Alexis Arguello

Beat 1 great fighter, lost to 1 great fighter and beat a bunch of very good fighters, I guess that's the best way to describe him. He would have answered more questions if he stayed at 135 or 140. I also wonder why he never chose to unify 130 with samuel serrano.

When he made his comeback in 85-86, he was fighting around 140ish, so he could have fought Hector Camacho and I really honestly believe that Hector would truly beat him.

If he didn't lose to Vilomar Fernandez and Ernesto Marcel, I feel he would have ranked alongside Pernell Whitaker and Carlos Monzon. His wins resume is just as good as thiers, its just that he was twice outboxed by lesser fighters.

 

I love his right uppercut to the body.

Actually I really liked pretty much all of the punches he threw.

 

Do you dislike AA?

 

No not really, I thought I described him really well.

 

No, you did not. Your perception is really bias.

 

Explain, I gave him credit for beating alot of very good fighters, but i still feel he left some unanswered questions. If Vilomar Fernandez and Marcel gave him problems by outboxing him, I really feel Camacho would have done the same.

 

Beautiful fighter to watch, one of my absolute favorites.

Not the fastest of hand or foot, but a dictator of distance and tempo, doing so through an effective jab, a great right hand, great subtle side to side head movement to slip punches, and effective parrying to protect his midsection.

I was in Nicaragua a few years ago, where he has now entered politics, oddly enough in the Sandanista party (the same Sandanista party that he was once against as an avowed hater of communism, and the one his brother died fighting for). He is still beloved in Nicaragua by most everyone.

 

What more questions were there to answer? Facing a prime Camacho when Arguello was well and truly past his wouldn't have proven much.

BTW, I have Arguello at #30 on my p4p list.

At 130 and 135 he is competetive with the the best those divisions have ever produced.

The other day there was a thread about him and Whitaker squaring off at 135 and I didn't give my view, but I might as well give it here. My view is that Pernell would win a 10-5 decision, with Arguello knocking him down a couple of times and once having him in danger of being out.

 

Well if arguello wanted to be a top 10 of all timer, he would have had to answer those questions, regardless of age. There is a reason why Langford and Robinson are a class above the other all-timers.

 

He looks down at me every day from the poster on my bedroom wall.

Legend, and my third favourite fighter of all time.

 

Because Serrano wasn't ****, comparatively, and there was zero demand for Arguello vs a fighter that NOBODY would have given any chance of winning. Alexis beat better fighters than Serrano, and was not the type to run around chasing paper titles. Have a look at the people Serrano was fighting at the time Arguello was there for goodness sakes.

 

Arguello accomplished what he could. There was nothing left to give. If that didn't amount to what the likes of Langford and Robinson achieved well so be it.

What you say is like saying if Camacho wanted to be a great fighter, he had to actually win a round or two against a great fighter that was in his prime. We all know he couldn't :good

 

Excellent point. Arguello was about substance, not appearance, like some of the so called greats running around today.

He also could have easily dodged Pryor and taken on the likes of Haley or Mamby or Curry at 140 and walked away a 4 weight champ, but that would have been a hollow acheivement without taking out the top dog at 140.