I'm not claiming he was great, but he was certainly on the cusp or breaking out into a higher echelon then most view as fitting into. Certainly a good resume... At 36 years old and years past his prime he beat Katsidis, a man who just blew out one of the hottest prospects on the planet in Kevin Mitchell. First man to beat Nate Campbell. Lost a close decision to Acelino Freitas, which some felt he deserved. Second man to beat Diego Corrales (2-1 against him) a tight SD lose in the rematch which, again, some felt he won. Could potentially be 3-0 against Corrales. And for the umpteenth time, a close loss to Castillo, which many thoughts he deserved. So we're looking at a Olympic gold medalist who wasn't conclusively beaten until the Raiymkulov, at which point he was in his mid-30's. Thoughts on Casamayor? Simply very good or on the cusp of being extremely good?
In a way Casamayor reminds me of a Jose Luis Ramirez type fighter... Losing very close fights against very good fighters that some felt he deserved, while winning fights/a fight that he most certainly didn't deserve. A fighter on the cusp of being more then he was, held back by a number of things.
Damn close if he's not lol. Some people consider him great already but I dunno about that. I've seen the second fight with Corrales and I always thought he deserved that win. The Katsidis and Marquez fights were pretty good. Overall, Casamayor is probably one of the most accomplished Cuban boxers of very recent fights. Gamboa will be if he continues on to beat goo opposition the guy has much potential.
Casamayor was mired alongside three other fighters of comparable ability - Castillo, Corrales, Freitas. If any one of them had been able to excel and prove beyond doubt that he was the supreme fighter among them, then that fighter could have been a great. But no-one was able to do that, they all beat each other. Therefore, they remain a quartet of very good fighters, but none of them were great IMO.
Well put. At their best they were very good fighters that can produce great fights, but weren't great fighters. It was still a solid win for those who beat them.
I can't forgive him for losing to Freitas, or Corralles in one of the few fights Chico bothered to use some semblance of boxing skill in. Liked him during his early reign,he was a solid if unspectactular fighter then, but he flattered to deceive in the end and got progressively worse as his career went on.
Some fighters get the luck (promotional backing), others like Casamayor do not. Casa as a southpaw stylist is a great defensive fighter. For me he beat Corrales 3 times, Castillo, Freitas and that says allot for the man. What if he got shots at smaller men in his prime like Hamed, Morales, Barrera, Pacquaio? None of them did particularly well against slicky cookies, and Casa was as tricky as they come. If he was given the ride Amir Khan is getting, the ride Delahoya got, getting the right fighters at the right time and having the decisions go his he'd be considered great. It would have helped him if he turned pro at 20-21, and he won belts from 118lbs up, where he originally started and he'd get respect from moving up the weights I hope he turns the clock back for Khan in July
The second Corrales fight was a robbery. He easily won that one. Money talks. He was hard done by not to get at least a draw against Popo even with the non-existent KD. Many felt that he won the Castillo fight as well but perhaps the judges were compensating for the screwjob Castillo got in the 1st Mayweather fight. He was a superior boxer to both Corrales and Castillo. To say that they had comparable ability is laughable. Skillwise Freitas was closer than the other two. Like PowerPuncher says some get the backing (Mayweather for example) and some don't and it really does make a difference when judges score rounds :-(
