Why didn't Whitaker fight Camacho or Rosario at 135lb in late 80s?

Yeah, except that Haugen. What a whirlwind!

Apparently Haugen fought Pea as well. I've never watched it because I don't wish to see the beating that Pea recieved, but here's a highlight of it from Youtube. How'd it go?

[YT]4FPiQEgsYSM[/YT]

 

I'm supposed to be impressed because Sweetpea, the "greatest lightweight ever" beat ham and egger Greg Haugen?

As one reporter put it "Greg Haugen in his prime would not have laid a hand on Hector Camacho in his prime" meaning the press immediately understood what had happened, something that someone who hadn't been around in the day (you) naturally wouldn't understand.

Hector beats all other lightweights because he's way faster than everyone else.

 

I think there is a reason we ESB posters still talk about Hector Camacho to this day and there are constant requests about having more footage of him. Who honestly really gives a crap about most of the guys Whitaker fought at 135, except Nelson?

 

As i mentioned these are the equivalent of training wheels for young champions in training; Chavez, Whitaker, but mere fodder for the advanced super elite like Hector who would never consider waisting his time with them. Hector never ducked no one-everyone knew he was #1.

Soon BP you will see for yourself what Hector looked like humiliating another speedster (Howard Davis)

As I quoted before, "Greg Haugen in his prime would never have laid a glove on Camacho in his prime"

 

He only lost cuz of that stupid point deduction anyways, Camacho clearly won the re-match, despite the stupid judges scorecards.

Its funny how he says Roger Mayweather would have been favoured to beat hector in 1990 or 89. That the funniest **** I have ever heard, he beat Tony Baltazar, the same guy that Roger ****in lost too. Roger was rocked badly by Pernell Freakin Whitaker's punches for gods sakes. If Hector could drop an iron chinned fighter like ramirez, he would have handed Roger his chin in a box.By the way, didnt roger get ko'd by a can in 1991/1992 anyways. God at least Camacho avenged his loss from a B level fighter, not get ko'd by a nobody.

Exactly, he schooled Howard Davis Jr. The same guy that arguably beat Rosario and drew with meldrick taylor and was beating prospects. Yet according to Sweet Scientist, the doctor of boxing. You drop a couple of decisions and you are all of a sudden a washed up hasbeen nobody.

 

Point out where I said Pazienza was no longer in his prime. Once you've done that, point out where I said you're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

Tell me then when Roger Mayweather's prime was?

If you think Camacho would have been favoured to beat Nelson after losing to Greg Haugen, you're delusional.

And if you think losing to Fenech is worse than losing to Haugen, you're delusional.

Chavez is where he is becuase of his incredible consistency across a long period of time. No single win forms a massive part of his legacy.

Camacho was past his best when Chavez beat him. Is this news to anyone?

And the Taylor decision was not a gift. It was controversial, but it was probably the right decision to stop the fight.

Pendleton was better than Haugen at the time Hector lost to him imo. Better speed, harder punch, more intense. I can easily see Pendleton-Camacho around 1990 turning into another Rosario fight. And this is a Hector four years removed from the Rosario fight remember, and four years the worse, not better.

 

Of course Whitaker would have been given more credit if he beat Camacho, but their paths hardly crossed. Look at the years they were both in the lightweight division. Spanned about the first two years of Whitaker's career.

Had Camacho stayed in the lightweight division, he would have got dealt with like the rest of Whitaker's foes in the late 80's early 90's.

 

No one looked good vs Camacho, I think Rosario looked the best and he lost, even Chavez failed to impress, why fight him, why did Leonard fight him

 

I had the fight a draw, but a draw to Haugen shows the level Camacho was at around that time. He performed better in the rematch and clearly won, but it was still close imo.

Just an idiotic ramble full of misinformation.

Firstly, I never said Mayweather would be favoured per se, I said that I PERSONALLY would favour him to beat Camacho around that time.

As for Camacho beating Tony Baltazar, yes he did, but Baltazar was a faded fighter by that stage. He beats Baltazar at any stage, but it wasn't the same version Roger Mayweather fought. And that was a Mayweather who had yet to hit his prime imo. Mayweather's prime imo was 87-90. During that time, he only lost to two all time greats in Whitaker and Chavez. In any case though, Baltazar was extrmeemly heavy handed, and Mayweather was troubled by heavy handed fighters. Camacho was not heavy handed.

Camacho may hurt Mayweather, but Mayweather might hurt Camacho too. He definitely has the boxing skills to find Camacho, and if he does, which I think he will, it will be interesting to see how Camacho reacts. Should Mayweather get hurt, I'm guessing Camacho would do what he usually did around the late 80's, spend the rest of the fight running and throwing the odd combo, but being cautious. He hardly ever went in for the kill around that time.

Davis drew with a 12 fight Meldrick Taylor (in a fight I had Taylor winning by a point) and lost a close fight to Edwin Rosario. Whilst he put up admirable performances there, let's not also forget the schooling he got from Joe Manley between those fights.

 

Chavez didn't look good against him? You must be joking? Chavez gave him one of the worst one-sided beatings that I have ever seen.

 

Did you ever get around to telling me Camacho's greatest ever win? Who's the greatest fighter Hector beat in this great prime of his?

 

Haugen beat Camacho in Camacho's prime! Hell he was only 29 and had never been in a war!

:yep

 

Yes, the one elite fighters like Whitaker and Chavez dismantled beat the same Camacho of which you speak.

I'd like a source for that quote, since you wrongly quoted someone before on a saying they made about "Camacho", only for it to actually be about Arguello. Idiot.

And like has been said, why was Camacho past his prime? He had never been in a war and was only 29 years old. Why was Chavez not past his prime as well when he beat Camacho like a ragdoll? Did Camacho just suffer too much trauma at the hands of Rosario(you know, the same one Chavez dominated as well) and the clean punches he landed, causing Camacho to run around the ring for the next few rounds?

You're an idiot. A true ******.

 

I was a devoted Davis follower and he was miles past it by the time of the Camacho fight. IMO his best form was from the Coverson fight (where he actually started to plant his feet a little more at opportune times and actually hit with decent power, a fine improvement allied with his speed) to the Rosario fight and after that he was rather ordinary.

 

You've probably seen more Howard Davis than me JT, so you'd be a better judge of that than me, but from the few fights I have seen of his, I'd definitely say there was a drop off from the Taylor and Rosario fights to the Camacho and McGirt fights. He performed quite well against Taylor I felt, but then looked ordinary as against Camacho.

As an aside, I had Rosario beating Davis by 2 points.