why do so many old timers look so bad on tape???

[dabox]

hi before i start this thread,

i will say that i love boxing history and all it's legends....i have boxing since i was a kid and also been into the history of the sport....

i have great respect for the greats, now that being said....


there are a lot of thoughs on why some old timers look bad on film,
one popular thoery which i sort of agree on is that
poor camera work and camera techology is why these guys look bad...

like basically it takes 8 frames for the punch to travel but camera's for the 1920's etc could only capture 2 or 3....

great example is that charlie chapin did not walk the way you seem him walking in films....

so image the difference when two professonals are exchangeing fast punches....

and even later in the 30 and up late 40's the camera's could not capture everything.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


so now we have an argument for the side blames the camera work....


but in some cases, it is clearly something else(espically for fights between 1930-50)


i read about a random old timer and how he would take apart mayweather
then watch a film and he looks worse then guys with 6 mouths experience in my gym,

i mean all that cant be blame on the camera's....(like ok you dont see the sutle things but you can see that guy's chin is not up, moves ok etc)

also a lot of the all action fights, are sometimes just


some guy trying to jab the other guy in the body with his chin up in the air


and falling into clinch after damn clinch.....
man some of these guys make john ruiz look more exciting then manny pacuaquo....

here is an example of 2 of my fav fighters ever....while they look preety good in techque, notice
the non stop clinching.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



so here you have 2 sides of the arguement, what do u think

[Sweet Pea]

That Charles/Bivins fight is just a borefest due to the clinching. Just one of those nights though, there's a whole lot of film to the contrary on at least Charles's abilities. Such as:

z2PutDflPYo

[dabox]

good pick, and ezzard charles is one of all time fav fighters, a true legend....

one thing i want to add to support the bad camera thoery is that.....

sometimes we see the same fighter, in 1941 and then in 1950, and he looks so much better in 1950....ofcourse he is not actually better because his prime has passed....

but now that the camera techology is bit better, he now looks so much better on film...

i think it is a good point

[Sweet Pea]

I don't think the cameras have too much to do with it. You can tell an extremely skilled fighter on pretty much any film. If you go back pre-30's and 40's it mostly has to do with a general change in boxing styles. A lot of the best fighters prior don't look as aesthetically pleasing because of the different techniques they used to accomodate the rules and regulations of the time. Watch a guy like Kid Chocolate in the 30's, an excellent fighter and technician by any standards.

[fearinwaves]

I think boxers in the earlier days used to pace themselves a lot more and try and put the pressure on in spurts. I'm thinking mainly of the way kid gavillan used to fight. I may be completely wrong though.

[Addie]

I don't think the cameras have too much to do with it. You can tell an extremely skilled fighter on pretty much any film. If you go back pre-30's and 40's it mostly has to do with a general change in boxing styles. A lot of the best fighters prior don't look as aesthetically pleasing because of the different techniques they used to accomodate the rules and regulations of the time. Watch a guy like Kid Chocolate in the 30's, an excellent fighter and technician by any standards.

I think the camera's are a big factor myself. I watch Saldivar on film and he looks nowhere near as skilled and dynamic as Barrera, and yet you rank him higher on your all-time Mexicans list. The first thing I ask for when someone says something like that is, "Show me video". Reading a secondary source isn't good enough for me, I need to see how good this guy looks on film. Seeing is believing, and if they are really that good, it'll show on the film. Problem is, with the rubbish technology back in the 50s, you can't fully gauge just how good they are because the video quality is...pretty awful. You can see the minute details with today's cameras.

[PowerPuncher]

The sports developed and moved forward, maybe technique wise it peaked in the 40s/50s, before that techniques just werent as slick. In terms of physical ability the best fighters have improved generation on generation for the most part. This is the case with every sport we can measure, techniques/understands/technology/nutrition all equate to progress. No one in this forum wants to believe this and in some ways old timers were more experienced, in some periods they have a larger talent pool (40s-80s) so some old timers are on par or better P4P, but pre 40s fighters just aren't as advanced. Its no coincidence that nearly all of the fighters who are considered to have the fastest hands of all time, have been around the past 30years and not prior to that

[PowerPuncher]

I think the camera's are a big factor myself. I watch Saldivar on film and he looks nowhere near as skilled and dynamic as Barrera, and yet you rank him higher on your all-time Mexicans list. The first thing I ask for when someone says something like that is, "Show me video". Reading a secondary source isn't good enough for me, I need to see how good this guy looks on film. Seeing is believing, and if they are really that good, it'll show on the film. Problem is, with the rubbish technology back in the 50s, you can't fully gauge just how good they are because the video quality is...pretty awful. You can see the minute details with today's cameras.

I bet your a fan of Saldivar, hes similar to MAB, but agreed hes not as skilled or fast or sharp as MAB, MAB would clearly outbox him to a UD

[Addie]

I bet your a fan of Saldivar, hes similar to MAB, but agreed hes not as skilled or fast or sharp as MAB, MAB would clearly outbox him to a UD

:good I am indeed. He's just a slower version of him in my judgement. Very patient, counters well in combination. Very similar.

[sweet_scientist]

Only difference is Saldivar was able to beat speedy types like Laguna, Legra, Famechon and Winstone, whilst Barrera got beaten twice by the speedy Junior Jones and Manny Pac. :good

[Addie]

Only difference is Saldivar was able to beat speedy types like Laguna, Legra, Famechon and Winstone, whilst Barrera got beaten twice by the speedy Junior Jones and Manny Pac. :good

:verysad Don't talk rubbish.

I realize that you favor the older timers, this is the Classic forum after all, but there were many differences between the two. Barrera won titles in three divisions, Saldivar only one. Barrera had noticably faster hands, and threw his combination's with sharper and straighter technique. Saldivar beat some great guys, and does look very good on film, but too me, by watching them. Marco was better. No favoritism involved.

[sweet_scientist]

:verysad Don't talk rubbish.

I realize that you favor the older timers, this is the Classic forum after all, but there were many differences between the two. Barrera won titles in three divisions, Saldivar only one. Barrera had noticably faster hands, and threw his combination's with sharper and straighter technique. Saldivar beat some great guys, and does look very good on film, but too me, by watching them. Marco was better. No favoritism involved.

Barrera was faster but that's hardly determinant of him being better than Saldivar. Erik Morales wasn't that quick, wasn't that accurate with his punches either, but he still held his own against Barrera.

I think if Barrera was around when Saldivar was fighting he probably wouldn't have held A title, let alone three.

[Addie]

I think if Barrera was around when Saldivar was fighting he probably wouldn't have held A title, let alone three.

:lol: ...Wow, this goes to far sometimes. Fighters automatically become better when they are put in black and white for some strange reason.

[PowerPuncher]

Only difference is Saldivar was able to beat speedy types like Laguna, Legra, Famechon and Winstone, whilst Barrera got beaten twice by the speedy Junior Jones and Manny Pac. :good

I had MAB winning the Jones rematch and if you're going to include those as speedy types (they werent all that fast), then include Morales, MkKinney, Hamed, Tapia for MAB

[PowerPuncher]

Barrera was faster but that's hardly determinant of him being better than Saldivar. Erik Morales wasn't that quick, wasn't that accurate with his punches either, but he still held his own against Barrera.

I think if Barrera was around when Saldivar was fighting he probably wouldn't have held A title, let alone three.

If by 'holding your own', you mean not getting knocked out but clearly taking a beating while losing 3 contest, despite draining down from 140lbs, then I'd agree with you :good

Morales is faster, bigger and stronger than Saldivar anyway (not saying hes as good)

[Addie]

I had MAB winning the Jones rematch and if you're going to include those as speedy types (they werent all that fast), then include Morales, MkKinney, Hamed, Tapia for MAB

You can include Eddie Cook in that too.

There wasn't a lot of method to whcat Scientist was saying anyway, he just needed to say something to discredit the more modern talent. That's all.

[Mantequilla]

The film is perfectly fine is perfectly fine of Saldivar.He fought in the late 60s for christ's sake.

Coming to the conclusion that Barrera is better in whatever way, has nothing to do with quality of film imo.It's simply your judging of the fighters.Perhaps its because of the mindset you had while watching the films, already being a big fan and knowledgeable on Marco etc....and i don't see anything ridiculous or credibility destroying in thinking he was better, but i wouldn't agree myself.

[Mantequilla]

Mckinney was a slow fighter imo.One of the main reasons Bungu trounced him twice and he such issues with the mobility and speed of N'cita was his relative lack of speed.

ridiculous that that a thread about old timers and the difficulties in watching them on film, has become a Saldivar vs barrera thread anyway.


And since when did Barrera become a speed demon anyway. i've seen a lot of references to blinding handspeed etc in recent months.the guy was quick in the generic sense most top fighters at the weights he fought in are, he only looked truly impressive speedwise when he was lambasting overmatched fighters with extended combinations, thrown with impunity.Pac made him look like he was standing in cement, he was so slow in comparison.Even considering the speed and worth of Manny, if Macro had truly notable speed that would never have happened.

Timing and the fluidity of his hands were much better attributes than Speed for him imo.


And featherweight was extremely deep in Saldivar's time, one of the best era's.It was immensely difficult for even excellent fighters to hold onto a title for any length of time.Sweet's comment isn't really too far from the truth, though i would have expected Barrera to be right in the mix, but not ahead of the pack.

[sweet_scientist]

Neither Morales nor McKinney were that quick. And Tapia, whilst quick, was pretty much near the end of his time when MAB got to him.

[sweet_scientist]

If by 'holding your own', you mean not getting knocked out but clearly taking a beating while losing 3 contest, despite draining down from 140lbs, then I'd agree with you :good

:lol:

Morales is faster, bigger and stronger than Saldivar anyway (not saying hes as good)

He's neither faster or stronger imo.

[Addie]

The film is perfectly fine is perfectly fine of Saldivar.He fought in the late 60s for christ's sake.

Coming to the conclusion that Barrera is better in whatever way, has nothing to do with quality of film imo.It's simply your judging of the fighters.Perhaps its because of the mindset you had while watching the films, already being a big fan and knowledgeable on Marco etc....and i don't see anything ridiculous or credibility destroying in thinking he was better, but i wouldn't agree myself.

That's fine. But even the film of Saldivar isn't completely clear, not the film I've seen anyway. Sometimes you see his combination's moving but can't clearly see the placement of those shots, whereas with Barrera, everything is there in pristine quality to see. I think it makes a little difference when you watch the two, especially when your from my era, but that's not the reason I think Marco was Better. I just think technique-wise, speed-wise, Marco was superior. From what I have seen. Raging Bull is sending me some Saldivar in the mail...I look forward to getting my hands on it.

[PowerPuncher]

You can include Eddie Cook in that too.

There wasn't a lot of method to whcat Scientist was saying anyway, he just needed to say something to discredit the more modern talent. That's all.

Saying MAB wouldnt be a champ in Saldivars day is a possibility, only the WBA/WBCA championships no 122lb or 130lb divisions. But MAB would benefit because he wasnt a weight drainer and he faced weight drainers like Morales and Pacquaio who were both bigger/stronger than him in the ring because of their weight draining. MAB would fit perfectly into the 126lb division in the time of same day weigh ins. I really think he'd beat Saldivar, if he didnt he probably wouldnt be a champ unless he won a rematch or beat Ortiz/Laguana at 135, and MAB could have been a fairly legit LW in the days of same day weigh ins.

[Addie]

Saying MAB wouldnt be a champ in Saldivars day is a possibility, only the WBA/WBCA championships no 122lb or 130lb divisions. But MAB would benefit because he wasnt a weight drainer and he faced weight drainers like Morales and Pacquaio who were both bigger/stronger than him in the ring because of their weight draining. MAB would fit perfectly into the 126lb division in the time of same day weigh ins. I really think he'd beat Saldivar, if he didnt he probably wouldnt be a champ unless he won a rematch or beat Ortiz/Laguana at 135, and MAB could have been a fairly legit LW in the days of same day weigh ins.

Barrera would have been the best Featherweight Saldivar had ever fought, and vice versa.

[PowerPuncher]

Neither Morales nor McKinney were that quick. And Tapia, whilst quick, was pretty much near the end of his time when MAB got to him.

Mkkinney was quick though, especially that right hand of his he just wasnt as quick as Bungu, who is a pretty underrated fighter and would have been a much bigger name if he wasnt from SA imo. Morales isn't the fastest but hes quite fast and he closes distance pretty quick, he also ofcourse was fast enough to beat Jones/Pacman too

Neither as fast as Pacman/Junior Jones but their as fast as some of the guys you listed imo. ANd I think Pacquaio beats Saldivar too, despite the somewhat 1 dimensionalness of Pac at 126

[lefthook31]

I think the technical style of boxing has changed over the years. The big difference in my opinion is you saw far more fighters fighting from a squared up stance, and keeping their guard a lot lower. You see it more on the inside on the old timers, that squared up punching.
The first thing you learn now when entering boxing is to keep your hands high and fight from a stance that has your torso turned sideways, to make yourself less of a target.

[Mantequilla]

Mkkinney was quick though, especially that right hand of his he just wasnt as quick as Bungu, who is a pretty underrated fighter and would have been a much bigger name if he wasnt from SA imo. Morales isn't the fastest but hes quite fast and he closes distance pretty quick, he also ofcourse was fast enough to beat Jones/Pacman too

Neither as fast as Pacman/Junior Jones but their as fast as some of the guys you listed imo. ANd I think Pacquaio beats Saldivar too, despite the somewhat 1 dimensionalness of Pac at 126


Mckinney was one of the slowest very good world class fighters at that weightclass.Because he was a good jab/ striaght right fighter with timing he made up for it to an extent.and i was a big fan of his, he jabbed Barrera's head in at times, despite the lack of speed.

[Addie]

Mckinney was one of the slowest very good world class fighters at that weightclass.Because he was a good jab/ striaght right fighter with timing he made up for it to an extent.and i was a big fan of his, he jabbed Barrera's head in at times, despite the lack of speed.

He did very well against a 22 year old Marco, absolutely.

[PowerPuncher]

Mckinney was one of the slowest very good world class fighters at that weightclass.Because he was a good jab/ striaght right fighter with timing he made up for it to an extent.and i was a big fan of his, he jabbed Barrera's head in at times, despite the lack of speed.

Probably agree although being slower than those men doesnt make you slow, I havent seen enough of Cermeno who was WBA champ then too. But the weight class was amazing then with MAB, Bungu, Morales, Junior Jones and Mkkinney. Any one of those maybe undisputed at the weight today

Now if you could combine Mkkinney with Jones speed you'd have something special

[flamengo]

Contemperary reports suggest Sullivan, Corbett and Jeffries were all fleet of foot, shoulder, waist and precision.. I tend to believe the poor footage detracts from their personal brilliance that would capture todays training styles and make all appear retarded.... NOTTTTTTTTTT... The old timers looked average on film.. as they would in the modern game.. The rule set, mind set & skill set is totally different.

[TommyV]

Barrera won titles in three divisions, Saldivar only one.

And?

[Addie]

And?

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.

[Sweet Pea]

I think the camera's are a big factor myself. I watch Saldivar on film and he looks nowhere near as skilled and dynamic as Barrera, and yet you rank him higher on your all-time Mexicans list.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.

[Sweet Pea]

I had MAB winning the Jones rematch and if you're going to include those as speedy types (they werent all that fast), then include Morales, MkKinney, Hamed, Tapia for MAB:lol:

[Sweet Pea]

Barrera would have been the best Featherweight Saldivar had ever fought, and vice versa.I don't think so.

[Addie]

I don't think so.

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.

[AlFrancis]

Sugar Ramos and Ismael Laguna weren't bad.

[Sweet Pea]

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.

[Tin_Ribs]

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?

[China_hand_Joe]

hi before i start this thread,

i will say that i love boxing history and all it's legends....i have boxing since i was a kid and also been into the history of the sport....

i have great respect for the greats, now that being said....


there are a lot of thoughs on why some old timers look bad on film,
one popular thoery which i sort of agree on is that
poor camera work and camera techology is why these guys look bad...

like basically it takes 8 frames for the punch to travel but camera's for the 1920's etc could only capture 2 or 3....

great example is that charlie chapin did not walk the way you seem him walking in films....

so image the difference when two professonals are exchangeing fast punches....

and even later in the 30 and up late 40's the camera's could not capture everything.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


so now we have an argument for the side blames the camera work....


but in some cases, it is clearly something else(espically for fights between 1930-50)


i read about a random old timer and how he would take apart mayweather
then watch a film and he looks worse then guys with 6 mouths experience in my gym,

i mean all that cant be blame on the camera's....(like ok you dont see the sutle things but you can see that guy's chin is not up, moves ok etc)

also a lot of the all action fights, are sometimes just


some guy trying to jab the other guy in the body with his chin up in the air


and falling into clinch after damn clinch.....
man some of these guys make john ruiz look more exciting then manny pacuaquo....

here is an example of 2 of my fav fighters ever....while they look preety good in techque, notice
the non stop clinching.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



so here you have 2 sides of the arguement, what do u think


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.

[AlFrancis]

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.



Blasphemy !!!!!

[PopeJackson]

Ezzard Charles was probably the only truly exceptional fighter to have existed until the 40s.
:huh

[Sweet Pea]

:lol:Charles didn't even begin his career until 1940.

[PowerPuncher]

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.

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

[China_hand_Joe]

:lol:Charles didn't even begin his career until 1940.

Are you sure he didn't fight in the 1910s or 1920s?

[Sweet Pea]

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 emphaticallyPoint me out to where I compared them to Pacquiao and I'll answer your question.

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 lateHe'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.

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 fightWhat 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.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Point me out to where I compared them to Pacquiao and I'll answer your question.

2. 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.

3. 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.

1. You criticised and laughed at MABs opponents speed when Winstone is relatively as slow as mollasses, with no snap at all in his jab. Decent technical skills but nothing special

2. So what only pre-90s fighters can go 15rounds? MAB fought at a faster more relentless pace than Saldivar anyway and has bucket loads of stamina.

Pacquaio beat MAB to the punch because hes quicker, MAB would beat Saldivar to the punch so what Pacquaio did with MAB is irrelevant. If Saldivar wants to exchange body shots with MAB he'll take a beating, MABs left to the body is 1 of the best in history

3. Your time's worthless, you should be humbled that I talk to your 'never boxed in your life' ass :good

[Mantequilla]

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


Don't tell me you would pick Hamed over Winstone too?.I bet you would.Shameful.;)

Barrera wanted a way out against Pac from about half way through the fight.It was an appalling capitulation i have to say, and i'm a Barrera fan as well as any of these other gfighters.

[Mantequilla]

"no snap at all in his jab":lol:.

C'mon now power, you're not even trying with the wind up merchant stuff anymore.

[AlFrancis]

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

Within just over a year Laguna had beat Carlos Ortiz and drew with Loche in Argentina.

[PowerPuncher]

Don't tell me you would pick Hamed over Winstone too?.I bet you would.Shameful.;)

Barrera wanted a way out against Pac from about half way through the fight.It was an appalling capitulation i have to say, and i'm a Barrera fan as well as any of these other gfighters.

Barrera got white washed and didnt have any answers no doubt about it, Pacquaio's just all wrong for him, although I dont think he was at his best in 03, past prime by then and coming off a bad training camp because of the forrest fires, Pacquaio probably would always have been all wrong for him. Sad day for Baby Faced Assasasin fans

And yes I would pick the circa '95 Hamed ;) Hamed's underrated rounds here and I don't rate Winstone

[Sweet Pea]

1. You criticised and laughed at MABs opponents speed when Winstone is relatively as slow as mollasses, with no snap at all in his jab. Decent technical skills but nothing specialAgain, point me out to where I did this. Until then I will not answer anything else you've posted.

[Sweet Pea]

:lol:Oh that. Nevermind. What does that have to do with me supposedly comparing Winstone and Famechon to Pacquiao?

[PowerPuncher]

"no snap at all in his jab":lol:.

C'mon now power, you're not even trying with the wind up merchant stuff anymore.

He doesn't recoil it fast enough, there to be countered and thats why Saldivar kepting timing his right hook over the top over it, nice technical skills and a smooth boxer otherwise

[essexboy]

That Charles/Bivins fight is just a borefest due to the clinching. Just one of those nights though, there's a whole lot of film to the contrary on at least Charles's abilities. Such as:

z2PutDflPYo

Ezzard Charles genuinely looks like you could place him in the here and now and he would clean up the light-heavys for breakfast and have a pretty good time taking on the heavyweights for dinner. Absolute legend, I cant understand how he gets so underrated by 'boxing experts'.

[GPater11093]

maybe you dont know what your looking for?

[Addie]

I'll take full responsibility for turning this into Barrera vs Saldivar thread. I apologize to the thread starter.

I take Pea's points on board. It had slipped my mind that Saldivar would have had that big straight left hand that troubled Marco so much in 2003 when he lost to Manny Pacquiao. That said, Saldivar, for all of his strengths, did not possess fast hands and Marco had never ever shown an inability to deal with southpaws, it was only Manny he had trouble with. He beat a lot of southpaws in his time really. Enrique Sanchez, former champion, disposed of in efficient fashion, as was Paulie Ayala, Kevin Kelley, and Toledo. All former world champions. Obviously, Saldivar was a class above all of those guys.

I purposefully said, Barrera won win in a 12 round fight because I don't think it's fair to assume a fighter who's never been 15 rounds would be able to defeat someone who has, countless times. Marco never shown stamina issues in his prime, but as Pea says, Saldivar was drawn from the same cloth as an Arguello. Often enough they'd have competitive fights over the 10 round distance, but once the championship rounds kick in, the likes of Saldivar are doing their best work. This was evident in the fight I watched of his against Winstone on youtube.

We can all disagree, I just think it's a shame we have to often put Marco down in the process. He was a wonderful Featherweight, and defeated a lot of good fighters at 126lbs. The only guy to beat him there was Manny Pacquiao, who is reigning today as the world's best. I just have trouble seeing how a slower version of him would beat him in a 12 round fight. Saldivar looks cute, he throws nice combination's, and I love his patience. It's just like Marco, who just threw with better technique and with more explosiveness. In my judgment.

[Mantequilla]

I agree it's best to avoid putting other fighters down unnecessarily to make a point, debates become too contentious and heavy handed to be worthwhile.Blame Power for that here;).

[Addie]

I agree it's best to avoid putting other fighters down unnecessarily to make a point, debates become too contentious and heavy handed to be worthwhile.Blame Power for that here;).

Been bugging me for awhile Mantequilla, who's in your avatar mate?

[GPater11093]

Been bugging me for awhile Mantequilla, who's in your avatar mate?

same here for some reason i awas think Moon vs Konadu

[Addie]

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?

That's not the issue here, Tin. I was pitching a head to head match-up between the two, and for all of Saldivar's achievements and the competition he defeated, we have to look at each other's skill set to guage how it would turn out. Would Saldivar win based on his more impressive resume at Featherweight? Not at all. That said, I am more than interested in hearing why some people here would think Saldivar would beat Barrera in a 12 round fight. That isn't me acting cocky, it's a genuine question.

Why would you personally favor Saldivar against Barrera in a 12 rounder at 126lbs? The question is open to all.

[Mantequilla]

It's Zapata against hozumi.

[GPater11093]

thanks Mante always wanted to know

[PopeJackson]

Are you sure he didn't fight in the 1910s or 1920s?

You taking the piss or what?

[China_hand_Joe]

Just got the years confused, point remains the same.

Probably got his era mixed up with Langford, Joe Walcott, Dempsey or someone like that.

[Mendoza]

I don't think the cameras have too much to do with it. You can tell an extremely skilled fighter on pretty much any film. If you go back pre-30's and 40's it mostly has to do with a general change in boxing styles. A lot of the best fighters prior don't look as aesthetically pleasing because of the different techniques they used to accomodate the rules and regulations of the time. Watch a guy like Kid Chocolate in the 30's, an excellent fighter and technician by any standards.

Sometime old films are blurred or run too fast or too slow. Other times they are shot at a distance, and lack close up views and different angles.

I think for the most part any viewable film can give you a good idea of the fighters style and ability, but the older the film, the harder it is to judge.

If you want to see old timers looking good on film, check out Gans, or Burns 1st round KO ( forget over whom right now ). Each film was shot pre 1908.

[Tin_Ribs]

That's not the issue here, Tin. I was pitching a head to head match-up between the two, and for all of Saldivar's achievements and the competition he defeated, we have to look at each other's skill set to guage how it would turn out. Would Saldivar win based on his more impressive resume at Featherweight? Not at all. That said, I am more than interested in hearing why some people here would think Saldivar would beat Barrera in a 12 round fight. That isn't me acting cocky, it's a genuine question.

Why would you personally favor Saldivar against Barrera in a 12 rounder at 126lbs? The question is open to all.

Fair do's. To try and answer your question, I think that both Saldivar's record and the number of fights in which he achieved it reflect his skill set in that he clearly defeated a slew of great to near-great fighters with styles all across the board without a single loss in his prime: the pure boxer (Winstone), the speed merchant (Legra), the slickster (Laguna), the technician (Famechon), the knockout artist (Ramos) etc etc. It's safe to say that men of this calibre and generally better than the men Barrera beat (although not necessarily faced) at featherweight. A wide array of varying attributes would be needed to do what Saldivar did so frequently in so short a space of time.

I think you mentioned earlier that Saldivar looked slow in comparison to Barrera or something or other along those lines. The footage available of him demonstrates that he was anything but slow (to me at least), and this may seem like heresy to you and others, but he put punches together just as quickly (if not better) than Barrera from behind an excellent jab whilst making his lack of stature work for him when it came to punches coming back the other way. He could be a slow starter at times, but stopped plenty of good men inside or around the 12 round distance including Seki, Winstone and Ramos, which makes me think that he'd be at a minimal disadvantage over 12 as opposed to 15. Like Sweet Pea said, he brings something similar to what Pacquaio brought to the table, but also had that brutal body attack as well as being harder to hit cleanly and drive onto the back foot.

Barrera developed into a very good technician in the second half of his career, but at the absolute highest level, he was hittable and hurtable. Legitimate excuses can be made to partly sanctify the Jones and Pacquaio losses, but they can't be explained away (something I tried to do for years). I still maintain that on a given day, he would have had a chance at downing Pacquiao, but it doesn't alter the fact that a green Pac battered him (although Barrera actually did well in the rematch at times despite being past his best). I just don't see any area in which he was superior to Saldivar, nor any stylistic foils that he might bring to the table that Saldivar never dealt with before. None of the men he beat had the entire package that Saldivar did. Which isn't to say that the fight would easy - no feather in history is having anything like an easy time with the best Barrera.

But if time machines existed, Barrera might well prove me wrong as he did throughout his career. I'd be glad to see it. But logic (at least my logic for what it's worth) points to Saldivar being a little too dynamic and grinding him down over 12 or 15 in a very competitive fight.

[sweet_scientist]

Fair do's. To try and answer your question, I think that both Saldivar's record and the number of fights in which he achieved it reflect his skill set in that he clearly defeated a slew of great to near-great fighters with styles all across the board without a single loss in his prime: the pure boxer (Winstone), the speed merchant (Legra), the slickster (Laguna), the technician (Famechon), the knockout artist (Ramos) etc etc. It's safe to say that men of this calibre and generally better than the men Barrera beat (although not necessarily faced) at featherweight. A wide array of varying attributes would be needed to do what Saldivar did so frequently in so short a space of time.

I think you mentioned earlier that Saldivar looked slow in comparison to Barrera or something or other along those lines. The footage available of him demonstrates that he was anything but slow (to me at least), and this may seem like heresy to you and others, but he put punches together just as quickly (if not better) than Barrera from behind an excellent jab whilst making his lack of stature work for him when it came to punches coming back the other way. He could be a slow starter at times, but stopped plenty of good men inside or around the 12 round distance including Seki, Winstone and Ramos, which makes me think that he'd be at a minimal disadvantage over 12 as opposed to 15. Like Sweet Pea said, he brings something similar to what Pacquaio brought to the table, but also had that brutal body attack as well as being harder to hit cleanly and drive onto the back foot.

Barrera developed into a very good technician in the second half of his career, but at the absolute highest level, he was hittable and hurtable. Legitimate excuses can be made to partly sanctify the Jones and Pacquaio losses, but they can't be explained away (something I tried to do for years). I still maintain that on a given day, he would have had a chance at downing Pacquiao, but it doesn't alter the fact that a green Pac battered him (although Barrera actually did well in the rematch at times despite being past his best). I just don't see any area in which he was superior to Saldivar, nor any stylistic foils that he might bring to the table that Saldivar never dealt with before. None of the men he beat had the entire package that Saldivar did. Which isn't to say that the fight would easy - no feather in history is having anything like an easy time with the best Barrera.

But if time machines existed, Barrera might well prove me wrong as he did throughout his career. I'd be glad to see it. But logic (at least my logic for what it's worth) points to Saldivar being a little too dynamic and grinding him down over 12 or 15 in a very competitive fight.

Nice post. :good

[Addie]

but he put punches together just as quickly (if not better) than Barrera

:bart Post a link here from youtube showing me what you mean. I'll post you a video of Barrera putting an amazingly fast 5 punch combination together in retaliation.

Your post was great, but when I hear stuff like this, but I don't see any footage to back it up, what am I supposed to say? I'm almost certain you won't be able to produce any footage of him throwing punches in combination with as great a fluidity as when Marco did it.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Lovely work. Beautiful really. But his punches are often wide, and his combination's aren't thrown with the fluidity of Marco. I'll show you what I mean.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Tin_Ribs]

:bart Post a link here from youtube showing me what you mean. I'll post you a video of Barrera putting an amazingly fast 5 punch combination together in retaliation.

Your post was great, but when I hear stuff like this, but I don't see any footage to back it up, what am I supposed to say? I'm almost certain you won't be able to produce any footage of him throwing punches in combination with as great a fluidity as when Marco did it.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Lovely work. Beautiful really. But his punches are often wide, and his combination's aren't thrown with the fluidity of Marco. I'll show you what I mean.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

OK.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Watch from about 5.00 on, and take into account that Winstone was at his peak here and a far better featherweight than Tapia ever was. Barrera unleashed salvo's like the above one on open, hittable fighters like Tapia (whose was never a featherweight and well past his best anyway). Winstone was far more elusive and well schooled than Tapia with a better jab, therefore much more difficult to hit cleanly with consecutive shots, which Saldivar manages here with obvious effect.

Barrera's combo's had a different aesthetic to Saldivar's in that they were perhaps more classically delivered with a slight edge in fluidity which was more noticable against hittable types like Tapia and Morales. But he doesn't put them together any faster, nor with any greater power to any greater effect than what Saldivar does here against a much better and trickier opponent in Winstone. Also bear in mind that Saldivar had shorter arms than Barrera and put more of his bodyweight into single shots. The shots might look wide on the odd occasion, but he throws them at such a time where it doesn't really matter. Even so, they still travel over a short distance.

What would get Barrera in trouble IMO would be that he would have most likely tried, as he often did, to throw those kind shots under pressure, particularly late on when he realised that he wasn't going to be able to keep Saldivar on the end of his jab. Exchanges would be inevitable, and Saldivar's shorter blows would be the more telling ones. He was forced to exchange against Pacquaio for similar reasons and was relatively easy to hit with in said exchanges, especially when the overhand left stunned him first, not having the overall speed to go blow for blow with Pacquiao nor the savvy to tie him up or retreat when stunned or hurt. Caught in no man's land if you like.

Even if Barrera was a more fluid combo puncher to you, he still didn't quite have Saldivar's inside game, two fisted power, proven 15 round stamina, durability, proven effectiveness against varied world-class opposition or ability to block and slip blows. He had em, just not quite as Saldivar did.

A lot of Saldivar's best stuff isn't on youtube either.

[Addie]

OK.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]'m really happy you presented some evidence, Tin. Often times when I get into these sort of discussions, they can't seem to produce anything. As I said before, if I don't see any evidence to back up someone's argument, what exactly am I supposed to say? However, in this case, I think you're fighting Saldivars corner brilliantly.

However, nothing in that video proved me wrong. The disparity in power and effectiveness was never in dispute. My soul argument was that Saldivar, too me, was not as good as Barrera when it came to putting punches together in combination. Although what transpired against Winstone was brutal and brilliant, he didn't show the flawless technical often displayed by Marco, who didn't just do it against Tapia, he did it every time out. I could tire you with footage. He put punches together beautifully against Marquez, Hamed, Morales, Mckinney, all top quality opponents.

To get more technical about it, the difference I see is that Saldivar seems to be throwing more predictable combination's and with lesser form. Marco, when he throws, his stance is always steady and his punches are delivered with frightening accuracy. Look at the variation in the the combination's I shown you. Left hook upstairs, left hook downstairs, slight step back, jab, double straight right hand, and finishing up with a left uppercut. You criticise the level of opposition, but the speed in which he does it, and how every shot lands, is absolutely world class. It doesn't get any better.

Watch from about 5.00 on, and take into account that Winstone was at his peak here and a far better featherweight than Tapia ever was. Barrera unleashed salvo's like the above one on open, hittable fighters like Tapia (whose was never a featherweight and well past his best anyway). Winstone was far more elusive and well schooled than Tapia with a better jab, therefore much more difficult to hit cleanly with consecutive shots, which Saldivar manages here with obvious effect.I think you're reaching with commenting on the opposition. I have a silly amount of Barrera fights on DVD, and I can assure you, he was landing beautiful combination's to body and head throughout his career. Morales is a 1st ballot hall of famer fighter, and Hamed was undefeated at Featherweight when Barrera dismantled him. He did defeat world class featherweights, and his main offensive weapon was always his counter-punching in combination. Some of the stuff he did in the first Morales first was astoundingly good. I'm not talking about punching power, I'm talking about delivery, speed, accuracy and variation, and Marco was a top tier guy in all of those regards.


Barrera's combo's had a different aesthetic to Saldivar's in that they were perhaps more classically delivered with a slight edge in fluidity which was more noticable against hittable types like Tapia and Morales. But he doesn't put them together any faster, nor with any greater power to any greater effect than what Saldivar does here against a much better and trickier opponent in Winstone. Also bear in mind that Saldivar had shorter arms than Barrera and put more of his bodyweight into single shots. The shots might look wide on the odd occasion, but he throws them at such a time where it doesn't really matter. Even so, they still travel over a short distance. The shots look wide because their wide, Tin. I don't want to lose context here. I'm amazingly impressed by what you're showing me. I love Saldivar's style, he's a patient counterpuncher, and he is a very good combination puncher. However, how we can be disputing which peice of footage is more impressive is beyond me. Saldivar was a heavy hitter at 126lbs, Barrera was a natural 122lbs who could have easily weight drained down at Super Flyweight and picked up some titles. When we talk delivery, speed, and variation...are you disputing Saldivar was better?

I'll ask again, show me video to prove it or give me a detailed analysis of why the shots Saldivar just threw were better? In reality, he was landing 1-2 punch combination's at best, and once he had Winstone on the hook, he was just looking for the finish. I appreciate that not a lot of footage is easily accessible of Saldivar, but I just want to clarify. Are you disputing that Saldivar was a better combination puncher than Marco? We know who hit harder.

What would get Barrera in trouble IMO would be that he would have most likely tried, as he often did, to throw those kind shots under pressure, particularly late on when he realised that he wasn't going to be able to keep Saldivar on the end of his jab. Exchanges would be inevitable, and Saldivar's shorter blows would be the more telling ones. He was forced to exchange against Pacquaio for similar reasons and was relatively easy to hit with in said exchanges, especially when the overhand left stunned him first, not having the overall speed to go blow for blow with Pacquiao nor the savvy to tie him up or retreat when stunned or hurt. Caught in no man's land if you like.It's a good point. I don't think Marco would be winning an inside battle with the more compact Saldivar, who surely has enough power to buzz and certainly stop Marco at 126lbs. I think the Pacquiao comparison is silly, however. If you were to throw in two fighters to exagerate the contrast that cane sometimes be seen in two different styles, comparing Pacquiao and Saldivar would be appropriate. They are completely different, and why must there be this emphasis on one of Marco's bad nights, when he was a professional for over 20 years, and a top level fighter for over 13?

Even if Barrera was a more fluid combo puncher to you, he still didn't quite have Saldivar's inside game, two fisted power, proven 15 round stamina, durability, proven effectiveness against varied world-class opposition or ability to block and slip blows. He had em, just not quite as Saldivar did.I think Marco had the capacity with his superior hand-speed, longer arms, and wonderful jab to keep this on the outside for long periods. If Saldivar is then forced to engage, he'd be taken out of his comfort zone and thus be susceptible to strong counter-shots himself. I did say that I felt Barrera would win in a 12 fight, and his stamina over that duration was never ever in question during his prime days.

Even with all of your points and the video you showed me, I still think Marco would be too fast for Saldivar, or at least the one I saw fight Winstone in their third fight. I'm not here to throw around Barrera propaganda, I will come back with a revised view once I get my Saldivar footage come in the mail...should be on it's way now. Marco's style was often compared to Chavez when he was coming through, but once he developed, he looked more like Saldivar...and that's a huge compliment.

I have no complaints for anyone who picks Saldivar and who says he had a better inside game, beat better Featherweights, and hit harder. I do, however, feel very strongly about Marco's combination punching ability. You can criticise the level of opposition all you want, but Marco has a wonderful resume by contemporary standards and his punching in clusters was his bread and butter. He did it consistently, and although he wasn't a huge hitter at 126lbs, his variation, accuracy, and speed he delivered the shots in clusters...is there for all to see. He was beautiful to watch.

Bonus question: How does Chavez's combination punching ability stack up to Saldivars in your judgment? And what criteria do you consider when looking at that particular facet of a fighter's offense?

[Tin_Ribs]

I'm really happy you presented some evidence, Tin. Often times when I get into these sort of discussions, they can't seem to produce anything. As I said before, if I don't see any evidence to back up someone's argument, what exactly am I supposed to say? However, in this case, I think you're fighting Saldivars corner brilliantly.

However, nothing in that video proved me wrong. The disparity in power and effectiveness was never in dispute. My soul argument was that Saldivar, too me, was not as good as Barrera when it came to putting punches together in combination. Although what transpired against Winstone was brutal and brilliant, he didn't show the flawless technical often displayed by Marco, who didn't just do it against Tapia, he did it every time out. I could tire you with footage. He put punches together beautifully against Marquez, Hamed, Morales, Mckinney, all top quality opponents.

To get more technical about it, the difference I see is that Saldivar seems to be throwing more predictable combination's and with lesser form. Marco, when he throws, his stance is always steady and his punches are delivered with frightening accuracy. Look at the variation in the the combination's I shown you. Left hook upstairs, left hook downstairs, slight step back, jab, double straight right hand, and finishing up with a left uppercut. You criticise the level of opposition, but the speed in which he does it, and how every shot lands, is absolutely world class. It doesn't get any better.

I think you're reaching with commenting on the opposition. I have a silly amount of Barrera fights on DVD, and I can assure you, he was landing beautiful combination's to body and head throughout his career. Morales is a 1st ballot hall of famer fighter, and Hamed was undefeated at Featherweight when Barrera dismantled him. He did defeat world class featherweights, and his main offensive weapon was always his counter-punching in combination. Some of the stuff he did in the first Morales first was astoundingly good. I'm not talking about punching power, I'm talking about delivery, speed, accuracy and variation, and Marco was a top tier guy in all of those regards.


The shots look wide because their wide, Tin. I don't want to lose context here. I'm amazingly impressed by what you're showing me. I love Saldivar's style, he's a patient counterpuncher, and he is a very good combination puncher. However, how we can be disputing which peice of footage is more impressive is beyond me. Saldivar was a heavy hitter at 126lbs, Barrera was a natural 122lbs who could have easily weight drained down at Super Flyweight and picked up some titles. When we talk delivery, speed, and variation...are you disputing Saldivar was better?

I'll ask again, show me video to prove it or give me a detailed analysis of why the shots Saldivar just threw were better? In reality, he was landing 1-2 punch combination's at best, and once he had Winstone on the hook, he was just looking for the finish. I appreciate that not a lot of footage is easily accessible of Saldivar, but I just want to clarify. Are you disputing that Saldivar was a better combination puncher than Marco? We know who hit harder.

It's a good point. I don't think Marco would be winning an inside battle with the more compact Saldivar, who surely has enough power to buzz and certainly stop Marco at 126lbs. I think the Pacquiao comparison is silly, however. If you were to throw in two fighters to exagerate the contrast that cane sometimes be seen in two different styles, comparing Pacquiao and Saldivar would be appropriate. They are completely different, and why must there be this emphasis on one of Marco's bad nights, when he was a professional for over 20 years, and a top level fighter for over 13?

I think Marco had the capacity with his superior hand-speed, longer arms, and wonderful jab to keep this on the outside for long periods. If Saldivar is then forced to engage, he'd be taken out of his comfort zone and thus be susceptible to strong counter-shots himself. I did say that I felt Barrera would win in a 12 fight, and his stamina over that duration was never ever in question during his prime days.

Even with all of your points and the video you showed me, I still think Marco would be too fast for Saldivar, or at least the one I saw fight Winstone in their third fight. I'm not here to throw around Barrera propaganda, I will come back with a revised view once I get my Saldivar footage come in the mail...should be on it's way now. Marco's style was often compared to Chavez when he was coming through, but once he developed, he looked more like Saldivar...and that's a huge compliment.

Fair enough squire. I'm too tired to get into too deep a debate, so just a couple of things. Barrera is not too fast for him, not on this earth. Ismael Laguna's handspeed was clearly superior to Barrera's at any stage of their respective careers, and Saldivar was more than able to handle it. I wouldn't even say he was faster than Ramos or Winstone to be honest (there's some Ramos on youtube I think). And even if Barrera was faster than Winstone, he didn't have a better jab than him. Look at the technique, timing and snap behind it that still couldn't deter Saldivar. Barrera's jab was good at keeping off lower level types for long periods, or spearing the likes of Hamed (who by that point had the defensive aptitude of Junior Witter) and Morales (great fighter but a shite defense for a top level operator, there's no point denying it). He was hittable with the jab himself, and Saldivar's jab was excellent in it's own right. He could throw it to premium effect on the front or back foot, as a range finder or point scorer, which is quite remarkable for someone who was 5'3. He could throw it practically running forward at times.

You said I was reaching concerning level of opposition, but you brought up contrasting pieces of footage of one man fighting a near-great career featherweight in his prime and one man fighting a shopworn smaller man/mediocre featherweight. It's a shit comparison, was my point. Even if Barrera shows better punching form in such a comparison, it matters less than Saldivar bludgeoning a better opponent in less aesthetically pleasing manner. His punching form would be nigh on as good if it was Tapia standing across from him. And I think that you're reaching calling Saldivar's punches wide. They're no more wide than Barrera pulling the hook to the body or telegraphing the right, which I've seen him do on more than one occasion, and like I said, the relative shortness of Saldivar's arms take away from the 'wideness' of the swings, which doesn't happen all that much anyway. Not enough for him to lose to the great opposition he defeated. If it were that significant, Winstone, Ramos, Laguna, Famechon, Legra, Seki, Luis, Robertson or Rojas would have done something about it at some point where it would have beed enough to win.

I'm emphasising the Pacquaio fight because Barrera was in his prime even if he did have an off night. The Pacquiao of that fight is the nearest thing to Saldivar we have, except that Saldivar was just flat out better than Pacquiao at featherweight. That Morales and Marquez were subsequently able to give Pacquiao so much trouble past their own primes (when Barrera is generally regarded as the best of the trio) has to say something.

I want to go on but can't be arsed, it takes me fucking ages to articulate myself with stuff like this, and I don't want to bore you or keep repeating myself.

But I'm right :!:;):tong

[sweet_scientist]

Even though it's arguable, I'm willing to concede that Barrera was a bit quicker than Saldivar, but I don't see much at stake in conceding the point.

Morales was no faster than Saldivar, and didn't have his strength or inside fighting ability either, but he was holding his own against Barrera.

There's more to a fight than speed folks.

[Addie]

Fair enough squire. I'm too tired to get into too deep a debate, so just a couple of things. Barrera is not too fast for him, not on this earth. Ismael Laguna's handspeed was clearly superior to Barrera's at any stage of their respective careers, and Saldivar was more than able to handle it. I wouldn't even say he was faster than Ramos or Winstone to be honest (there's some Ramos on youtube I think). And even if Barrera was faster than Winstone, he didn't have a better jab than him. Look at the technique, timing and snap behind it that still couldn't deter Saldivar. Barrera's jab was good at keeping off lower level types for long periods, or spearing the likes of Hamed (who by that point had the defensive aptitude of Junior Witter) and Morales (great fighter but a shite defense for a top level operator, there's no point denying it). He was hittable with the jab himself, and Saldivar's jab was excellent in it's own right. He could throw it to premium effect on the front or back foot, as a range finder or point scorer, which is quite remarkable for someone who was 5'3. He could throw it practically running forward at times.

You said I was reaching concerning level of opposition, but you brought up contrasting pieces of footage of one man fighting a near-great career featherweight in his prime and one man fighting a shopworn smaller man/mediocre featherweight. It's a shit comparison, was my point. Even if Barrera shows better punching form in such a comparison, it matters less than Saldivar bludgeoning a better opponent in less aesthetically pleasing manner. His punching form would be nigh on as good if it was Tapia standing across from him. And I think that you're reaching calling Saldivar's punches wide. They're no more wide than Barrera pulling the hook to the body or telegraphing the right, which I've seen him do on more than one occasion, and like I said, the relative shortness of Saldivar's arms take away from the 'wideness' of the swings, which doesn't happen all that much anyway. Not enough for him to lose to the great opposition he defeated. If it were that significant, Winstone, Ramos, Laguna, Famechon, Legra, Seki, Luis, Robertson or Rojas would have done something about it at some point where it would have beed enough to win.

I'm emphasising the Pacquaio fight because Barrera was in his prime even if he did have an off night. The Pacquiao of that fight is the nearest thing to Saldivar we have, except that Saldivar was just flat out better than Pacquiao at featherweight. That Morales and Marquez were subsequently able to give Pacquiao so much trouble past their own primes (when Barrera is generally regarded as the best of the trio) has to say something.

I want to go on but can't be arsed, it takes me fucking ages to articulate myself with stuff like this, and I don't want to bore you or keep repeating myself.

But I'm right :!:;):tong

...I see you're not prepared to give Barrera any credit whatsoever in any facet of the game when comparing him with Saldivar, and for that reason, we can call it a day. :good I look forward to watching more Saldivar.

[Addie]

Even though it's arguable, I'm willing to concede that Barrera was a bit quicker than Saldivar, but I don't see much at stake in conceding the point.

Morales was no faster than Saldivar, and didn't have his strength or inside fighting ability either, but he was holding his own against Barrera.

There's more to a fight than speed folks.

But people deny it anyway. It's like, for some reason, we have to ignore video footage. Barrera was visibly faster on film than Saldivar, and yet we still have people disputing it. Why? If he just produced a video of Saldivar throwing a 3-4 punch combination to body and head in a matter of 2 seconds as Marco would often do then they'd be no complaints. I'd fully concede. Yes, Saldivar was every bit as fast and his technique was every bit as flawless as Barrera's. I didn't see that though.

Questioning what it actually all means in the grand scale of things is a different matter. As I said before, I can accept that Vicente Saldivar was a great combination puncher in his own right, and I've been very willing to give him credit for many of the things I saw him do well. However, Tin Rubs was just blasting Marco in his last response. Not cool. :bart

[sweet_scientist]

But people deny it anyway. It's like, for some reason, we have to ignore video footage. Barrera was visibly faster on film than Saldivar, and yet we still have people disputing it. Why? If he just produced a video of Saldivar throwing a 3-4 punch combination to body and head in a matter of 2 seconds as Marco would often do then they'd be no complaints. I'd fully concede. Yes, Saldivar was every bit as fast and his technique was every bit as flawless as Barrera's. I didn't see that though.

Questioning what it actually all means in the grand scale of things is a different matter. As I said before, I can accept that Vicente Saldivar was a great combination puncher in his own right, and I've been very willing to give him credit for many of the things I saw him do well. However, Tin Rubs was just blasting Marco in his last response. Not cool. :bart

Barrera was a tad quicker for mine. Was a tad quicker than Julio Cesar Chavez too.

But both Saldivar and Chavez weren't in the quick combination game.
They didn't aim to throw quickly - they aimed to hurt quickly. They were there to throw shots to the body and break guys down. Barrera was more boxer-oriented and lived more behind his handspeed and combination throwing ability. I'm willing to give him the edge there.

[Tin_Ribs]

Even though it's arguable, I'm willing to concede that Barrera was a bit quicker than Saldivar, but I don't see much at stake in conceding the point.

Morales was no faster than Saldivar, and didn't have his strength or inside fighting ability either, but he was holding his own against Barrera.

There's more to a fight than speed folks.

Good point. I wouldn't argue vehemently with anyone who said that Barrera was faster, but it's not really an important factor as to where the fight would be won or lost (at least not if the Laguna fight is anything to go by). There's a difference between their combination punching in the aesthetic sense, and if someone thinks that Barrera was better in this regard, fair enough. But there's a difference between hitting Morales with a series of shots and hitting Saldivar with the same series. It ain't happening, and I can see Saldivar countering heavily if Barrera were to try. Magnificent as he was against Hamed, MAB was reluctant to commit to his natural instincts at times because of Hamed's power and counterpunching ability, and I can see Saldivar instilling the same wariness in him.

[Addie]

Barrera was a tad quicker for mine. Was a tad quicker than Julio Cesar Chavez too.

But both Saldivar and Chavez weren't in the quick combination game.
They didn't aim to throw quickly - they aimed to hurt quickly. They were there to throw shots to the body and break guys down. Barrera was more boxer-oriented and lived more behind his handspeed and combination throwing ability. I'm willing to give him the edge there.

:good Thanks for giving a fighter who was filmed in the days of color a bit of credit, Scientist.

I think Chavez was an extrodinarily good puncher in combination. His punches seem to just flow, to body and head, and you could feel the pain of his opponent because he was digging every shot in. As you said, every shot was meant to hurt and they almost surely did. Chavez never ever looked off balance when he threw his shots, and every shot Marco threw, Chavez threw it better. Straight right, left hook, everything really. The jab is perhaps a little debatable.

[Addie]

Good point. I wouldn't argue vehemently with anyone who said that Barrera was faster, but it's not really an important factor as to where the fight would be won or lost (at least not if the Laguna fight is anything to go by). There's a difference between their combination punching in the aesthetic sense, and if someone thinks that Barrera was better in this regard, fair enough. But there's a difference between hitting Morales with a series of shots and hitting Saldivar with the same series. It ain't happening, and I can see Saldivar countering heavily if Barrera were to try. Magnificent as he was against Hamed, MAB was reluctant to commit to his natural instincts at times because of Hamed's power and counterpunching ability, and I can see Saldivar instilling the same wariness in him.

And let's be realistic, if Saldivar was to square up like he did against Winstone in front of Marco throwing those wide often looping shots, he'd get countered too. They were both world class operators.

[Tin_Ribs]

And let's be realistic, if Saldivar was to square up like he did against Winstone in front of Marco throwing those wide often looping shots, he'd get countered too. They were both world class operators.

I know. Lighten up for fucks sake. Saldivar got hit, he was too offensively orientated not to get hit. Never anywhere did I say that he wasn't or didn't. Barrera probably did have an edge in speed and fluidity that would see him have some success. And he was a quicker combination puncher, though not as powerful. It's just clear that Saldivar held advantages in other key areas that I've already elaborated on, as his career displayed, whether the footage exists on youtube or not. You brought up Barrera being a slightly more fluid fighter and practically based the entire outcome of the fight on it.

Little difference: jab, footwork, mid range ability (though I'd lean slightly toward VS for all 3 despite it being debateable), ring-generalship and defensive nous (I'd be inclined to side with VS again considering how he used his stature to work his way inside).

Barrera: quicker combination puncher and greater fluidity of form. Slightly quicker in general.

Saldivar: better two fisted power (especially the left), better body attack, greater inside ability, durability, composure under fire, better resume against a wider demographic of opponents without a prime loss.

That's putting it extremely crudely. But I think it suggests, apart from their actual careers that Saldivar should be the reasonable favourite moreso than Barrera. Make of it what you will if I haven't offended your sensibilities too much. I'll not pick on Mr Barrera if it upsets you. :roll:

[Addie]

I know. Lighten up for fucks sake. Saldivar got hit, he was too offensively orientated not to get hit. Never anywhere did I say that he wasn't or didn't. Barrera probably did have an edge in speed and fluidity that would see him have some success. And he was a quicker combination puncher, though not as powerful. It's just clear that Saldivar held advantages in other key areas that I've already elaborated on, as his career displayed, whether the footage exists on youtube or not. You brought up Barrera being a slightly more fluid fighter and practically based the entire outcome of the fight on it.

Little difference: jab, footwork, mid range ability (though I'd lean slightly toward VS for all 3 despite it being debateable), ring-generalship and defensive nous (I'd be inclined to side with VS again considering how he used his stature to work his way inside).

Barrera: quicker combination puncher and greater fluidity of form. Slightly quicker in general.

Saldivar: better two fisted power (especially the left), better body attack, greater inside ability, durability, composure under fire, better resume against a wider demographic of opponents without a prime loss.

That's putting it extremely crudely. But I think it suggests, apart from their actual careers that Saldivar should be the reasonable favourite moreso than Barrera. Make of it what you will if I haven't offended your sensibilities too much. I'll not pick on Mr Barrera if it upsets you. :roll:

The moment I insinuate that Barrera could possible land a punch on Saldivar, I'm being sensitive? ...Come on, Tin.


You brought up Barrera being a slightly more fluid fighter and practically based the entire outcome of the fight on it.I thought my reasoning behind Barrera beating Saldivar at 126lbs was outlined when the disparity in size and reach was outlined by yourself, in which I then elaborated on how that reach could see Marco win rounds with a great jab that was often on display. Likewise, Saldivar being a natural counter-puncher, he'd eventually feel forced or compelled to engage the action out of frustration and in engaging, would become subject to Marco's sharp counters. I said this all earlier, actually.

My only issue was you not giving Barrera credit for anything and in having a constructive debate involving two world class talents...that just doesn't work. Happy to see you concede that Marco did have some talent though.

[WhataRock]

The film of Saldivar is for the most part great quality and I cant for the life me understand why someone cant watch and see one of the best H2H featherweights ever. (Not directed at you Addie)

He was as (I feel more) impressive as Barerra IMO. Even with Marco being a little more eye catching with his style and combo punching.
Vicente is the sort of guy who you probably wont appreciate straight away if you have been conditioned to the T.V friendly fighters HBO like to spruik...Sort of like Monzon in a way, who did not impress me at all when I was younger and had a far less trained eye.

[Addie]

The film of Saldivar is for the most part great quality and I cant for the life me understand why someone cant watch and see one of the best H2H featherweights ever. (Not directed at you Addie)

He was as (I feel more) impressive as Barerra IMO. Even with Marco being a little more eye catching with his style and combo punching.
Vicente is the sort of guy who you probably wont appreciate straight away if you have been conditioned to the T.V friendly fighters HBO like to spruik...Sort of like Monzon in a way, who did not impress me at all when I was younger and had a far less trained eye.

That wasn't patronizing...in the slightest. :good

We can disagree on who looks more impressive on film for the time being. It's almost my obligation to seek out more footage of the man, and I'll take great pleasure in doing so.

[MrMarvel]

I disagree with the premise of the thread. When I watch Tommy Loughran or Freddie Steele, I see guys that would have little trouble competing in any era. And while some techniques and strategies were advanced after that point, there are things the old timers did that modern fighters would do damn well to emulate. Some have been gained. Some has been lost. A lot has been lost in contemporary times.

As for how fighters look on film, I think this important for reference. For example, we know Harry Greb must have been amazing to watch because he beat all those fighters we can see on film and they look terrific!

Finally, I don't think film itself has anything to do with being able to determine how good fighters are. You can correct the speed if it bothers you to watch it fast.

[dabox]

mrmarvel

let me say, i want to be convinced by what your saying

because guys like tommy loughran and freddie steele are some of my child hero's.

and when i watch their tapes, yes those 2 can compete with anyone(this can be said for many old timers too), and yes the old timers had some techiques and stragies that are lost....

but then modern fighters are better at certain things too....and when you listen to old timers show techiques, they seem to know more etc

BUT


you mention, the speed of the film, and how you can correct it etc

BUT.....how do you explain many fights where some of these guys, fall into clinch after clinch.....fast speed or low speed....

i dont think this is a show of skill at all,

and when you see 2 guys with hands down and chin up, trying to jab each other in the body again and again before ofcourse falling into a clinch.....this is again not a show of skill

[Mantequilla]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Both so slow....so sluggish.No snap at all...standing...in.....cement...;)

seriously though, i think combinations/speed etc don't have a big enough difference to be a fight changing point to focus on...both could be very precise, or wing punches, Sladivar tended to be pinpoint with the left and less orthodox with his hooks...barrera a bit more balanced, but not as heavy handed; Saldivar's straight elft down the pipe was truly great single shot.Best to try and weigh everything up here, and also consider saldivar was fighting a guy who controls distance and the balance of his opponents much better than most featherweights since him.If you're going to point out drawbacks against winston, then compare them to similar efforts against Morales, pac, Mckinney etc and not lower level men or shot fighters like tapia.

I don't like using a few gifs to illustrate things in debates like this, you could easily make both look much worse than they were or much better depending on your interest and the footage you choose, even if not being intentionally bias.

[lefthook31]

I disagree with the premise of the thread. When I watch Tommy Loughran or Freddie Steele, I see guys that would have little trouble competing in any era. And while some techniques and strategies were advanced after that point, there are things the old timers did that modern fighters would do damn well to emulate. Some have been gained. Some has been lost. A lot has been lost in contemporary times.

As for how fighters look on film, I think this important for reference. For example, we know Harry Greb must have been amazing to watch because he beat all those fighters we can see on film and they look terrific!

Finally, I don't think film itself has anything to do with being able to determine how good fighters are. You can correct the speed if it bothers you to watch it fast.
I think its a good barometer to see how styles have changed though, and I agree the old timers did a lot of things better, but there has been some changes that would have helped the old timers as well, specifically defensively.

[Addie]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Both so slow....so sluggish.No snap at all...standing...in.....cement...;)

seriously though, i think combinations/speed etc don't have a big enough difference to be a fight changing point to focus on...both could be very precise, or wing punches, Sladivar tended to be pinpoint with the left and less orthodox with his hooks...barrera a bit more balanced, but not as heavy handed; Saldivar's straight elft down the pipe was truly great single shot.Best to try and weigh everything up here, and also consider saldivar was fighting a guy who controls distance and the balance of his opponents much better than most featherweights since him.If you're going to point out drawbacks against winston, then compare them to similar efforts against Morales, pac, Mckinney etc and not lower level men or shot fighters like tapia.

I don't like using a few gifs to illustrate things in debates like this, you could easily make both look much worse than they were or much better depending on your interest and the footage you choose, even if not being intentionally bias.

:verysad Not at all. I was fighting Marco's corner specifically in the combintion punching area. I wasn't strongly disagreeing with anyone who pick Saldivar in a fight, but I want to see if anyone was willing to concede that Marco was better than Saldivar at something. It hasn't been that postitive to be honest, but I think my points as to why I consider Marco a better combination made sense and I stick by it.

If anyone was being bias, it was Tin_Rubs. I tried to sought out the bets possible footage available of Saldivar and even gave him a chance to try and find better. What he produced was awesome. Saldivar was clearly the heavier hitter, and he did put punches together well and as you mentioned, his straight left looked outstanding. That said, he doesn't outdo Barrera in every facet of the game, footage certainly agrees with me I feel.


Both so slow....so sluggish.No snap at all...standing...in.....cement...:wink:

And I hope that's not that aimed at me. I'll say it again, I've given the man the credit I think the footage of him deserves and that means to say I was highly impressed indeed. Tin_Rubs was describing Marco as somewhat of a B level fighter.

[China_hand_Joe]

Barrera is in a different weight division to Saldivar, a bit of a pointless discussion regarding who wins.

Even if Barrera was shrunk in a high temperature wash, he'd probably have a field day countering Saldivar with great frequency given the way Saldivar dropped his right hand after each and every jab he threw, his non outstanding speed and range.

[Addie]

Barrera is in a different weight division to Saldivar, a bit of a pointless discussion regarding who wins.

Even if Barrera was shrunk in a high temperature wash, he'd probably have a field day countering Saldivar with great frequency given the way Saldivar dropped his right hand after each and every jab he threw, his non outstanding speed and range.

Barrera was at his best at Featherweight, as was Saldivar.

[Mantequilla]

:verysad Not at all. I was fighting Marco's corner specifically in the combintion punching area. I wasn't strongly disagreeing with anyone who pick Saldivar in a fight, but I want to see if anyone was willing to concede that Marco was better than Saldivar at something. It hasn't been that postitive to be honest, but I think my points as to why I consider Marco a better combination made sense and I stick by it.

If anyone was being bias, it was Tin_Rubs. I tried to sought out the bets possible footage available of Saldivar and even gave him a chance to try and find better. What he produced was awesome. Saldivar was clearly the heavier hitter, and he did put punches together well and as you mentioned, his straight left looked outstanding. That said, he doesn't outdo Barrera in every facet of the game, footage certainly agrees with me I feel.



And I hope that's not that aimed at me. I'll say it again, I've given the man the credit I think the footage of him deserves and that means to say I was highly impressed indeed. Tin_Rubs was describing Marco as somewhat of a B level fighter.

aimed more at powerpunchers comments earlier, addie.punching under water, slow as molasses, no snap in the jab etc..

[China_hand_Joe]

Barrera was at his best at Featherweight, as was Saldivar.

Today's featherweights are a fair amount bigger.

They get to take their blood out and put it back in after the weigh in, 30 hours or so before the fight.

[Monte Fisto]

i think a lot of if has to do with the evolution of the athlete in general. athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, have dietitians, and trained more effective/and sport specific. between training fast twitch muscles with plyometrics and taking correct(legal) supplements even the most novice athlete can make imporvements

[Sweet Pea]

Been bugging me for awhile Mantequilla, who's in your avatar mate?That's Zapata.

[Tin_Ribs]

The moment I insinuate that Barrera could possible land a punch on Saldivar, I'm being sensitive? ...Come on, Tin.

I thought my reasoning behind Barrera beating Saldivar at 126lbs was outlined when the disparity in size and reach was outlined by yourself, in which I then elaborated on how that reach could see Marco win rounds with a great jab that was often on display. Likewise, Saldivar being a natural counter-puncher, he'd eventually feel forced or compelled to engage the action out of frustration and in engaging, would become subject to Marco's sharp counters. I said this all earlier, actually.

My only issue was you not giving Barrera credit for anything and in having a constructive debate involving two world class talents...that just doesn't work. Happy to see you concede that Marco did have some talent though.

Is there any point in me saying I was joking?

To address your analysis (again) concerning Barrera's reach, speed, jab and size disparity, it could well prove accurate, but I disagree for the following reasons:

- Saldivar was at a size disparity his entire career. It played little part; in fact, he made it work for him. He could loop the overhand left from the outside as he did against Winstone, and even if it didn't land it brought him into range, partly disguising the follow-up blows to head and body that his opponent hadn't anticipated. He was still able to land his jab on any opponent despite his reach and was pretty good at avoiding the opponents jab into the bargain, which also brought him into range.

- The jab. Any footage of Howard Winstone clearly shows that he had a magnificent jab, one of the best in featherweight history IMO. Timing, precision, variety, decent snap, everything. Barrera had a great jab himself, but it wasn't as good as Winstone's in an overall sense. Despite his late career evolution, Barrera had less success when he tried to box Morales, Marquez, Juarez and Pacquaio. They were able to take his jab away from him to a certain degree; he actually looked better (excellent in fact) when he stepped in against Marquez and Morales and let his hands go rather than trying to box from range. He'd land the jab against Saldivar of course, but he wouldn't be able to control him with it just as he couldn't control Morales or Juarez in the first fight(though he was in twilight of his prime by then I suppose). Hitting Hamed, Kelley and Tapia with the jab won't prepare him for what Saldivar would bring (which isn't to say that he wouldn't have a fair deal of success with it before you say anything).

- Speed. Like I said earlier, Barrera wasn't faster than Laguna or Legra. Not an issue.

- Saldivar being a counterpuncher. He was, but he was an aggressive counterpuncher who could also lead and close the distance in a second if he wanted. He could also be painstakingly patient, just as he was against a swift moving target like Winstone, conceding a few early rounds while he got Winstone's measure and built up a head of steam in the championship rounds.

- 12 rounds. Barrera was a bonafide 12 round fighter with no evident stamina issues who could generally control the pace of a fight against certain types. But Saldivar beat both Laguna and Legra over 10 rounds and stopped Seki, Winstone and Ramos all inside 12 as well as other opponents. He knew when to step it up whatever the distance was, be it 10,12 or 15.

I could go into deep waters where Barrera's merits are concerned, the man was a fantastic fighter and probably my favourite in recent years (it took me ages to build up the guts to watch Pacquiao batter him like that and still pains me now). I'm just not as blind to the few flaws he had in his armour as I once was. But it's a bit rich to accuse me of being biased when you yourself are openly so towards Barrera.




[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Both so slow....so sluggish.No snap at all...standing...in.....cement...;)

seriously though, i think combinations/speed etc don't have a big enough difference to be a fight changing point to focus on...both could be very precise, or wing punches, Sladivar tended to be pinpoint with the left and less orthodox with his hooks...barrera a bit more balanced, but not as heavy handed; Saldivar's straight elft down the pipe was truly great single shot.Best to try and weigh everything up here, and also consider saldivar was fighting a guy who controls distance and the balance of his opponents much better than most featherweights since him.If you're going to point out drawbacks against winston, then compare them to similar efforts against Morales, pac, Mckinney etc and not lower level men or shot fighters like tapia.

I don't like using a few gifs to illustrate things in debates like this, you could easily make both look much worse than they were or much better depending on your interest and the footage you choose, even if not being intentionally bias.

Agreed.

:verysad Not at all. I was fighting Marco's corner specifically in the combintion punching area. I wasn't strongly disagreeing with anyone who pick Saldivar in a fight, but I want to see if anyone was willing to concede that Marco was better than Saldivar at something. It hasn't been that postitive to be honest, but I think my points as to why I consider Marco a better combination made sense and I stick by it.

If anyone was being bias, it was Tin_Rubs. I tried to sought out the bets possible footage available of Saldivar and even gave him a chance to try and find better. What he produced was awesome. Saldivar was clearly the heavier hitter, and he did put punches together well and as you mentioned, his straight left looked outstanding. That said, he doesn't outdo Barrera in every facet of the game, footage certainly agrees with me I feel.



And I hope that's not that aimed at me. I'll say it again, I've given the man the credit I think the footage of him deserves and that means to say I was highly impressed indeed. Tin_Rubs was describing Marco as somewhat of a B level fighter.

Don't talk like a wally, you're too good of a poster to resort to kid's tactics like that. If you can't take criticism where Barrera is concerned, that's up to you. See above for my thoughts on the man. A great, great fighter as I've always said. Just slightly outmatched in key departments in this fight and doesn't bring anything to the table that VS can't ultimately handle (not not struggle with, key difference). I'm not the only one who thinks so, not that it would bother me if I wasn't without meaning to sound arrogant.

You've given Saldivar his dues to the extent you know about him, no doubt. I wasn't questioning that.

By the way, my eyes were rolling in the back of my head with sleep last you bastard. I nearly cried when I saw that initial reply all broken down and quantified. Lengthy replies aren't my strength.

Now piss off :D

[dabox]

to fisto,

i don't buy this whole evolution of the boxer thing, because as some one pointed out
these modern fighters get injuried more when actually fighting less.....

better diet etc maybe if you consider fighting 20 pounds under what you should be fighting a better trained athlete....(in lower weight classes)
and at heavyweight a lot come kinda fat


also it's hard to compare sports that have records with those that dont...

because once one you have a record, some one wants too and will break it, the cirle does not stop.

[Addie]

I could go into deep waters where Barrera's merits are concerned, the man was a fantastic fighter and probably my favourite in recent years (it took me ages to build up the guts to watch Pacquiao batter him like that and still pains me now). I'm just not as blind to the few flaws he had in his armour as I once was. But it's a bit rich to accuse me of being biased when you yourself are openly so towards Barrera.


I can only base my opinions off footage I have seen, Tin. You understand that. Saldivar does not look faster than Marco, his technique doesn't look as flawless as Barrera's, and I see more variation in Marco's combination's. I don't think Saldivar would have beaten Marco at 126lbs. I wouldn't say I have been biased, I've outlined what I think both men's strengths and weaknesses are, whereas all you've done is highlight Saldivar's strengths and how he can exploit Marco's shortcomings.

You've given Saldivar his dues to the extent you know about him, no doubt. I wasn't questioning that.

Footage doesn't lie, people do. Saldivar isn't as impressive as hyped based on the footage I've seen. Care to explain why that is?

Now piss off :D

No chance. :good

[Sweet Pea]

Footage doesn't lie, people do. Saldivar isn't as impressive as hyped based on the footage I've seen. Care to explain why that is?
Either you haven't see enough of him or you don't appreciate certain styles as much as others. What you have to learn to do is analyse how effective rather than how aesthetically pleasing boxers are. Do you think Monzon looked particularly impressive on first glance? I for one used to think Michael Spinks was damn near unwatchable because of how awkward and gangly he initially looked, but upon watching and studying more and more footage I grew to love watching him. Sometimes these things take time.

[Mantequilla]

Who know's who is judging the footage truly accurately though, addie?.And even if you are, sometimes fights play out in ways they shouldn't.For instance, how can you truly come to the conclusion Saldivar was a lesser version of Marco(personally i don't think they were that similar, other than their basic stance)when he did better against almost of the A level men he fought and certainly coped better with the straight punching jab/right hand fighters.

Some fighters have a "more than the sum of the parts" feel to them imo.A lot of the greats in fact.saldivar has it when i watch his fights.TO me, he's like Marcinao in mentality and steady relentlessness, but with much better technical chops.IF someone sees that in Barrera it's all good.

Though i'm no big fan of him and don't consider him a great, i thought Tito Trinidad had it to a lesser extent, as long as he wasn't fighting very good movers or defensive specialists.I'd have picked him t grind out KO's of all of the top recent featherweights if he were the same size, despite being clearly deficient in some ways.

[Addie]

Either you haven't see enough of him or you don't appreciate certain styles as much as others. What you have to learn to do is analyse how effective rather than how aesthetically pleasing boxers are. Do you think Monzon looked particularly impressive on first glance? I for one used to think Michael Spinks was damn near unwatchable because of how awkward and gangly he initially looked, but upon watching and studying more and more footage I grew to love watching him. Sometimes these things take time.

Perhaps, Pea. You do make a great point regarding sighting the difference between being effective and aesthetically pleasing. It has been a trouble of mine and perhaps still is. However, I just want to clarify my position again. I do think Saldivar looks good on film, very good, and I have no complaints with people picking him against Marco Antonio Barrera. He hit hard enough to hurt him, and he was an accurate puncher in volume in his own right. However, I have a problem accepting that he was a better combination puncher when we consider accuracy, speed, and variation.

Michael Spinks is one of my favorite fighters of all time, I've always thought his awkward delivery was immense. I heard someone say he had no snap in his punches a few weeks back. Nonsense. When he threw with mean intentions, you would cringe at the TV because you knew if they landed someone would most likely be on their back. He was a slow starter though, and sometimes he'd throw a lazy lead uppercut...which does seem rather amateurish. Apart from that, love to watch him fight.

By my own admission, I have based all of my opinions on Saldivar on like an hours worth of crappy youtube footage.

[red cobra]

Either you haven't see enough of him or you don't appreciate certain styles as much as others. What you have to learn to do is analyse how effective rather than how aesthetically pleasing boxers are. Do you think Monzon looked particularly impressive on first glance? I for one used to think Michael Spinks was damn near unwatchable because of how awkward and gangly he initially looked, but upon watching and studying more and more footage I grew to love watching him. Sometimes these things take time.
Great points you make Sweet Pea!:deal I'll agree with this and save my fingers any more typing.

[Tin_Ribs]

I can only base my opinions off footage I have seen, Tin. You understand that. Saldivar does not look faster than Marco, his technique doesn't look as flawless as Barrera's, and I see more variation in Marco's combination's. I don't think Saldivar would have beaten Marco at 126lbs. I wouldn't say I have been biased, I've outlined what I think both men's strengths and weaknesses are, whereas all you've done is highlight Saldivar's strengths and how he can exploit Marco's shortcomings.



Footage doesn't lie, people do. Saldivar isn't as impressive as hyped based on the footage I've seen. Care to explain why that is?



No chance. :good

Which is? Footage I mean.

Watch more footage then is all I can say. You'll find that some people may disagree, and with good reason. You could say that Benny Leonard doesn't look all that impressive based on the sole footage against Tendler (which is actually more in the original spirit of the thread ;)). Doesn't matter, people still pick Leonard to beat loads of people in fantasy matchups based on footage of the people he beat and on reliable accounts by people who know more than you or I do. The footage available of the men Saldivar beat speaks for itself and is relevant to how he'd fair in an imaginary fight.

I'm far from the definitive authority on Saldivar, but he looks very good on film to me with no obvious weaknesses, an observation backed up by the fact that he dominated a brilliant era filled with contrasting fighters. If I remember rightly, you used to think that Chavez was a slugger at some point (I could be wrong)? Saldivar is the kind of man who requires a bit of watching to appreciate how good he was. Not like Barrera, whose aesthetic qualities are evident on first viewing. I used to think the same thing about Monzon; in fact, I was downright underwhelmed the first time I watched him. Further viewing made it more apparent how good he was at what he did.

You might not change for opinion on Saldivar, which is your prerogative. But you might. I've noticed that you have a preference for the technically precise classic types like Barrera, Chavez and Canizales with Spinks being the notable exception.

[Addie]

Who know's who is judging the footage truly accurately though, addie?.And even if you are, sometimes fights play out in ways they shouldn't.For instance, how can you truly come to the conclusion Saldivar was a lesser version of Marco(personally i don't think they were that similar, other than their basic stance)when he did better against almost of the A level men he fought and certainly coped better with the straight punching jab/right hand fighters.

I don't think I ever described Saldivar as being a lesser version, and I disagree with you, I see similarities with Marco. The obvious ones. Their stance was rather similar as you sighted, as was their overall style. Saldivar would counter with quick combination's and worked behind a good jab. So did the best version of Marco Antonio Barrera.

I do realize that there's a lot to Saldivar's game that I've not given great consideration, if only because I've not seen enough footage of him. That said, I've been very specific in which way I've compared them. Accuracy, speed, and variation. I can concede that Saldivar could have possibly been more accurate, but I think the other two factors clearly belong to Marco.

[GPater11093]

aint watched Saldivar in a while and i wasnt truly struck by it but i could see he was a great pressure fighter with no real weakness

neeed to watch my DVD of him again

[Addie]

Which is? Footage I mean.


The footage presented in this thread and his third effort against Winstone. Is it worth watching his fight with Shibata? As I understand, he'd come back from a lay off and had lost a step.

Watch more footage then is all I can say. You'll find that some people may disagree, and with good reason. You could say that Benny Leonard doesn't look all that impressive based on the sole footage against Tendler (which is actually more in the original spirit of the thread ;)). Doesn't matter, people still pick Leonard to beat loads of people in fantasy matchups based on footage of the people he beat and on reliable accounts by people who know more than you or I do. The footage available of the men Saldivar beat speaks for itself has is relevant to how he'd fair in an imaginary fight.

I'm far from the definitive authority on Saldivar, but he looks very good on film to me with no obvious weaknesses, an observation backed up by the fact that he dominated a brilliant era filled with contrasting fighters. If I remember rightly, you used to think that Chavez was a slugger at some point (I could be wrong)? Saldivar is the kind of man who requires a bit of watching to appreciate how good he was. Not like Barrera, whose aesthetic qualities are evident on first viewing. I used to think the same thing about Monzon; in fact, I was downright underwhelmed the first time I watched him. Further viewing made it more apparent how good he was at what he did.


You're absolutely right regarding Chavez. I was a little clueless at one point, and in some ways I still am, but I'm willing to learn. That'll be why I had footage of Saldivar on it's way too me, because it's not that I want to believe Barrera was better, but that's the conclusion I've come to by watching both fighters. I think I'm going to give him another watch on youtube in a minute.

You might not change for opinion on Saldivar, which is your prerogative. But you might. I've noticed that you have a preference for the technically precise classic types like Barrera, Chavez and Canizales with Spinks being the notable exception.

That's true. I have no idea why I like Spinks so much, it does go against other fighters I like. That said, Myung Yuh is often accused of being more of a work horse than a talented technician and I absolutely love to watch him work. Off topic, but I do think Yuh is a good boxer on the outside, and had a good variety of offensive tools at his disposable.

[Tin_Ribs]

The footage presented in this thread and his third effort against Winstone. Is it worth watching his fight with Shibata? As I understand, he'd come back from a lay off and had lost a step.



You're absolutely right regarding Chavez. I was a little clueless at one point, and in some ways I still am, but I'm willing to learn. That'll be why I had footage of Saldivar on it's way too me, because it's not that I want to believe Barrera was better, but that's the conclusion I've come to by watching both fighters. I think I'm going to give him another watch on youtube in a minute.



That's true. I have no idea why I like Spinks so much, it does go against other fighters I like. That said, Myung Yuh is often accused of being more of a work horse than a talented technician and I absolutely love to watch him work. Off topic, but I do think Yuh is a good boxer on the outside, and had a good variety of offensive tools at his disposable.

You can educate me on Yuh, I've not seen all that much of him. And you held your own quite admirably in that Spinks-Jones Jr thing a while back I have to say. Spinks was a thing to behold in his day.

Regarding Saldivar-Shibiata, he'd come out of retirement and clearly wasn't the same fighter. He wasn't able to adapt as Barrera did in the wake of physical decline. And he was shot to shit by the time Jofre got to him, though Jofre was about 37 himself.

[Addie]

You can educate me on Yuh, I've not seen all that much of him. And you held your own quite admirably in that Spinks-Jones Jr thing a while back I have to say. Spinks was a thing to behold in his day.

Regarding Saldivar-Shibiata, he'd come out of retirement and clearly wasn't the same fighter. He wasn't able to adapt as Barrera did in the wake of physical decline. And he was shot to shit by the time Jofre got to him, though Jofre was about 37 himself.

You should go educate yourself mate. There's four of his fights on youtube, two of which I personally uploaded. Someone else explained him perfectly the other day actually. He could do a little bit of everything, but perhaps his standout assets were his work rate and stamina. Great body puncher, and would often counter for the first couple of rounds to feel out his opponent before breaking them down with body shots and a sharp right hand. Not much power to speak of, but he would have held his own against Chang in my view.

[Tin_Ribs]

You should go educate yourself mate. There's four of his fights on youtube, two of which I personally uploaded. Someone else explained him perfectly the other day actually. He could do a little bit of everything, but perhaps his standout assets were his work rate and stamina. Great body puncher, and would often counter for the first couple of rounds to feel out his opponent before breaking them down with body shots and a sharp right hand. Not much power to speak of, but he would have held his own against Chang in my view.

I can't praise Chang enough, so that on it's own is enough to peak my curiousity. How do you think he would've gone on against Gushiken or Lopez?

[Addie]

I can't praise Chang enough, so that on it's own is enough to peak my curiousity. How do you think he would've gone on against Gushiken or Lopez?

I haven't seen enough of Gushiken too comment, but I liken Myung Yuh to Rosendo Alvarez if only slightly. Myung when he was the smaller man in the ring, and clearly out of his depth on the outside, had the capacity to weasel himself inside and bang to body and head. Now, whether or not Myung would have the power to get Ricardo's respect like Alvarez did...is a different story. I couldn't call the fight, but I think Myung beats both Gonzalez and Carbajal.

Myung's resume is not terrific, but he was consistent, and I can gauge just by watching him fight that he was very good. He could work behind a nice jab and work combination's behind it. He could get the better of all of his opponents on the side by utilising his body attack, and he threw in combination very well. He had skills, and he had all the intangibles like heart, chin, stamina, all of this was among his best traits. He just might struggle against the other greats because he was not a physical specimen by any stretch of the imagination, he had little power to speak of, and I imagine he could be bullied...certainly by Chang.

You'd have to expect Chang to beat him though.