Re: Should we put Winky up there with Roy Jones are does he still have more to prove
There was a British fighter called Michael Watson, who Winky reminds me a lot of.
Wright is a very experienced, ring wise technician - he is always fit, does not cut and has a good chin. he is an excellent boxer, helped by being an awkward southpaw (I wonder how many knockdowns he has been credited with which were really the result of his opponent tripping over that hyper-extended right foot?)
I have a lot of respect for him - he has developed an effective style which maximised his physical attributes and can cover up some deficiences - the lack of a real KO punch for example.
He is the latest in a long line of 'blue collar technicians', people like Buddy McGirt, Marlon Starling, Virgil Hill, Mike McCallum etc. They tend to be popular and respected by boxing fans, but don't make the jump to superstardom because they don;t transcend boxing to become known by mainstream sports fans. Maybe the exception to this would be Marvin Hagler?
As a (sort of) knowledgeable boxing fan, I think Wrights record and legacy stands comparison with Jones.
BUT - and it's a strange point of view - he does not make me look forward to his fights, my pulse doesn't pound just before the first bell and (crucially) I don't find much unpredictability in his bouts. There is never the feeling that I shouldn't take my eyes of the screen in case something happens like a one-punch KO. There isn't that 'WOW' factor that we had with Jones' arrogance, Tyson's speed and power, Hearns blitzing right hand, Ray Leonard's silky smoothness - even Gatti's pure bravery.
It's really unfair, because I think a prime Wright could compete with Jones (assuming the same size etc), Hearns and Leonard etc. but it would not necessarily be a great fight for the casual fan to watch.
Wrongly, i don't think history will be kind enough to Winky.
If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?
Bookmarks