Beg pardon, the extended Easter weekend was too pleasant to spend confined to the indoors, lockdown be damned. The joys of nature were calling. Why settle for three of those >'s? Heap a few more on there for added emphasis. I've looked a lot at Luke (no LGBTQ), not least because we used to share a gym. Spread the word about him and tipped him for the gold back in the day. Campbell is a better outfighter than DeMarco, but what's it amounted to? Taking three or four rounds off Loma while considerably outsizing him? Losing a close one to Linares whereas DeMarco caught up with the guy and beat him up? Campbell can't fairly be described as a grade higher than Tony overall. Pro boxing is more than just tidy, sharp outfighting. Hey, you don't need to sell me on the virtues of converted southpaws who throw fluid combinations out of a dominant left hand. (Jake LaMotta is my favorite fighter, after all.) Kevin Mitchell had genuine potential, might have been a really good champion with a sensible head on his shoulders, but, the truth is, he never put it all together the way he should've and his disciplinary issues are storied. When he did finally get serious about his career (the reunion with Tony Sims circa 2013-2015), the very best of his potential had already been urinated up the side of a public house. I say all of that as a longtime fan. Something people rarely mention is that he arguably should've stayed longer at 130, where he may've been a bit more durable and where his weaknesses may not have cost him as much (he was a sucker for fighting off the ropes, for example, an art at which he wasn't quite adept enough past a certain level). Could be he genuinely outgrew super featherweight, but I tend to suspect his departure for 135 owed more to shortcutting and lifestyle issues. He always seemed rather slight and a little too fragile at lightweight. More on Kevin and Luke further down the post. Not really. My argument is more that you two guys place too much stock in pretty aesthetics and surface stylishness. For all his talent, Linares has a lot of shortcomings and is a less intuitive, less nuanced fighter than Valero in my book. I bring up DeMarco (well, I didn't bring him up, but I did focus on the somewhat derisive mention of his name) because I find it interesting that he can be so casually dismissed even as one of his victims is elevated to an undue station by the same party. Let's be clear, Linares has lost to guys that no boxer who is far above average at world level (much less elite) has any business losing to, while failing to add prime, certified world class names to his W column. He didn't just come up short against DeMarco on one night of his life, he got run over by Sergio Thompson and Pablo César Cano. Those guys weren't even particularly noted punchers. That's not merely a chin deficiency, that's an IQ deficiency, an inability to work through problems, even after acquiring the experience. He suffered those defeats because he lacks too significant a degree of technical substance and ring intellect, which makes the continued pedestalization of the guy by fellows like yourself very difficult to defend (fortunately, there are other boxing fans and pundits who have a more pragmatic, realistic perspective on him). He just happened to lose to much lesser talents. Several times. Crap happens, but, when it keeps happening, you've got to adjust your lens and reevaluate what you thought about this guy. One cannot reasonably just rhapsodize his talent while failing to note his shortcomings and bad habits (e.g. his tendency to close his eyes to punches and adjust his guard to where he thinks they're headed, to name but one), or reducing them to a simple punch resistance prosaism, and giving him a forever hall pass for any and all defeats which may serve as evidence thereof. That is disingenuous. Nobody ever waxes superlative about, say, unglamorous Andriy Kotelnik, but, as B fighters go, I'd much rather possess his compound of fundamental soundness, refined timing and intelligence than Linares' flashier, more dynamic, yet less substantial bundle. (Putting aside the matter of political favor, of course, of which Linares was blessed with some while Kotelnik had to make do.) Andriy didn't pack much of a punch, but was able to get to grips with a bull like Maidana with savvy and acquired grit. He wasn't blessed with speed, but was able to negate the fast hands of Alexander with refined timing and solid fundaments (albeit in one of the biggest robberies ever seen on HBO). And I'd take a win over Chino and a highway robbery defeat to Alexander over anything in Linares' W column. Can you imagine Linares facing the 130-135 equivalent of even a pre-Oxnard Chino? He would've been mangled, and not merely on account of a perceived glass jaw. As I said above, this is a reductionist position that rather absolves Linares' faithful of any duty to honestly critique him. His chin isn't as lacking as his boxing intellect. He's one of those guys, and there have been many over the years, who is more reliant on his gifts than on craft or reading comprehension. The rave reviews always come in early with these kinds of fighters, they often get high on their own press, then they come dramatically unstuck. Judah and Khan are other examples of what I term the fatally flawed boxer/athlete, although it's entirely fair to say that both of those chaps have had much better careers than Linares (not that you'd think it to hear some here talk about Linares, given the amount of goodwill the Venezuelan engenders, with Khan and Judah subject to far greater degrees of ridicule for their failures). See, this is where I take issue. The hyperbole is off the charts with this guy, for no good reason. Erik Morales' dismantling of Pablo César Cano, while in a state of abject decrepitude and running on the very fumes of his greatness, is testament to a fighter possessing an "unbelievable" set of skills. Linares' skillset, in objective reality, is hardly throwback stuff. Stephen King once wrote something about receiving a lesson in the vast difference between myth and reality. Well, there it is. That's more like fair comment. I can't find disagreement with that.
^ Continued from above... Why would I scoff? I like Anthony Crolla and Kevin Mitchell (my external hard drive holds many of the latter's fights). And if I hadn't liked both men to start with, I certainly would have after they benefited my bankbook to the tune of hundreds of pounds each, thanks to their respective upset stoppage victories over a common opponent in John Murray. Crolla is a stand-up guy who made the most of the limited talent he was blessed with, gave it his proverbial 110% and overachieved, surmounting numerous setbacks by dint of perserverance and modest, steady improvement. I am the last to begrudge Crolla any of what he earned, but an objective analysis of his career reveals a fringe caliber contender who became a titlist due to a combination of proliferating sanctioning body titles and fairly mundane competition (relative to world level). You have to love Crolla for his doggedness and dedication, but the upshot was a fighter who sat somewhere between C and B level overall. Yet and still, he gave Linares a very good go the first time around, which doesn't reflect well on claims to an "unbelievable" skillset made on the latter's behalf. Kevin's best wins came against fringe guys in Prescott, Murray and Estrada. As soon as he stepped up from there, he fell short. Though I'd like to be able to say otherwise, I can't vaunt him as a world class scalp, even as much as I was impressed by his natural talent and the silky maneuvers of his finer rounds of boxing (a number of which came against Linares, which, again, may not reflect so well on the Venezuelan's claim to elite status). All things considered, a (professionally speaking) somewhat green, semi-seasoned Campbell, still a year out from reversing his loss to Yvan Mendy, is probably the best of the bunch. That one could grow in worth to some degree. That may be Linares' victory over a certifiable world class operator in or around his prime. But where's the evidence for Campbell being anything more than a B fighter on his best day? That's the status DeMarco has been diminished for in this thread, after all (while Linares is excused for his inability to navigate such apparently limited competition, and even lesser lights besides). He's been able to become a better version of himself (see his contrasts in fortune in his two bouts with Mendy), but has he evolved greatly, have many strings been added to his bow? It's a matter of perspective, George. Credit is relative. I'm calling out this folly of propping up Linares' fringe contenders' row of opposition at LW as anything like a seriously creditable world title run. Guys may continue on in a trait of denial, but Linares' ceiling has been explicitly established by now. He's another B fighter, albeit a talented one. He's by no means a bum. But he's nowhere near the sport's elite. I didn't say anything about it being fair or unfair. He was the best of a shallow 135 pool at the time, but he was not the tremendous threat he was touted as by some at the time. As expected, he was beaten handily by a Lomachenko apparently encumbered by injury. He pulled off a nice catch and counter for the knockdown of a fleetingly negligent Loma, but it was of little consequence overall. This remark operates on the conceit that a.) people who rate Valero aren't admirers of skill, and b.) Valero was only a wild swinger, which is not the case. Joshua isn't an apt Linares analogue any more than Valero is an apt Wilder analogue, apples and oranges and all that. Nevertheless, if your point is that Valero is on the short end of a significant skill differential, I'd have to disagree. They are very different fighters, but I'd favor Valero as the more rounded technician of the two. If Linares didnt have issues from the very get-go, it wouldn't take Valero more than a couple rounds to start figuring him out and touching him up. As soon as he starts touching him up, Linares is in big trouble. I don't subscribe to the idea that his chin is the be-all-end-all of his problems, but any streak of vulnerability is a bad thing to have in Valero's company. Linares is prettier, I grant you. But what he does in no way encompasses the gamut of boxing skill. I would tout Valero's nuanced roundedness and subtle craft over Linares all day. The better the opponent, the better Valero would be. He was that type of guy. And he was capable of bringing the best of his gym form to the ring when it mattered, was unencumbered by the proverbial sparring partner's mentality. Anyway, Valero to KO any and all of those four guys (Linares, Crolla, Mitchell, Campbell) is exactly the kind of outcome I'd be liable to wager on. And, friend? I really like my chances. [url]1[/url] | [url]2[/url] | [url]3[/url] | [url]4[/url] | [url]5[/url]
Is there any baddies out there then we can condemn? Or can you use that as a blanket excuse for all murderous behavior?
In the ring he was exciting outside he was a cokehead, ped using, domestic abuser that lead to murder. Then hangs himself like. A coward. Iv still never seen proof of mental illness. Although massive amounts of cocaine can make a volatile person dangerous
Edwin Valero was overrated. He just hit hard but I watched him almost got knocked out by his opponent in a fight long time ago. If the fight between him and Pacquiao had taken place, Valero could have been KTFO.
After KOeing Patsys, he Killed his wife then Killed himself while in prison. What a waste of time discussing a Disgusting guy....
This content is protected Loads more trainers that said he was not a crude banger He would set you up to get banged Suppose thevkeen eye of esb out weighs The opinion of elite level trainers Oh and rubio as iirc worked with Campbell Khan Linares With many more along the way
I do agree but also believe there are some exceptions. In the case of Valero, I believe he was an exception and would've done very well against the heavy hitters of that time. (I have a different opinion on his personal life but will stick to only his boxing)
