Where do you rank Edwin Valero?

He wasn't just a top prospect; he was super featherweight champ for two years and lightweight champ for about a year.

I think I could arguably see him in the top 50 all-time just based on dominance and 100% KO rate. I'm not sure he's in my top 50, I don't have that list just sitting in my head, but it doesn't seem preposterous to me. Who are other lightweights in that top-50ish tier? Azumah Nelson (specifically at lightweight)? Ray Lampkin? Art Aragon? Jose Luis Ramirez? I'm comfortable with Valero amongst those names tbh.

H2H? He might have a bit higher potential there, maybe top 20, top 30. He only fought like three guys in the top 10 in his weightclass, though, and so there are a ton of unanswered questions about him.

 

Ayala was actually scheduled to face Duran in 1982 but it never materialized because of his out of the ring problems. Would have loved to have seen Duran bash up that degenerate POS.

 

No, he was scheduled to face Moore not Duran.

I always believed that Ayala would have stopped Moore. Davey was too hittable for El Torito.

The Fab 4 would have all mopped the floor with Ayala though.

Ayala had a lot more talent around him to content with than Valero.

I think Ayala was a legit talent.

Valero was a fraud.

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/0...etween-middleweight-boxer-Tony/6441398404800/

Ayala was actually scheduled to face Duran originally according to the article above. That was before Duran fought Kirkland Laing. By the time Duran lost to Laing in an upset Ayala Jr was already on probation and any chance of a fight happening between the two was gone. Then the Moore fight was on the table for January 1983 and that fight ended up dissipating because of Ayala's assault on the school teacher.

Had Duran not lost to Laing there would have been a chance to see him against Ayala. Duran would have given Ayala the Moore treatment.

 

As overrated as Valero was there's no denying his talent and he did show some underrated boxing skills when he took apart DeMarco. He would have made for some good fights had he not committed his heinous crime. Him against Brandon Rios, Humberto Soto, Michael Katsidis, or Robert Guerrero around 2010 would have been interesting.

 

So a two-division World Champion is way behind a guy who never competed for a belt, and who's best result is a TKO against a blown-up LHW spotting him two and a half stone?

I don't think so.

 

Wins over Tua and Byrd versus wins over...???

*Crickets*

I'll wait. I'll wait all day. Valero beat absolutely nobody. His best win was DeMarco and that win didn't age well considering Broner would go on to handle DeMarco far more impressively than Valero did.

Valero would have gotten slaughtered by a David Tua-level fighter.

Again, he beat no one.

 

You don't like Valero. I get it.
I can even understand it.

But, why don't you just take a step back a minute and admit that you might have overstated your case by asserting:
"

This content is protected

"


And, what's the big difference between Tua and Mosquera then?


Ah - that's right. Tua never won a world title and Mosquera did.

You seem to be assigning a lot to a fighter who himself achieved very little. All told, Tua was a perennial 'Not Even Nearly-Man'.

You might really rate Tua and Byrd. But I really don't - and I certainly don't believe that Ike beating them when he did proves A LOT of anything, other than he might have been ready to progress his career of course (before his career was curtailed).

Either way, Valero is actually ahead of Ibeabuchi in terms of numbers, which I reckon counts for more than subjective opinions.

- 27-0 greater than 20-0
- 8-0 in title fights [much] greater than no title fights to speak of... ... ...
- 3-0 against Ring-Rated Opponents greater than 2-0 against Ring Rated Opponents

- Valero was at one time rated the #1 Super Featherweight (2008) and #1 Lightweight (2009)
- When Valero fought them, Mosquera was rated #4 by The Ring, Pitalua #7 and DeMarco #9

- Ibeabuchi's highest rating was #4
- When Ike fought them, Tua was rated #8 and Byrd rated #6.

You can throw all the personal points of view you want to at it, but they don't change the cold, hard numbers.

But, please do tell me... ...outside of your opinion on how great Tua was, what did Ibeabuchi PROVE by beating him?


*crickets*

 

I honestly stopped reading after you compared Tua and Mosquera. Calling Mosquera better just because he held a belt and Tua never did is incredibly hollow. Makes me think you didnt even follow boxing in the late 90s. Tua was the hottest heavyweight in the division at the time Ike upset him.

What on Earth did Mosquera ever do, and who on Earth ever rated him?

How I feel about Valero means nothing. I'm not a child; I can dislike a fighter and still rate them very highly.

Edwin Valero was a fraud. His defensive holes would have been brutally exposed by the elites.

Ibeabuchi was overrated, but not a fraud. I dont think he would have beaten Lewis, but that doesn't mean he wasn't very good. He was.

Edwin Valero was a myth.

 

Several points to make here:

1. I have not stated that Mosquera was better. I simply highlighted a difference in achievement. This matters.

2. You ignore all the other comparative stats I listed for Valero and focus on Tua being "the hottest heavyweight" in the division. (Which is your opinion, but based on what?).

3. Questioning whether I followed boxing during the 90s because I disagree with your take on Tua is, at best, lazy.

4. You are accusing Valero of being a fraud while seemingly falling hook, line and sinker for the somewhat hyped Tua and somehow forming an exaggerated perception of how good he was on this basis - completely disregarding Tua's lack of actual achievement.

Now that really is quite hollow.

The heavyweight division is the principal glamour division, where the lion's share of the promotional money goes to build the image of fighters that can be sold. A KO artist in that space is an easy sell. But it doesn't represent a boxer's broader skills and abilities, and Tua had next to nothing else in his toolbox. Added to this was his having the strategic and tactical acumen of a nesting sea turtle.

Back to reality, and the facts are that success is based on achievement not media hype, fandom or just whether you think a boxer passes the eye test!

Win a World Title!
Defend a World Title!

What did Tua ever do?

The Ring.

You still made a bit of a silly overstatement, which unfortunately does reek of bias.

That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it. But, as my original post on this thread alluded to, we will never actually know what would have happened had his career continued.

This has not been about whether Ibeabuchi was very good or not, and I have not stated that he wasn't (nor have I stated that Valero was).

I've often speculated that he'd have likely been a force in the heavyweight division arising with the K brothers. However, I have also tempered these views on the basis of what he actually did and, in alignment with this thread, what we can never know for sure. Hence me making a brief mention of the similarity with Valero.

And, a fair bit of mythology surrounds Ike. That's what tends to happen when the real-life stories go unfinished.

 

Tua achieved significantly more than Mosquera. I don't see how it's even close?
He beat Ruiz, Maskaev and Rahman - three future Heavyweight title holders (one champion). Then You add Moorer, draw with Rahman, Oquendo.. and bunch of other decent fringe contenders.

Mosquera's only win over World class opponent was against Yodsanan, solid title holder - but no more than that. Just what Mosquera was himself.

Valero doesn't have a resume and focusing on some statistics like X wins, Y knock-outs, Z wins over ranked fighters - is a fallacy, context matters.
Division is not always equally strong and ranking at the time of a fight is often circumstancial.
There was a time at middleweight when Bernard Hopkins or Reggie Johnson were ranked at the bottom of Middleweight's top 10, or just outside of it - while already being established contenders, because division was stacked. Today You have guys like Etinosa Oliha, or Denzel Bentley ranked in the top 10. No disrespect to the latter two, but They are not even close to that level.

When Valero was ranked number 1 at 130 and 135, it was because all the top guys moved up. He had some issues where He could not get sanctioned for fights in United States, where all the action was around his weight-class, so He was basically fighting around true world class competition most of the time. Only two wins worth note are Mosquera and Demarco - out of the rest, only Pitalua even deserves to be called a contender.

 

As a top hard puncher... as an average boxer that only got famous because he could hit sure.. but because he looked like a psycho, and proved to be one later... very average boxer. He doesn´t deserve the name he got..

 

Valer is in serious contention for the 'most overrated boxers ever' list.

He beat no one really decent. Match ups against people like Pacman are a joke. Pacquiao would've absolutely destroyed him. People talking about 130lbs when he is inferior historically even to guys like Villaflor (for reference, Villaflor beat Shibata who was a two weight champ and has a dominant win over Saldivar, yet no one rates Ben that highly like they rate Valero for some reason).

People give him hype because of his life story and 'badass' aesthetic - that's it.

 

Unpopular opinion, but I thought he looked like **** even in his domination of DeMarco. Looked sloppy and predictable, chin up in the air when he'd throw single punches or combinations, head would remain in one spot, and he pulled straight back. Horribly open for counterpunchers. And I don't think he carried one punch KO power at lightweight at all. Heavy handed, reasonably quick, and fairly explosive. As has been said, a poor man's Pacquiao - a dollar store version honestly. He wasn't anything special. And needless to say, he was a sociopathic POS.

 

Context does indeed matter, but so does actual achievement.

If one thinks 8-0 in title fights counts for nothing and, when contrasted with a guy who had not yet competed for a belt means Ibeabuchi proved "A LOT" more than Valero - which is the actual point being discussed here - then we're simply going to have to disagree.

(I am not suggesting this is your argument but it is the basis of a wider conversation)

Sure - I get the main thrust of your post; that two divisions are not always equal in terms of there relative strength. It goes without saying.

But, irrespective of how one rates a fighter in their given division and, in turn rates that division, considering the relative depth of the era, this is not one of those extraordinary cases where one can categorically state that Ibeabuchi surpassed Valero on the strength of his Tua win. That's just plainly unreasonable.

And since context matters, why not contextualize Tua's main wins that you cite?

- Where was Ruiz in his pro career at the point Tua iced him? Some several years away from him being ranked, if I recall.

- Same question goes for 10-1-0 Maskaev, who was also stopped in all seven of his career losses, and was comprehensively out-boxing Tua before the stoppage (this was a recurring theme with Tua).

- Rahman who, despite having a busier career up to that point, was still up-and-coming and was also comprehensively out-boxing Tua. But, in any event, it's not like either of Tua's tussles with The Rock were crowning moments of controversy-free outcome.

And, relatively speaking, how good were all of these guys anyway, really?

To take your point about divisions not always being equally strong and rankings at the time of a fight often being circumstantial, all of the above-mentioned fighters benefited from a cooling of the heavyweight scene. This, after a hot period in the 90s, at the turn of the millennium.

This allowed them to remain relevant in the early '00s. The only two of them that made this fortuitous circumstance count, however briefly, were Ruiz and Rahman. Maskaev would pick up a strap later on (in '06?) but still within this subgroup of mediocrity.

None of them were ever elite fighters, so I just don't view Tua's victories as particularly impressive. Good for the spectators. Saleable spectacles for sure. But also lower grade events.

This was starkly accentuated when Tua stepped up in class, even slightly. The fact Tua's unbeaten record came to an end, facing yet another up-and-comer; someone he couldn't stop, in Ibeabuchi, highlighted his almost total dependency on a stoppage, to prevent losing (or drawing) by decision.

Tua got mugged by fighters who were not going let themselves get caught late in the fight, after having built a wide lead (Lewis, Byrd). This was even apparent in a less obvious way in his rematch with Rahman.

Tua is, in my view, one of the most overrated fighters in recent times. If we're talking levels, then Tua is a perfect case of perceptions of his level being propped up by a highlight reel.

Ultimately, all of this is entirely academic. But Ibeabuchi's Tua win does not cancel out Valero's 8-0 in title fights. To suggest that Ibebabuchi was so much further ahead than Valero is overstatement, even in a theoretical sense.