Diaz was the first opponent Crawford fought who came into the ring heavier than him. He also arguably beat Lamont Peterson who I consider a very good benchmark for elite fighters. To this day, Lamont Peterson is probably Errol Spence's second best win. I definitely consider(ed) Diaz a tier above Indongo or Horn. As should everybody. As for losing to Santana a year later, yeah, not a good look. Diaz is already 35 and pretty short for welterweight at 5'5. Santana just let Diaz back himself to the ropes and poked at him. Otherwise it was a firefight. Definitely not as nuanced or definitive a beatdown as Crawford's. But if you subscribe to the idea that boxers should be sorted via a binary and everybody is either a "bum" or "elite", I can see how you wouldn't differentiate between Diaz and Crawford's other middling opponents.
The trunks Devin Haney wore in the ring on Friday reminded me of a kitchen tablecloth my grandmother once had in the 70's.
GGG. Should probably retire Loma. Will lose of he steps up too much (which thankfully he probably wont) Usyk. Not big enough. Micky Ward. Not massively talented All of these fighters I absolutely love and would get behind whoever they were fighting. Lomachenko is possibly the best pure boxer I've ever seen and the others I either appreciate their skills or respect that they are hard men.
Jorge Linares is one of the top 5-10 most skilled fighters in boxing but three of his loses are against 3rd tier scrub Mexicans.
It is terrible of Andy Ruiz to have beat the living hell out of Joshua like that. He just kept hitting him and knocking him down and took his belt away. The nerve of that upstart. That is not very nice.
yes he was and I think he was underrated is anything his wins and the guys he fought, but he always complained about having a second chance with Ray and Marvin. To me he created this mess himself by brawling with Marvin, and being too overconfident with Ray. The worst thing for Hearns was to land easily on someone, then he went for it. Rarely did guys break him down without the recklessness playing a role in his losses. Even in fights where he was winning easily he would go for broke and leave himself open just to get the knockout. He wanted to be exciting. There is a part of me which admires how he fought Hagler, but thinks the tactic was the worst one you could think. To start brawling from the get go against a guy with a great chin. Find your range and then start to land the punches from the outside.. This was about saying something bad. Well is the weakness of Hearns. You cannot think because you knocked out the great Roberto Duran that you can knock out another guy one weight up in Marvin Hagler. With Duran he was not reckless. He set him up well. Even with Duran, he was hit with a few punches when he got eager. I am just mentioning that weakness. I always compliment him and say the best things. But this thread was about weakness. And that was a big one. It was himself not the opponents as much.
He didn't arguably beat Peterson. I thought Peterson won clear. Diaz wouldn't have beaten Horn, he was fairly limited offensively, and one dimensional.
The same Marvin Hagler who destroyed Thomas Hearns and John Mugabi was not the same Marvin Hagler who fought Ray Leonard. Sometimes I think his heart wasn't in that fight and he gave away rounds he normally wouldn't do.
You're the only person alive who watched Diaz-Peterson and thought it was a decisive victory for either. Horn couldn't make 140 without amputating a leg. As for being limited and one dimensional, sure. That describes 99.9% of fighters.
