a big puncher with any 1 shot, and Crawley was a talented boxer but he had no power. So whilst Bramble was a good fighter although maybe a bit overrated at the time with his P4P ranking, but with hindsight Bramble hadn't really been tested regarding fighting a puncher.

As for Ramirez that goes back to what i said about styles make fights, Mancini had a very easy time beating Ramirez. Yet Rosario had hell vs Ramirez in two fights, Mancini couldn't quite get a W vs Bramble yet Rosario blew him away. My point being does either fight really tell us who wins out of Mancini/Rosario ? that's up for you to decide.

Yeah no doubt Rosario had the better career overall, but i still think both men at their best it's a hard one to call.

Honestly i think Rosario was very lucky to get the W vs Ramirez, and it was highly disputed and controversial at the time.

Randall/McCallum is actually a good comparison kudos for that, no doubt Randall did perform well vs Rosario. I actually had the fight a draw i'll show you my scorecard after i finish typing this, but you have to admit Randall did improve significantly after this fight.

Frankie Randall vs Edwin Rosario 1

1 Randall
2 Randall
3 Randall
4 Rosario
5 Randall
6 Randall
7 Rosario
8 Rosario
9 Rosario
10 Rosario

95-95 Draw

I know Davis was highly rated due to his fantastic amateur career, and he did have some underrated performances vs Baltazar, green Taylor. But i feel like everytime he went to the next level he always fell short, very talented fighter with great handspeed but no power. But i don't think he matches up well vs a swarmer like Mancini, who for me would clearly beat Davis by decision.

Overall as i said i don't think there is a right or wrong answer regarding this match up, i think Rosario has a good argument for stopping Mancini in the 1st half of the fight. And i also think Mancini has a good argument for stopping Rosario late in the fight, after some rough moments early on. Personally i slightly favour Mancini by late stoppage that's just my opinion, but if this fight was taking place right now i certainly wouldn't bet on it.

But both were exciting/fantastic fighters in a great era.

 

At the time i could see how people may have that opinion, but looking at it with hindsight and looking at the style of both fighters. I don't see Davis with his cautious boxing and being a light hitter, matching up well vs an aggressive swarming boxer like Mancini.

 

That's about the truth.
Chavez beat Rosario inside because he could throw very damaging punches that were very compact. Rosario needed more room to punch. Mancini would have a problem because he needed more room than Rosario, and Rosario had quicker hands and hit harder.
When you look at the Arguello fight there are a few things to consider. First, Mancini was insanely motivated that night. Second, Arguello takes his time. He methodically broke Ray down with his hook, his jab, and the relentless right uppercut shots to the body.