Walter McGowan

Brilliant, but not infallible.

Even behind his jab, Medel outsmarted him, but then he was a sneaky ****er and one of the most dangerous bantams of all time, and McGowan was not one to jab and step back, he looked to step into his man once he's got a rhythm going, which played right into Medels hands.

Obviously bad skin was a horrible problem for the Scot. He had Chionoi down early first time, and really tried hard to get rid of him when it looked like it was turning against him again the second time, but he just couldn't continue in that state.

Ace against Burruni who was fading, but who had looked utterly dominant against Kingpetch.

McGowan's second fight with Rudkin has it all (including that right uppercut in one of the late rounds) A personal favourite. Considering that McGowan was as natural a fly as you'll see, his balls are massive. He didn't shirk the Bantams and whilst technical, he was no runner, he came to fight.

Great era for the lower weights, quality fighter.

 

Agreed on the last point, and as aforementioned, he was a real tough little ****er.

It was him falling into Medel's traps that show he wasn't one of those kinda' wizards though IMO. Still, he was well-equipped, and made up for lack of massive dig with accuracy and tenacity. He nearly got rid of Chionoi early doors in the first fight. I think that feat was only achieved anywhere near the Thai's best by a fellow Flyweight enigma, Salavarria (also not a noted puncher funnily enough)

I do wonder how shockingly one sided a beating Borkhorsor would give McGowan though ;-)

 

No I haven't and I don't recall ever seeing it listed either, thought it was a shame before myself.

Where are we rating him in the pantheon of Scottish greats?

 

If he also had two wins over Chionoi he'd certainly rank higher. I'd like to put him there for sure but at fly, with the depth it has you'd have to settle with him being in the mix for one of those lower spots.

There's enough there scalp wise, that, if coupled with ability and strength of era you could certainly justify it IMO.

 

about 5,6,7 depending on how and who you rate...

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?9008-Top-10-Scottish-Fighters

and just for the record Scotland has about 4 or 5 dozen top flight fighters especially from the past.

 

Of course, but while I always put a lot of stock in performance regardless of result when assessing a fighters 'worth' or 'level of greatness' (yuck) but Chionoi made him bleed enough that he couldn't continue. That's within the rules, it was harsh on McGowan, but the Thai won.

Kinda' like Lewis-Vitali, Vitali gave the best showing of his career, but got his face punched in. It happens.

thistle1 nice post, agree with that ranking.

Sorry to hijack but is Lynch the consensus no.1? I'd have him there, though I can understand Ken.

 

Just looked at that thread. :-( Wee Greg omitting Small Montana and Peter Kane from Lynch's notable wins :bart

 

I agree again, it is a pretty hackneyed comparison. My point is that neither man was 'cheated' by the decision rendered IMO, it was for 15 rounds and McGowan was in no shape to continue. Under the rules, he lost, and lost fairly IMO.

Do I give him credit for the way he acquitted himself both times against a man around the top of the division for yonks? Absolutely, and obviously I like Chionoi, so I think they're two of the greatest performances ever :tong

In all seriousness, McGowan loses little credit for losing those fights, regardless of me crediting him with two losses and the Thai with two, pretty fortunate, wins.