![]() Mancini wears you down with an accumulation of punches and isn't what i would call a big puncher with any 1 shot, and Crawley was a talented boxer but he had no power. But i don't necessarily think that just because Rosario blew away Bramble who beat Mancini, that Rosario necessarily blows away Mancini in the same way.įirstly Bramble hadn't really fought any known punchers prior to Rosario fight to my knowledge, he fought Mancini x2 who he matched up well against as Bramble had a solid defence and was physically strong. I would say Mancini has as much argument to winning the fight as Rosario did, and i thought personally Camacho clearly won a close fight vs Rosario in range of 115-113 but again i know it was close.Ĭlick to expand.As you well know style makes fights i already said the win over Bramble was a good win. ![]() And even a poster here on this topic thought Mancini won the fight. I looked at YT comments for the fight aswell, and plenty had Mancini winning the fight. And didn't fight again for another 3 years after the Camacho fight in a loss to Haugen, i would say Mancini was further removed from his peak than Camacho.Īnd i wouldn't say it's overstating that Mancini had a good argument to beating Camacho, look at eyeonthering it has a 50 percent controversy rating with fans being split on who they thought won. Mancini hadn't fought in 4 years and was coming off two losses to Bramble, he had no warm up prior to Camacho fight. ![]() But there was still no real evidence in his one sided victories against Davis, Boza Edwards, to suggest he still wasn't a very elite fighter. Rosario's win over Bramble is easily the standout - by far.Ĭlick to expand.Camacho was 33-0 and still a force when he fought Mancini, yes he may of fought more cautiously after the Rosario scare. The story of the fight was mostly about how disappointing the fight and Camacho were.įor me saying Mancini had a "strong" argument to beating Camacho is overstating it. Yeah it's his fault and he had some losses but at his finest he was a heckuva fighter.Ĭamacho wasn't the man he was by the time he fought Mancini. Drugs took a heavy toll on his career and definitely curtailed him somewhat. Even more impressive within context he pummelled Loreto Garza to win a title at 140 two years later. At his best, and he was at his best for Rosario, he was greased lightning and had also started fighting more stationary to gain some power.Įven after the grueling loss to Chevez he came back and upset the promising Anthony Jones.he was considered shot at this point by many. He was bracketed with the likes of Rosario, Mancini and Camacho for some time. His win over Howard Davis who was on top of his game was a ripper. That Jackson was extremely green seems to escape attention for the most part. He actually did get the nod in a close affair against Ramirez the first time and Randall, tho green, turned out to be like Julian Jackson (who had faced virtually no-one before McCallum) in that his showing was an excellent one. From memory Bramble was rated P4P #3 in the world at that point.įor me Rosario had the better career overall. You've commented how much better Mancini did against Ramirez but the difference between their performances against Bramble is night and day - Rosario DESTROYED the guy, actually had him not wanting to get up. Ramirez was ridiculously durable and it was this that allowed him to outlast a tiring Rosario who went HARD trying to stop him. No-one ever remotely treated him like this and the effect of Rosario's punches was astonishing in context. What you fail to mention about Ramirez is that Rosario pounded him down twice and was not far from ending him. Click to expand.Rosario's win over Bramble is easily the standout - by far.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |