Hello everyone, newbie here. There's lots of commentary on this site claiming that Castillo was shot. Question: Do you think he could've taken that punch in his prime?
Probably....but not a definate. Remember, a prime Castillo was a beast inside. I think if that fight happened earlier, it would have been fun to watch, but I still would have favored the naturally bigger guy in Hatton.
Castillo had the kinda of footwork of say in the Ali tradition, he didn't float on the canvas; but he did fight on the balls of his feet putting his legs into his punchesm to pivot and manuever with precision, and he cut the ring off. He looked flat and shot in BOTH his 140 pound bouts. Everyone knew the bout was a mismatch if they saw the Ngoudjo fight.
Nobody knows. It is pretty silly to speculate. What matters is what we can observe, and I observed Hatton winning.
Yeah Jazzo. I don't think it is silly to speculate. Castillo can either take a punch or he can't. Does being 'shot' diminish that capability?
For a recent example, see Eric Morales vs Pac III, and then compare it to the first fight. Quite a difference.
Hell yes.... On the decline, everything goes. Your ability to go on the offensive as well as the defensive. You ability to give a punch and take one as well. Thats why we do these prime vs prime fantasy matchups. How would a young Sweet Pea look vs Oscar? How would a young Jones look vs Tarver? How would a young Tyson look vs Lewis? We could go on all night with stuff like this.
It was a good win for Hatton, but come on...Castillo WAS shot (and this is coming from a BIG Hatton fan)
Castillo isnt shot/on the decline? You serious? Have you ever SEEN a prime Castillo? I love Hatton, but come on.
I'm new to boxing, so I obviously don't have the same expertise as you. Is it possible that you're confusing correlation with causation?