How well does Saldivar do against the highly underrated slick technician in Marcel, the same Marcel who completely outboxed an up and coming Alexis Arguello and held his own against a young Duran? Does Saldivar do just enough to beat Marcel in a close fight much like he did against Ismael Laguna?
I'd take Marcel with confidence over ten, and without over fifteen. I think his style is bad for Saldivar as was Laguna's (who I thought won, and I don't find as good as Marcel). I also think anybody who can out-fight any Arguello in the late rounds can hold his own with anybody when it comes to stamina.
Marcel probably edges out a close one, but Saldivar's incredible stamina may be the deciding factor. I think it'd be a very close fight.
About the Laguna part though, George i think you be going a bit tooooooooo overboard about Marcel, which is what @Sweet Pea warned about. Laguna was both better and greater. Outboxing a prime Carlos Ortiz trumps anything Marcel did.
I think Laguna is way greater. Not better, though. Especially not at featherweight. And trust me, I'm not going overboard now. I've always been this high on Marcel ever since I watched his fights one after another. I don't think Laguna was a better all round fighter, although I do think he clearly accomplished more.
Even if you think Laguna edged their 10 rounder, do you really think he would’ve beaten Saldivar over 15? Winstone would’ve edged their first two fights had they been non-title affairs. You saw what happened in crunch time. Marcel proved his class and guts in those rounds against Arguello, but I don’t buy for a second that the green Arguello he faced was on the same level as Saldivar in a 15 round title fight.
It's more the showing that he could handle the fifteen round distance, and actually thrive in those rounds. Not that he'd actually beat Saldivar in those rounds. Also, while I don't think the Arguello of the Marcel fight was better than Saldivar either, Marcel didn't really have any issues with Arguello. I think I had Alexis wining three or four rounds at best. I was just using that fight as an example of why I don't think Marcel would fold in the late rounds.
I don’t recall the fight being anywhere near as one sided as you. Marcel did come back in impressive fashion over the last couple of rounds when it looked like Arguello was on the verge of breaking him down. That made it a competitive but clear win for him.
On my card, I only had Arguello winning eight through eleven, taking four rounds in total. I'd say a 11-4 decision is pretty clear. And the officials all only had Arguello winning just four as well. The average on both boxrec and eyes on the ring seems to be around 10-5 and 11-4. Someone had it 13-2 though, so fuck knows if they're actually a good measuring stick or not.
They did have him winning just 4, but that’s a little misleading as they also scored 1-3 other rounds even. I saw it as fairly straightforward, too. Marcel outboxing Arguello in the first act, Arguello putting the hurt on him in the second, and Marcel coming back in the third. I thought it was a 9-6 type decision. So I maybe overstated when I said I had it way closer.
Okay, so I've been reading into Arguello more than I normally would this week, because I've always liked him and I've been disagreeing about him with people left, right and centre recently. And a lot of shine has come off that Marcel win, as I've read from Arguello's own mouth that he was 19 for Olivares, which would make him 18 for Marcel. That alone shows Arguello to be an even better talent if he was that good at 19 (good enough to beat an ATG), but it also does show that he was inarguably green - not that I was saying he wasn't, just that even while green, he was still brilliant - and very young. It's less of a brilliant win IMO.
Woah, hold on now. Are you sure Alexis wasn’t simply mistaken about his age when the match took place?
Yeah, I'm not buying it. Unless there's concrete proof that Arguello's birthday is inaccurate, I'm inclined to believe he was in fact born in April of 52, which would make him 21, just about 22 when he lost to Marcel, and 22 when he beat Olivares.
I feel like I heard this a few times back in the day. Arguello being 19 and all. Nothing ever came of it, though. Then again I’m not sure anybody ever jumped to the kind of conclusion like our George.
I did think of it, but I feel like you'd know the age you won the title. That to me sounds like something you wouldn't have to think about. At all. I mean, sure it could happen. I'd have to look into it, it was just something I read in an interview from him.
I found the quote but not the interview. When you beat Olivares, how good were you? AA - Well, i was a boy. I was 19 years old. I didn't know what i know now. I didn't know what i was doing, because i was just a kid. With Escalera, was that more of a professional Arguello, or were you still very young? AA - I was a solid fighter by then and knew what i was doing. I won my first title in the 126 pound division, which was light for my height. I was sacrificing myself to make the weight.
I still think a slip of the tongue is more logical than jumping to the conclusion that Arguello’s age was top secret info that had to be withheld for our own protection.
He isn't getting sold short, you're overpricing him. There'd be nothing comfortable about this decision if Saldivar won.
yes he is, no I am not. Perhaps comfortable is not the best choice. But I don’t see Marcel hurting Saldivar and unless this a 10 rounder Saldivar is going to win this one.
It's possible he had lied about his age earlier in his career because he would've been too young to get licensed at the time. Bobo Olson did the same, no doubt plenty of others too.
Alexis obviously got confused because he was 22 when he beat Olivares. His points about his experience level and weight making at 126 make sense, though.
I had it closer than that - Marcel really moved away clearly in the championship rounds on my card, at least.
