John H. Stracey vs. Armando Muniz (1975)

[Joson]

I'm talking about late 1975, when Stracey was good enough to KO Napoles. Muniz was at his peak then, too. Who wins?

I don't know who to pick. I do recall Carlos Palomino saying Muniz was stronger and more powerful than Stracey, by a considerable margin. But Palomino also said he rated Stracey's durability as being "very, very high."

[goose 5]

Great bout-Muniz by decision .

[Joson]

My hunch is that Muniz wins. The question is whether it goes the distance.

Stracey was easy to hit and Muniz could really bang. But Stracey took a good punch and could use his jab efficiently while fighting for survival.. Watching the Stracey-Palomino fight, I got the impression John could really hang in there while taking a beating. He didn't fold until all his strength was sapped, and that took 12 brutal rounds. So that's a reason to expect he'd be able to survive a pounding from Muniz.

So we can't underestimate Stracey's chin and left-jab.

The only reason Stracey couldn't use his jab offensively against Palomino is that Carlos's jab was that much better, meaning John's jab was shut down. But Armando wasn't a jabber. So maybe John's jab is a factor in a hypothetical Muniz bout.

But overall, I've got the sense that Muniz's strength, power, and bull-dog attacking style would put him on top against Stracey.

I'm guessing as to the outcome, but I'll say this much. If the fight's held in Southern California, Muniz has a 90% chance of winning. If it's held in London, Muniz has a 65% to 70% of winning.

[scorpio83]

Either Stracey take a decision in London or vice versa for Muniz by decision in California.