Did you not read the thread, Tommy? He said the only difference between Saldivar and Barrera was that Marco lost to speed types. Complete rubbish, and I outlined the reasons why. Read the thread thoroughly next time, so I don't have to repeat myself. Cheers mate.
Well I'd disagree with you there. I think the film of his bouts with Winstone is in good enough quality to gauge what kind of fighter he is. He was simply a different style of fighter to Barrera. A slow starting, sharp-shooting pressure fighter who mowed you down with body-head combinations as the fight wore on. The camera has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Who was better, Pea? I'd certainly pick Barrera to beat Saldivar in a 12 round fight at 126lbs based on what I've seen.
Saldivar was a 15 round fighter through and through. In the second Winstone fight, I had the fight even after 10 rounds (either that or Winstone up by a point) due to a combination of Saldivar's patience and Winstone's beautiful boxing skills. Once the championship rounds kicked into gear, so did Saldivar, completely dominating all of the final 5 rounds with a few knockdowns and 10-8's along the way. That was his time to shine. Barrera's inability to deal with Pacquiao's relentless, but far less calculated (at the time) assault doesn't lead me to believe he'd have fared very well under Saldivar's brutal body assault and straight left hand, especially down the stretch. It's possible that were the fight scheduled for 12 rounds he'd fare better on the scorecards, but if that were the case I assume Saldivar would adjust accordingly as well and get to business a bit sooner. I'd take Saldivar on close points over 12, and a stoppage over 15. He'd be clearly the superior fighter down the stretch the way I see it. As to who was just as good as Barrera, a few have already been named. I think Famechon and Winstone had a pretty damn good style for foiling Barrera's boxer/brawler tactics by staying on the outside and using deft movements and a sharp jab. Same with Laguna, and Ramos would no doubt give Barrera a war either way it ended. Saldivar consistently bested all of these guys. He was a dominant champion in a dominant era. I very much doubt the same would've been true with any of the guys Barrera fought. Then again, I do think Barrera had the more complete skill-set that would've allowed him more success against that crop than say Morales or Marquez.
Exactly. Take into account that Saldivar achieved more in 40 fights at one weight in one of the all time great eras than what Barrera did in 75 fights across 4 divisions in a generally lesser (though still good) era, and the situation speaks for itself. I can't imagine Barrera facing Winstone x3, Legra, Ramos, Laguna, Famechon, Rojas, Seki, Luis et al in such a short space of time and coming out undefeated. Dominantly undefeated at that. Whenever I mention Barrera these days, it seems to be in a negative way that doesn't always convey my admiration for him. It just reflects the standards that fighters are judged by. By the way, how did this actually come round to Barrera-Saldivar?
Low frame rate actually makes the fighters look better than they were. Imagine you were a fighter and you saw the world in 5 FPS, you wouldn't see the punches coming at you, so you can imagine just how good your opponent would look to you, it is the same with these old videos. Not only do they look slower back in the 30s, but the poor video quality actually makes them look more than marginally faster than they really were! Quite simply the fighters look bad, because they were. Boxing was at a similar level to what UFC is now. The fighters unspectacular athletes, with unspectacular skillsets. Ezzard Charles was probably the only truly exceptional fighter to have existed until the 40s. Or if you ignore Charles' amateur years then it is even worse.
Why on earth would you compare the likes of Saldivar and Winstone, who look like they are punching under water, they are so slow compared to Pacquaio? Barrera would have wrecked Winstone emphatically Why say Barrera couldnt handle Pacquaio's pressure when it was clearly the speed he had a problem with? (MAB was past prime then anyway) Since when did MAB have a problem with pressure or a fast pace? Why assume MAB would have a problem with 15rounds, he never faded late Laguanas the best name on Saldivars record for me, but he was only 20 and Im not sure he wouldnt have been struggling to make FW, he certainly went up to LW before and after that fight
Point me out to where I compared them to Pacquiao and I'll answer your question. He's never gone 15 rounds, particularly with a fighter who excels during the latter rounds of that distance. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to assume he doesn't fare as well against a pressuring southpaw with a great straight left (as well as a strong body attack, which Pac didn't have and still doesn't really) down the stretch. What you consider the best of something doesn't mean a whole lot to me, or too many others unfortunately. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm surprised in myself that I actually took the time to answer your posts legitimately.