Controversial decisions revisited, volume three. Winstone-Saldivar II, 1967

G’morning everyone, hope you’re all well. Little bit of a specialized edition to the series today, but one which I thought I’d share with you all the same.

First off, I need to tip my hat to the captain, who provided me with some information a while back on the old 606 which is key to this article. Howard Winstone, Wales’ neat-boxing Featherweight on the sixties engaged, as you all know, in three superb fights for the world title with the great southpaw of Mexico Vicente Saldivar, one of my all-time favourite fighters. In the first edition of the trilogy in London in 1965, the Mexican edged out a close but deserved decision. In the final instalment, this time in Mexico, Saldivar stopped Winstone in the twelfth round.

Now, having seen the fight a couple of times in the past, I always remembered the second bout in 1967 (definitely the best of the three) being extremely close, but also remembering that Saldivar deserved the decision which he was awarded. However, in recent months, I’ve seen a fair few 606ers who are adamant that Winstone was wronged that night in Cardiff, and that he should have wrested the title from his great rival that night. And so, I decided to revisit the fight again and see if my thoughts needed some adjustments.

Before we get to that bit, there is a small but interesting element to consider, and again I’ll extend my thanks to the captain who enlightened me on this, as I’d never heard it before. The referee that night (and, in accordance with British regulations of that era, the sole judge) Wally Thom was a former professional fighter himself, and had been a rival of none other than Eddie Thomas, who was by now Winstone’s manager. Rumour has it that bad blood existed between them even by 1967, and that the extremely close verdict he handed Saldivar that night (he scored it 73 and three quarters to 73 and a quarter, as per the scoring system back then) was Thom’s act of revenge against Thomas. Winstone, to my knowledge, never commented on this directly himself, but in his post-fight interview did state “everybody in the arena tonight thought I beat him apart from the referee.”

Anyhow, on to the fight. For the first six rounds or so, Winstone produced some of the best technical boxing I’ve ever seen from a Brit. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I may not have seen a better display of pure boxing from anyone, considering that his opponent was a top ten Featherweight of all time, right in the middle of his prime. Winstone had his jab working to perfection, countered the onrushing Mexican beautifully plenty of times, and held his own in the centre of the ring – it wasn’t until the late rounds that any exchanges on the ropes really occurred.

Of the opening half dozen rounds, Winstone certainly won five of them in my eyes, with Saldivar’s famed pressure probably taking the fourth. However, in the mid stages, the Mexican began to find his range, and the Welshman was finally forced to give up the centre of the ring. I feel the fight really turned at the ‘two thirds’ stage – after that, Saldivar totally dominated. Just as he had in their first bout, Winstone had a shocker of a round in the fourteenth, being floored and almost stopped a couple of times as Saldivar pounded away at him with short hooks to the head and body, which he was stringing together superbly by now. Saldivar took the last round, too.

The argument of most people edging to Winstone in this bout is that, in spite of the hammering he took towards the end, his early dominance had been enough to build up an unassailable lead. However, at the risk of getting a kicking from those people, I have to disagree; I still think Saldivar won the fight, 143-141 using the modern ‘ten point must’ system. In rounds, I make it 8-7 in Saldivar’s favour.

I know I seem to be in the minority, but that is my take on it, and one that, after examining all over again, I’m happy to stick with. So, for anyone who has seen the bout, what were your thoughts on one of the greatest fights ever seen in a British ring? Do you agree with me, or was Winstone wronged? Could there be an element of truth in the ‘Thom’s revenge!’ theory which has been put forward over time? Would be good to get your take on it, if you have one.

Cheers everyone.

Nice article.

For me - an extremely close fight - and one I thought Winstone edged. He was still scoring with the jab up to round 10 - as you say - the latter third was all Saldivar. By round 10, however - Winstone had won most of the rounds in my book - and so I had him winning a close (whisker thin) decision. Was it Wally Thom's final revenge on Eddie Thomas? Who can say. It wasn't the worst decision in history - far from it.

Thanks for contributing, Oxring. Some good points there. Certainly not a robbery, just as it wouldn't have been had Winstone got the nod, given how close it was. But I thought it was worthy of debate seeing as opinion is still so split over it.

It really depends exactly how one scores the first nine rounds of the contest, because I didn't give Saldivar a single one of them! I can see how Saldivar might have shared the fourth, but that would be it - Winstone's jab was the best in all boxing at the time, and it was absolutely dominant.

Rounds 10 to 15 were all Saldivar, I would agree, and, using the ten point must system, Round 14 was obviously a 10-8 one to the Mexican. However, even if I allow Saldivar a share of the fourth, my scorecard still reads 143-142 to Winstone. Certainly not what you could call a robbery, but I think that it's fair enough to call Howard unlucky.

As for the Thom business, I doubt that there was any outright favouritism. However, in a particularly close fight, he might well have decided that he didn't need to grant Winstone any special consideration, let's put it that way!

Cheers captain, was hoping you'd comment as I know you are one of the ones I mentioned who feel that Winstone was the better man that night.

As I said, I thought Winstone was fantastic for the first half of the fight, winning five of the first six rounds and certainly still being comfortably ahead by round ten. Can't say I agree that he won all of the first nine, mind you, but then again a couple of them were difficult to score. Saldivar had the knack of getting stronger and stronger as a fight went on, and by the seventh / eighth rounds I thought his pressure was, on a few occasions, proving more of a force than Winstone's pure boxing.

Still, the general consensus seems to be that whoever won it, it wasn't by any more than a single point or two at the most, so at least I don't look too out of place by sticking with Saldivar. Cheers.

I thought Saldivar won this fight quite easily to be honest. Brits love a gallant loser and Winstone was your typical British loveable loser type. Very good fighter but he got battered for the last half of the fight. He edged a few early rounds but was hardly dominating was he! Salidvar won 9 or 10 rounds I think. It Probably should have been stopped in the 14th round anyway.

McCartney wrote:I thought Saldivar won this fight quite easily to be honest. Brits love a gallant loser and Winstone was your typical British loveable loser type. Very good fighter but he got battered for the last half of the fight. He edged a few early rounds but was hardly dominating was he! Salidvar won 9 or 10 rounds I think. It Probably should have been stopped in the 14th round anyway.

How do you score a fight? Hard punching or cleaner boxing?

You make an interesting point actually - because if you like harder punches as opposed to "controlling the fight" with pure boxing - you'd lean towards Saldivar for his work over Winstone for those first 10 rounds. No argument that Winstone took some heavy punishment from rounds 11 onwards - but for some, controlling the ring with the jab would score heavily in those early rounds.

Nice thread Chris, i actually just downloaded this the other week after watching 'Risen', but have yet to watch it, will let you know what i think once i get a look.

Was a brilliant turnaround by Saldivar either way