Esparragoza hits too hard and was too quick for Olivares at 126 IMO. He'd eventually wear him out in a war. It's the sort of fight which is won by chin, and for mine, Esparragoza's was much better at this weight.
But Olivares gave Arguello Hell and was up on the cards, and Esparragoza was no Arguello. I think Olivares wins big if its say the version that battered Chacon. I'm not convinced Esparragoza could handle an Olivares just because he handled Stevie Cruz.
I don't think the Arguello fight is of much relevance. It was an excellent performance, and one which both showed his layers as an out-fighter and Arguello's weakness vs that style, but I don't it matters too much here. Esparragoza was much quicker on his feet than Arguello, and he didn't stall forward the whole time. He often fought on the back-foot, and even when he did come forward, he was still much quicker than Arguello I think Olivares plays to his tune, however, and fights in his normal, aggressive, Frazier-esque fashion. If he comes forward like that vs Esparragoza, I think he'd take combos and eventually get stopped. I don't think Chacon and Esparragoza are comparable in level or style.
I think you overrate Esparragoza considerably. His resume is just too thin to say he's a level above Chacon, when Chacon has better wins by MILES. Chacon's win over Lopez alone blows away Esparragoza's win over Cruz.
Meh, resume only gets you so far in that sort of comparison. Esparragoza is far more impressive on film, and it's not like he's proven to be inferior to Chacon. Chacon has his fair share of losses too, don't forget. Esparragoza would never have as much trouble with Limon.
Resume is the only way to distinguish quality. Chacon would have hammered Cruz as well. When Chacon was focused at 126 against Lopez and Marcano, he was every bit as talented as Esparragoza, only with more proven intangibles.
Résumé is absolutely not the only way to distinguish quality. Michael Carbajal's résumé was far better than Canizales' or Rigondeaux's, but he wasn't half as good. Eye test and consistency can be used to discern class if a fighters level of opposition was poor. Especially when compared to somebody who may have better wins, but also has defining losses. Chacon was never as talented as Esparragoza. Never as quick, sharp or skilled. And more hittable to boot.
I'm curious, George. Who would you pick in an Arguello v Esparragoza fight? For what it is worth I thought very highly of Esparragoza and I reckon that, on his best nights at 26, Olivares would give him, or anybody, all they wanted, he wasn't at his best at the weight; living like a rock star is tough enough for a rock star, nearly impossible for a fighter.
I don't think Esparragoza's footwork is good enough to avoid Arguello indefinitely, and his tendancy to knuckle down and trade and to move back in straight lines leads to Arguello finding his range about half way through, then closing the show with something massive a few rounds later. I see Esparragoza's handspeed and movement giving him issues, and his power forcing him to respect him more than he did Castillo and I reckon it's a hard fought fight up until Arguello ices him. I don't think Arguello was as infallible at 126 as he was at 130, or even 135. The trade off of being more explosive and speedy in replace of being more skilled and dynamic isn't one which I was impressed with. He was definitely a better fighter as he moved up. I wouldn't rate him as highly as others at 126.
eye test has to be trumped by resume. consider examples like bojado, joel julio, y. gamboa and f. verdejo. all fighters who "looked" like masters but could not beat top competition.
We only know that because they fought top opposition. Esparragoza didn't. He looked spectacular at the level he fought at, and he was very consistent. The eye test and knowing he was levels above his comp are the only way we can rate him. When Chacon is going life and death with Limon, getting out-classed by Boza, losing to Leon and getting annihilate by Olivares, I see no reason to believe that he was better than Esparragoza. There's plenty of fighters whose résumé doesn't match their ability. Rigondeaux, Galaxy and Canizales just for a start. I doubt Chacon at his best would so roundly of out-class Stevie Cruz or fight Villasana to a draw. I think if anything, he'd get stopped by Villasana.
I think 126 & 130 were his best weights. He was an ATG at both those weights. Not quite at 135, though still excellent at 135.
I tend to think the opposite. I reckon he was better at 135 than he was 126. Arguello's technique hadn't quite matured yet, and his results seem to reflect that IMO. He had a close fight with Torres, was far down on my card vs Olivares, and he has a near shut-out loss to Marcel. Don't get me wrong, once he caught somebody at the weight, they crumbled. I'm also not saying he just raw and wild (for instance, how good was the punch which iced Olivares?), but I do think his overall ring generalship wasn't quite developed yet, nor was his defensive work or feint game. He had wicked power, good technique, and very fast hands. The performance vs Kobayashi was great. I just reckon he was a little below the likes of Pep, Saddler, Armstrong, etc. Still a physical demon and a wrecking ball at feather, but I think the refined version up at 135 was a bit better.
that is kind of my point. until a fighter actually faces top opposition, we don't know how good he is. for that reason, any argument made on the basis of eye test is going to be flimsy. nonetheless, i would pick esparragoza over chacon (although it is not clear how that is relevant to the original question of esparragoza vs. olivares).
