No, over a year and 7 fights later isn't right around the time. Why don't you apply that standard to Valdes and not be so obviously biased, it doesn't make your points stronger, actually hurts them.
Mongoose You also have to take into consideration after the Machen defeats, valdes went on a 12-2 run where he defeated several top 10 men and earned himself a number 2 ranking in the world, higher than pastrano ever achieved at heavyweight
Ok let me ask you some questions Who had the better heavyweight career nino valdes or Willie pastrano? Who would have won between a 1956 nino valdes vs 1958 Willie pastrano Is there anyone during pastranos 12-0 run that you would have favored to beat valdes? I do apply standards to valdes. He had many losses during this period but they were to all top 10 guys
His fights with Baker and Pastrano would be interesting. Pastrano was such a tricky guy. He was a pain in the ass for most people. Id love to have seen how Harris beat him. Whether he outboxed him or out brawled him. That would show us something because weve seen how a lot of other very talented guys fought Pastrano. Baker was a big guy and dropped Harris so it would have been interesting to see how Harris dealt with a size deficiency and the adversity of coming back from a knockdown. We might well have a different impression of him.
I am interested in how pastrano got so badly outboxed by joe Erskine. Angelo Dundee called Erskine a master boxer. I have plenty of film of erskine, he was no master boxer. Even on a bad night how did pastrano lose to him? Valdes smashed out erskine in 1 round
You keep talking about what Valdez did LATER and what these guys did AFTER the time in question. Apply that to Pastrano. Pastrano got robbed against Archie Moore who had beaten Valdez twice simply because Moore scored a questionable flash knockdown and he also beat Harold Johnson. Pastrano was the real deal whether you want to admit it or not and was a nightmare head to head because of his style and footwork. I wouldnt discount Pastrano against Valdez in the late 50s because Pastrano had the style to take Valdez strong points (size, strength, and power) and render them totally ineffective. Once a small fast guy who is very very hard to hit does that he turns that big guy into a pin cushion.
Pastrano fought archie Moore in 1962 who was 45 years old and had a roll of fat around his midsection. Valdes fought archie moore in 1953 and 1955 at ages 36-38 when moore was champion, in peak shape, and beating hall of famers. Valdes almost beat moore in 55 too, razor close decision. Come on Steve, your going to tell me pastrano and valdes fought the same version of moore? It's not even close Look at the difference between moore in 53 vs 62 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-FZBzGhxERg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi66CQ_ivDg
Nightmare head to head? Than why did he lose so often, even at 175? Jessie bowdry chic calderwood Wayne Thornton Pastranos problem was he had no power. Nothing to keep people off of him. Pastrano himself admitted this. He also partied too much, had no dedication. He didn't throw enough punches, he got hit a lot for someone so good defensively I think valdes had the style to walk pastrano down, maul him and smother him. And from the outside valdes talented 79" jab would connect often on Willie and enable valdes to score points everywhere. I think Willie never tested power like valdes before, and might crumble from the pressure. Valdes soundly out pointed Ezzard charles, who is a step up in quality from willie
I think Holman punched as hard as Valdes, and perhaps harder, and had an 80' reach. Valdes was the better fighter, but he and Holman are not world's apart, also, I think if long, slow jabs could beat Pastrano, he would have lost a lot more than he did. I think the issue is how long Valdes can keep up the pace if the fast stepping Pastrano is at the top of his game without tiring. And while Valdes might have been a better heavyweight from 1953 to 1955 than Pastrano ever was, by 1957 (and through 1959) the issue is not so clear. *And Harris was arguably a better heavyweight than Pastrano.
Also Klompton Do you think pastrano was a nightmare head to head in the heavyweight Division? Because his record doesn't back that up. The highest rated fighter he ever beat at heavyweight was # 8 john holman
Valdes had a talented long left jab. Holman did not have a good jab, that's a big difference in styles Also I think correct me if I'm wrong Steve Compton is arguing that pastrano is capable of beating any version of valdes. Do you share that opinion Edward? Do you think pastrano beats the valdes of 53-55?
Potentially, certainly. If Harold Johnson could easily outpoint Valdes, it is certainly possible that Pastrano could. It is simply not out of the question. No one, not even Johnson, that Valdes fought, could move around like Pastrano could. Lots of light hitting guys, like Loughran, Rosenbloom, and Maxim, beat high ranking and powerful heavyweights. What kind of punch did Loughran have to hold off Baer? Rosenbloom to hold off Nova? Maxim to hold off Walcott? Risko to hold off Godfrey?
But valdes proved he was capable of soundly beating hall of Famers with his Performance against ezzard charles. Charles got soundily defeated by valdes. Charles is a hall of fame heavyweight champion. This victory means a lot, and you have to consider if valdes could figure out charles, he could figure out pastrano
Erskine a master boxer according to Angelo Dundee, did not have the punch to hold off valdes. Pastrano himself admitted he lacked the punch to compete with heavyweights