Bramble beat him two time at the end of Ray's career which was when Ray was only I think 23. Who was the better fighter?
Ray wasn't even the end of his career - he proved 4 years later he still had it when he pushed Mancini all the way at 140. In terms of how they do against a field of their peers Mancini might well do better but I can't, in good conscience, call him a better fighter than the man who twice defeated him.
Bramble was the better fighter...there's just as many excuses as for why he didn't last that long as there are for Mancini's eventual demise....besides,he beat Mancini twice. The guy that shattered his famous coconut would have ko'ed Boom Boom as well.
1) it depends on how we're defining better. I said Mancini might fair better against a field of peers but he's always gonna be an underdog against bramble in a fantasy fight. 2) different comparison because Toney arguably won them fights. A better comparison would be Douglas and Tyson, ask me that, I dare you
Personally, I don't even think Mancini would have beaten Tyrone Crawley. I think he would have been boxed silly. Just my opinion :smoke
Both on the same level more or less. the 80s had a good number of fine, solid lightweights that contended or held a belt for a while.None of them were really ahead of the pack until Chavez and Whitaker took up residence towards the end of the decade. Can't see Crawley beating Mancini, but he might have given a good go of it.His offence wasn't up to it imo and he was physically feeble in comparison.Even Howard Davis was more solid.Howard's a better bet if you want someone who could outbox mancini in a stick and move style from that era.
I see Mancini stopping Crawley in about 8 or 9 rounds. I was surprised that Bramble beat Crawley the way he did, after Crawley beat Robin Blake.
