Whats Your Top Ten Hd 2 Hd Featherweights in History

McGovern was not a dumb slugger. He was no stylist but he had solid technique. He was Tyson. He was Marciano.

This content is protected

 

Why?

You have them ranked pretty highly, why would you take them out and not the ones ranked below them?

I like Pedroza at 4. Would you pick Pep over Armstrong at 126?

You could argue though, that Pep past his best beat him (well you can;t argue that), but he showed he was capable of dealing with Saddler's ruggedness and could survive.

Also the footage we have shows that Pep is able to out-point and out-box Saddler, only he struggled to sustain it. If you put both bits of evidence together, and remember that Pep was past his prime, it is logical to think that a prime Pep would have beaten Saddler.

Do you think a prime Pep loses to Saddler?

Would you say Tyson had good defensive skills? They were hardly ever mentioned when he was at his peak, generally.

Destroyers, or maybe brutalisers is a better word, like McGovern generally don't get respect for their defensive skills because your eye is drawn to the offence, and it masks the more subtle art of defense. If you have a guy knocking out top opponents left, right and center, even if he has solid defensive skills, what are the newspapers going to talk about?

'McGovern KO's another opponent, had good defensive skills in the bout'

Or

'McGovern's offence is brutal as he storms through opponent'





Note: I don't necessarily agree that McGovern had a good defence

 

No ****, I'm just making the point that as far as a swarming fighter goes he had a pretty solid defense on all accounts.

 

I thought you would have, dunno why. I have it as a pick 'em.

He was also past his prime, and surely this should have some reflection on it.

Even though a past it Pep, beat him convincingly?

 

I don't especialy wan't anything from you.

I am trying to get across the point that McGovern was getting inexplicable results against great defensive fighters.

Those results are so inexplicable, that they should be spinning your head round trying to work out why they happened!

 

I did say he was Tyson, and he was the Tyson of his time. Overwhelming and annihilating anything in his path until he was upset, mentally and career wise by an underdog boxer. Can't think of any other fighter more like mike than McGovern.

And you can't really say dick all conclusively about his defense. All we have of the man is a single fixed fight.

 

In the losses though, he showed signs of being able to compete with Saddler, and even better him. Surely, taking into account the second fight where Pep showed he could last with him, you'd have to fancy a prime Pep to have a very high chance of beating Saddler.

Its looking like neither of us will budge here, though.