He moved up 3 times. He put together a strong reign without a defeat in 3 different divisions before failing to beat one of the very best ever in his 4th. His failure at said 4th weight class, against the juggernaut he faced, came in arguably the greatest title fight classic in Lt. Welterweight history. Zarate moved up one division. He was outclassed and promptly KO’d without even putting up any serious resistance. The only thing of note he did for the rest of his career was lose a close, controversial decision to a lower level champion. And, for the record, I’m almost certain Arguello would’ve fared significantly better against Duran than Zarate did against Gomez. That’s a clearly better opponent with a legitimate size advantage. Does anyone believe differently on either of these two points?
Why are we comparing a bantamweight with a Guy who fought up to 140?? Whole thread is dumb. Just because they are tall and skinny they are comparable? Let’s compare arguello to hearns,, and then to Deontae wilder while we are at it.. morons
Oh shut up, schmuck. There are very clear similarities between the two. It’s probably the first comparison most viewers would make if they were new to one but not the other. Apart from simply being tall and skinny, they were both: -Dominant champions at their prime weights -KO artists of the highest order, especially among the lower weight classes -prototypes for the technically sound, picturesque boxer-puncher -very methodically paced, never rushed -troubled by skilled boxer-movers to one extent or another -Exceptional body punchers and inside fighters, particularly relative to their great height -Mediocre defensively as far as their reflexes were concerned -Hispanic For two fighters who were only separated by a couple of divisions during the same era, these similarities weren’t hard to see.
