two peopl that should have honourable mentions
Johnny 'matchstick man' Owen
Randolph Turpin
Who were the best Welsh Boxers?
Re: honrable mentions
Johnny is worthy of an honourable mention is a similar way to Nicky Piper. While of course it was very tragic, he was an overachiever (but deserved cause he lived for the ring).Wales wrote:two peopl that should have honourable mentions
Johnny 'matchstick man' Owen
Randolph Turpin
I'm not convinced that even in this day of multi world champion Johnny would have captured one of the four main versions of the title.
Yes, Randolph Turpin had Welsh ties, but I wouldn't classify him as Welsh. If you do then he more than worthy of a place in the upper part of the top 10 - probably 2.
I agree totally. Johnny was a brilliant fighter, terrifically strong albeit save for the fatal flaw which led to his tragic death... but this was a strong boy, a brave and talented fighter, not someone who was put in over his head. He was head and shoulders above the rest at Europeon level and this was when there was no shortage of talent.... I belive up to the conclusion of the fight with Pintor Johnny was actually ahead on points!... and this was against a great champion and in that champions own backyard of Mexico!. Comparisons between Owen and Piper are unfair to both, Piper was a good domestic to Europeon level fighter, while Johnney Owen was a worldclass fighter who dominated all opponents in Europe and who without a doubt would have won GENUINE world title had the hand of fate been kinder to him!.OwainCymru wrote:Of course you are entitled to your opinion - but what a load of crock!!Johnny is worthy of an honourable mention is a similar way to Nicky Piper. While of course it was very tragic, he was an overachiever (but deserved cause he lived for the ring).
I'm not convinced that even in this day of multi world champion Johnny would have captured one of the four main versions of the title.
Johnny was untouchable at European level, top ten world ranked and fought a very good champion in Pintor. Pintor went on to be a double world champion and had beaten Carlos Zarate (admittedly fortunately but he DID beat him). Zarate was a phenomenal champion.
Remember Johnny's accident could have happened at any time, it was not due to 'overachieving'.
Personally, I find it insulting to compare Johnny Owen with Nicky Piper. Piper was never a world class fighter (despite having fought for a world title) and never displayed a fighting heart when the going got tough.
IMO Johnny would have won one of the four main versions of the title if he were around today. Indeed, I believe he had every chance of going on to win a world title had he survived that last tragic bout. Having said that even Pintor has acknowledged that he felt 'my title was slipping away' when he fought Johnny. If the accident hadn't have happened he may have won that fight; it was close. Yes, I have seen the fight.
Now, without sounding disrespectful - dominated Europe?.
He fought Rodriguez twice and both times the fight was close, he didn't make a single defence of the European belt (although he did make a successful defence of his British belt as a Europan champion). So how has he dominated Europe. Rodriguez lost to a guy with a 5-12 record before he faced Owen for the 2nd time. So how could he have dominated Europe? I'm not saying he wasn't worthy of his shot, of course he was but unfortunately he didn't have the opportunity to dominate Europe.
I called him an "overachiever" based on the fact that he lack any true power. He was an excellent boxer, but I just felt he would have lost in world class most times because of this lack of power. Johnny Owen reminded me of Barry Jones in the fact that, due to their lack of power, they could still compete at world level - but like Jones, I fear he would have come up short at the highest level.
The term overachiever has been used (and how I use it) to describe warriors such as Evander Holyfield. You don't expect them to achieve what they did, Holyfield achieved greatness as a heavyweight when many considered him two small or past his best. In a similar way I say Own dominated Britain and won the European title with the "handicap" of not having a knockout punch. This had nothing to do with the injuries he suffered.
He surprised me with his tactics against Pintor, and it was a brilliant performance - but I think Pintor was the one suprised more than most and it he seemed to have the better of him towards the end. If a rematch ever would have happend (and I'm bloody sad that it didn't) then I would have thought a more clear win for the champion. I just think that was the best performance of Johnny's career, but he just failed.
With regard to Nicky Piper, I was wrong to make such a similar comparison - but if you see my original list I have Johnny at 15th in the All time Welsh fighters and Piper is just an honurable mention. However, you mention that Owen was leading on the scorecards in his world title fight, so was Piper vs Benn (infact, Benn needed a knockout to win the fight).
Sorry if my view causes offence.
He fought Rodriguez twice and both times the fight was close, he didn't make a single defence of the European belt (although he did make a successful defence of his British belt as a Europan champion). So how has he dominated Europe. Rodriguez lost to a guy with a 5-12 record before he faced Owen for the 2nd time. So how could he have dominated Europe? I'm not saying he wasn't worthy of his shot, of course he was but unfortunately he didn't have the opportunity to dominate Europe.
I called him an "overachiever" based on the fact that he lack any true power. He was an excellent boxer, but I just felt he would have lost in world class most times because of this lack of power. Johnny Owen reminded me of Barry Jones in the fact that, due to their lack of power, they could still compete at world level - but like Jones, I fear he would have come up short at the highest level.
The term overachiever has been used (and how I use it) to describe warriors such as Evander Holyfield. You don't expect them to achieve what they did, Holyfield achieved greatness as a heavyweight when many considered him two small or past his best. In a similar way I say Own dominated Britain and won the European title with the "handicap" of not having a knockout punch. This had nothing to do with the injuries he suffered.
He surprised me with his tactics against Pintor, and it was a brilliant performance - but I think Pintor was the one suprised more than most and it he seemed to have the better of him towards the end. If a rematch ever would have happend (and I'm bloody sad that it didn't) then I would have thought a more clear win for the champion. I just think that was the best performance of Johnny's career, but he just failed.
With regard to Nicky Piper, I was wrong to make such a similar comparison - but if you see my original list I have Johnny at 15th in the All time Welsh fighters and Piper is just an honurable mention. However, you mention that Owen was leading on the scorecards in his world title fight, so was Piper vs Benn (infact, Benn needed a knockout to win the fight).
Sorry if my view causes offence.
I'm afraid you're digging yourself into a hole here. Your whole perception of Johnney being an overacheiver is wrong in my opinion ......to call Evander Holifeld an overacheiver is also wrong.... surely the whole basis of a great fighter is that they do the unexpected and beat the odds ie Holifield beating Bowe, Tyson, Moorer when he was considered washed up... this does not make him an overacheiver as he was already known as a great warrior anyway.... is Ali an overacheiver for beating Frazier, Foreman and Spinks? was Henry Armstrong an overachiever for winning 3 world titles at 3 weights no (he should have won a 4th too) they were great fighters.... an overacheiever is basically someone who goes further than their talent should have taken them.... Jorge Vaca beating Honeyghan for the Welter title comes to mind.... Thomas Molinares beating Marlon Starling also for the Welter title is another example.stujones wrote:Now, without sounding disrespectful - dominated Europe?.
He fought Rodriguez twice and both times the fight was close, he didn't make a single defence of the European belt (although he did make a successful defence of his British belt as a Europan champion). So how has he dominated Europe. Rodriguez lost to a guy with a 5-12 record before he faced Owen for the 2nd time. So how could he have dominated Europe? I'm not saying he wasn't worthy of his shot, of course he was but unfortunately he didn't have the opportunity to dominate Europe.
I called him an "overachiever" based on the fact that he lack any true power. He was an excellent boxer, but I just felt he would have lost in world class most times because of this lack of power. Johnny Owen reminded me of Barry Jones in the fact that, due to their lack of power, they could still compete at world level - but like Jones, I fear he would have come up short at the highest level.
The term overachiever has been used (and how I use it) to describe warriors such as Evander Holyfield. You don't expect them to achieve what they did, Holyfield achieved greatness as a heavyweight when many considered him two small or past his best. In a similar way I say Own dominated Britain and won the European title with the "handicap" of not having a knockout punch. This had nothing to do with the injuries he suffered.
He surprised me with his tactics against Pintor, and it was a brilliant performance - but I think Pintor was the one suprised more than most and it he seemed to have the better of him towards the end. If a rematch ever would have happend (and I'm bloody sad that it didn't) then I would have thought a more clear win for the champion. I just think that was the best performance of Johnny's career, but he just failed.
With regard to Nicky Piper, I was wrong to make such a similar comparison - but if you see my original list I have Johnny at 15th in the All time Welsh fighters and Piper is just an honurable mention. However, you mention that Owen was leading on the scorecards in his world title fight, so was Piper vs Benn (infact, Benn needed a knockout to win the fight).
Sorry if my view causes offence.
Danielo Caberella almost beating Barry Mcguigan in their Featherweight title fight is another example.
Johnny Owen to my mind was not an overacheiver in that the performance he put on against Pintor surprised no one who knew him well as a fighter or who had followed his career. It is true that many people underestimated Johnny due to his quiet disposition and his appeareance which seemed to show physical frailty. But this was before they saw him fight.... he was a very strong and skilled fighter a real warrior and physically very strong (except for that fatal flaw). In my opinion it is a slight to Johnnys talent as a fighter and champion to call him an overacheiver as he fell fatally short in his battle for boxing honours through a tragic and unknown fatal weakness. This may seem a contradictory statement but Johnny was probably one of the fittest fighters Britain produced... the waekness which caused his death could well have resulted in such a tragic incident had he never even boxed. Johnny was terribly unlucky, given better luck he could have acheived so more both in and out of boxing.... so the label of overacheiver is really misguided I feel, though I do not believe that it is your intention to take anything away from Johnny.
Okay,
Were not going to settle this argument and again I was wrong with my example (but Howard Windstone was spot on).
I think your example of Danielo Caberella and Barry McGuigan is what I consider with Johnny's world title effort (and yes, I have seen tapes of Johnny and Pintor in seperate fights). Again, I will say before you jump the gun, that this is at a high level. In terms of all time greatness I would classify Pintor above McGuigan and Caberella below Owen. However, do I think Johnny would have beaten Pintor in a rematch then I say no - I was and still am surprised by the performance he put that night. I didn't expect Michael Brodie to have given Inchin Chi that good a fight in their first meeting, the rematch was more comprehensive.
Like I said, of course Johnny deserves a mention, but I don't place him in the top ten. How many former world champions did he face. You mention his win of Ferreri and cite him as being world class. Sure Ferreri fought for the world championship, but he suffered some defeats before his match with Zarate (against guys with poorish records). So I ask was he world class? This again will depend on your definition, going the distance with Zarate, doesn't necessarily mean your world class.
Johnny's best wins were against Ferrari, Evans, Rodriguez and Feeney - none I would describe as world class. None of whom (to my knowledge) beat any former world champions.
Perhaps 15 is too low for Johnny, but I think the top 9 that I have should be ranked above because they have wins of world champions / former world champions, with the exception of Farr who was up against one of the greatest of all time P4P.
All the fighters I rate above Johnny in the the list captured European belts and I would say at a better time in their devision than Johnny did. The expception is Joe Erskine who lost gallantly to future world champion Ingemar Johannson in Sweden.
Were not going to settle this argument and again I was wrong with my example (but Howard Windstone was spot on).
I think your example of Danielo Caberella and Barry McGuigan is what I consider with Johnny's world title effort (and yes, I have seen tapes of Johnny and Pintor in seperate fights). Again, I will say before you jump the gun, that this is at a high level. In terms of all time greatness I would classify Pintor above McGuigan and Caberella below Owen. However, do I think Johnny would have beaten Pintor in a rematch then I say no - I was and still am surprised by the performance he put that night. I didn't expect Michael Brodie to have given Inchin Chi that good a fight in their first meeting, the rematch was more comprehensive.
Like I said, of course Johnny deserves a mention, but I don't place him in the top ten. How many former world champions did he face. You mention his win of Ferreri and cite him as being world class. Sure Ferreri fought for the world championship, but he suffered some defeats before his match with Zarate (against guys with poorish records). So I ask was he world class? This again will depend on your definition, going the distance with Zarate, doesn't necessarily mean your world class.
Johnny's best wins were against Ferrari, Evans, Rodriguez and Feeney - none I would describe as world class. None of whom (to my knowledge) beat any former world champions.
Perhaps 15 is too low for Johnny, but I think the top 9 that I have should be ranked above because they have wins of world champions / former world champions, with the exception of Farr who was up against one of the greatest of all time P4P.
All the fighters I rate above Johnny in the the list captured European belts and I would say at a better time in their devision than Johnny did. The expception is Joe Erskine who lost gallantly to future world champion Ingemar Johannson in Sweden.
I'd rate Johnny as being in the top 10 for sure, infact I'd place him above Erskine and Regan, Johnnys career was cut short so I try to imagine what could have been. This may not be scientific but so what!. Had things turned out better Johnny could well have beaten Pintor on points. Had he lost he would have certainly got another chance... to say he took Pintor by surprise is a bit harsh on Owen, Pintor would not have underestimated him...... Johnny surprised many because this was his biggest challenge against a great champion and he responded by rising to the challenge that's what seperates champs from contenders. I just feel that Johnny should be higher..... partly because of his great talent but also because I think the courage he showed hoists him above many others..... more than anything I'm sure that he could have gone on to greater things as a fighter.
I meant surprised him by his tactics Pintor was in great shape obviously. However, Pintor (according to that recent documentary) expected Johnny to be a lot less agressive than what he was and box more. Pintor durability was fantastic and Johnny was the biggest of punches. So you would have thought that adopting an agressive tactics would have played into Pintor hands. Johnny fought aggressively and for the much of the contest (particularly in the early stages) it paid dividends. Pintor didn't expect Johnny to adopt that gameplan.
Thats what I meant, not surprised by how good Johnny was, otherwise he would have lost.
I would rank Robbie Regan higher, he did score that crucial win at world class. I know it was only a WBO belt, but Jimenez was undoubtedly amongst the best 3 or 4 in the world at the time. His career to was cut short when it he was coming into his prime.
Thats what I meant, not surprised by how good Johnny was, otherwise he would have lost.
I would rank Robbie Regan higher, he did score that crucial win at world class. I know it was only a WBO belt, but Jimenez was undoubtedly amongst the best 3 or 4 in the world at the time. His career to was cut short when it he was coming into his prime.
Most of what I wanted to say has already been mentioned in an educated debate lads. Couple of points though:
Robinson - One thing about his title career was he very often started the underdog, certainly against Davison, McMillan (McKenzie possibly) and Hoko. So at least before those fights the so-called boxing experts expected him to lose. So regardless of whether Davison and McKenzie were past their prime, McMillan was ring-rusty and Hoko finished, they were generally expected to better Robinson. That's more than could be said of Calzaghe. Only Delaney, Eubank and Reid going into the fights maybe, and even then they wouldn't have been favourites???
Owen - I think any European title holder pre-1990 would have had a good shot at winning a championship in the multi world title era. Whether the likes of Johnny Owen or Colin Jones (for example) would have gone for the easier route a la Ricky Hatton or gone for the bona-fide title like Micheal Brodie is debatable. Hatton and Brodie could probably have challenged for a title in any era, but one will now go down in British boxing history as a World Champ, the other one probably won't.
Regan - I think his prime was Flyweight.
Anyway one thing is clear, for such a small country, the Principality has had it's fair share of decent fighters.
Robinson - One thing about his title career was he very often started the underdog, certainly against Davison, McMillan (McKenzie possibly) and Hoko. So at least before those fights the so-called boxing experts expected him to lose. So regardless of whether Davison and McKenzie were past their prime, McMillan was ring-rusty and Hoko finished, they were generally expected to better Robinson. That's more than could be said of Calzaghe. Only Delaney, Eubank and Reid going into the fights maybe, and even then they wouldn't have been favourites???
Owen - I think any European title holder pre-1990 would have had a good shot at winning a championship in the multi world title era. Whether the likes of Johnny Owen or Colin Jones (for example) would have gone for the easier route a la Ricky Hatton or gone for the bona-fide title like Micheal Brodie is debatable. Hatton and Brodie could probably have challenged for a title in any era, but one will now go down in British boxing history as a World Champ, the other one probably won't.
Regan - I think his prime was Flyweight.
Anyway one thing is clear, for such a small country, the Principality has had it's fair share of decent fighters.
Yes, I have enjoyed the discussion.
As for Regan, yes it could be argued that his prime was at Flyweight, however for me his last two contests (the one where he won the interim title and the WBO title proper) were his career best performances IMO. Who knows what the future held for Robbie, he was still in his 20's and clearly showed a new lease of life the night he beat Jiminez.
Its like with Johnny Owen, we will unfortunately never know what Robbie could have got on to do - He might have lost, or he might have continued his form. We will never know.
I place Robbie higher than Johnny, on the fact that he achieved more (IMO) in the ring during his career. Sure his W-D-L record isn't that off Owen's, but than neither is Steve Robinson's and I don't think anybody considers Johnny higher than him.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I do like to look at in-ring acheivement alone and not consider the what might have beens. I rate (in world wide terms) Salivdor Sanchez alot lower than most experts because unfortunately we did not see him in his peak years. Of course he belongs in the all time great category, but some people place him in the top 30 P4P off all time (or higher), I certainly don't. The what ifs work the other way aswell, as far as Sanchez is concerned, many experts think "Imagine what Salvidor would have been like as a 26 year old", whereas I am more inclined to think "What if Sanchez and Nelson had a rematch three years after their first meeting, I think Nelson would have won quite clearly".
There are no right or wrongs, mearly opinions.
Incidentaly, I believe Calzaghe was the favourite for the Eubank and Reid fights, although I am not sure about the Delaney bout.
As for Regan, yes it could be argued that his prime was at Flyweight, however for me his last two contests (the one where he won the interim title and the WBO title proper) were his career best performances IMO. Who knows what the future held for Robbie, he was still in his 20's and clearly showed a new lease of life the night he beat Jiminez.
Its like with Johnny Owen, we will unfortunately never know what Robbie could have got on to do - He might have lost, or he might have continued his form. We will never know.
I place Robbie higher than Johnny, on the fact that he achieved more (IMO) in the ring during his career. Sure his W-D-L record isn't that off Owen's, but than neither is Steve Robinson's and I don't think anybody considers Johnny higher than him.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I do like to look at in-ring acheivement alone and not consider the what might have beens. I rate (in world wide terms) Salivdor Sanchez alot lower than most experts because unfortunately we did not see him in his peak years. Of course he belongs in the all time great category, but some people place him in the top 30 P4P off all time (or higher), I certainly don't. The what ifs work the other way aswell, as far as Sanchez is concerned, many experts think "Imagine what Salvidor would have been like as a 26 year old", whereas I am more inclined to think "What if Sanchez and Nelson had a rematch three years after their first meeting, I think Nelson would have won quite clearly".
There are no right or wrongs, mearly opinions.
Incidentaly, I believe Calzaghe was the favourite for the Eubank and Reid fights, although I am not sure about the Delaney bout.
Stu, I agree that Robbie Regan greatest achievement was at Bantamweight against Daniel Jimenez, although it was his only fight at Bantam.stujones wrote:Yes, I have enjoyed the discussion.
As for Regan, yes it could be argued that his prime was at Flyweight, however for me his last two contests (the one where he won the interim title and the WBO title proper) were his career best performances IMO. Who knows what the future held for Robbie, he was still in his 20's and clearly showed a new lease of life the night he beat Jiminez.
Its like with Johnny Owen, we will unfortunately never know what Robbie could have got on to do - He might have lost, or he might have continued his form. We will never know.
I place Robbie higher than Johnny, on the fact that he achieved more (IMO) in the ring during his career. Sure his W-D-L record isn't that off Owen's, but than neither is Steve Robinson's and I don't think anybody considers Johnny higher than him.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I do like to look at in-ring acheivement alone and not consider the what might have beens. I rate (in world wide terms) Salivdor Sanchez alot lower than most experts because unfortunately we did not see him in his peak years. Of course he belongs in the all time great category, but some people place him in the top 30 P4P off all time (or higher), I certainly don't. The what ifs work the other way aswell, as far as Sanchez is concerned, many experts think "Imagine what Salvidor would have been like as a 26 year old", whereas I am more inclined to think "What if Sanchez and Nelson had a rematch three years after their first meeting, I think Nelson would have won quite clearly".
There are no right or wrongs, mearly opinions.
Incidentaly, I believe Calzaghe was the favourite for the Eubank and Reid fights, although I am not sure about the Delaney bout.
I also agree with you regarding the in the ring achievement which is far more important than 'what might have been'. What I was trying to get at (but rambled on a bit) was any or certainly most fighters that reached European Title level in the pre-1990's would have been fighting for world titles if they were around now.
Gingoi,
My statement about ranking fighters on what might have been where a counteract of Silkov and OwainCymru's point of view. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Incidently, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with your statement that a European champion pre-1990 would win a version of the world title. Obviously it only a matter of opinion, but if you look at Gary Jacobs, I know he it was after 1990 when he European champion, but he was undoubtedly the best in Europe and would have won the European title in years gone by. However, he didn't win a version of the world title.
Incidently, I go as far as the WBO as a legitmate title, but anything "below" I do not consider. Wales have had some excellent world champions, but Jason Cook isn't one of them yet.
My statement about ranking fighters on what might have been where a counteract of Silkov and OwainCymru's point of view. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Incidently, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with your statement that a European champion pre-1990 would win a version of the world title. Obviously it only a matter of opinion, but if you look at Gary Jacobs, I know he it was after 1990 when he European champion, but he was undoubtedly the best in Europe and would have won the European title in years gone by. However, he didn't win a version of the world title.
Incidently, I go as far as the WBO as a legitmate title, but anything "below" I do not consider. Wales have had some excellent world champions, but Jason Cook isn't one of them yet.
Yes you're right about the European Title, it's horses for courses I suppose. Looking back, Jacobs had a formidable line up of champions to contend with, Trinidad, Quartey, Whitaker, McGirt plus De La Hoya coming through, even the contenders were strong back then.stujones wrote:
Incidently, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with your statement that a European champion pre-1990 would win a version of the world title. Obviously it only a matter of opinion, but if you look at Gary Jacobs, I know he it was after 1990 when he European champion, but he was undoubtedly the best in Europe and would have won the European title in years gone by. However, he didn't win a version of the world title.
Incidently, I go as far as the WBO as a legitmate title, but anything "below" I do not consider. Wales have had some excellent world champions, but Jason Cook isn't one of them yet.
I was hoping Cookie was going to be the next one too, but on last weekends performance he needs more time in my opinion.
This post is getting a second wind, I would like to reply to the posts from the top of the page.
On the subject of Steve Robinson being the underdog against a `ring-rusty McMillan and a finished Hoko` before his fights with them, these things were not known before but after his fight with them.
I sat by Barry McGuigan for the Hoko fight (maybe not the seat I had paid for, but don’t you find most people that buy the top seats only seem to want to watch the main event, and I think it’s a waste to leave a good seat get cold)
Anyway McGuigan was adamant Hoko would destroy Robinson, but as early as the 2nd or 3rd round he said Hoko didn’t have it anymore.
Totally agree about Robbie, best achievements were at bantam but best days were at fly, I like Robbie but have to admit if he would have been able to fight his first defence he would have got beaten. He may have been in his twenties, but they were late twenties, and for the small guys that’s quite an age,
I cannot say I know that much about Johnny Owen, but if he held his own against a very good fighter like Lupe Pintor for 12 rounds, then with the right promoter and with titles such as the WBU now elevating relatively average fighters into World champions, then he would have been expected to get one of these at least.
It was not that long ago that the WBO was thought of has most of us now think of the WBU.
Robinson had no chance of avoiding Naz, I think I am right in saying Naz was installed as his mandatory, so he was forced into the fight, also I could be mistaken, but I think Robinson was less than happy with the money he got also.(And the state of the belt when it got returned.)
Salvador Sanchez may not have reached his prime, we will never know, but the fighters he did beat were good enough to rate him by. Azumah Nelson was a fantastic fighter, in the top three feathers of all time, and Sanchez beat him with no controversy.
Lastly Gary Jacobs had a good run but his division was packed with special fighters at that time.
On the subject of Steve Robinson being the underdog against a `ring-rusty McMillan and a finished Hoko` before his fights with them, these things were not known before but after his fight with them.
I sat by Barry McGuigan for the Hoko fight (maybe not the seat I had paid for, but don’t you find most people that buy the top seats only seem to want to watch the main event, and I think it’s a waste to leave a good seat get cold)
Anyway McGuigan was adamant Hoko would destroy Robinson, but as early as the 2nd or 3rd round he said Hoko didn’t have it anymore.
Totally agree about Robbie, best achievements were at bantam but best days were at fly, I like Robbie but have to admit if he would have been able to fight his first defence he would have got beaten. He may have been in his twenties, but they were late twenties, and for the small guys that’s quite an age,
I cannot say I know that much about Johnny Owen, but if he held his own against a very good fighter like Lupe Pintor for 12 rounds, then with the right promoter and with titles such as the WBU now elevating relatively average fighters into World champions, then he would have been expected to get one of these at least.
It was not that long ago that the WBO was thought of has most of us now think of the WBU.
Robinson had no chance of avoiding Naz, I think I am right in saying Naz was installed as his mandatory, so he was forced into the fight, also I could be mistaken, but I think Robinson was less than happy with the money he got also.(And the state of the belt when it got returned.)
Salvador Sanchez may not have reached his prime, we will never know, but the fighters he did beat were good enough to rate him by. Azumah Nelson was a fantastic fighter, in the top three feathers of all time, and Sanchez beat him with no controversy.
Lastly Gary Jacobs had a good run but his division was packed with special fighters at that time.
Yes Naz was installed as mandatory without ever fighting at Featherweight at the time. I think Robinson was only given 4 weeks notice too, and was not happy with the purse because it was a mandatory.tonyevs wrote:Robinson had no chance of avoiding Naz, I think I am right in saying Naz was installed as his mandatory, so he was forced into the fight, also I could be mistaken, but I think Robinson was less than happy with the money he got also.