At 130 or 135. Who wins this battle of southpaws? Would Camacho be too fast or can Casamayor have some success with his tricky style and skills?
Definitely the former. Casamayor wasn't in the same league as prime Camacho. Hector by pretty wide UD.
There's only 4-5 guys I would take over Camacho at 130: Floyd, Chavez, Arguello, Pac, and maybe Nelson, but not positive about Nelson. I'd pick Hector over any other 130 pounder in history, including Loma's overrated ass. If Loma can't beat a fraud from NYC, then he can't beat a legitimately great fighter from NYC.
Since X can't keep his Loma hate inside him, I'll bite. Loma beats Camacho clearly at 130 lbs. A swarmer like Loma is vulnerable against punchers, but that's not Camacho. Also, he was much better suited for feathers and super-feathers As for this fight, Camacho probably wins but Casamayor gives him a run for his money. Camacho struggled with much lesser guys
Camacho had more than enough power at 130-135 to hurt and drop Loma. He did so to the granite jawed Ramirez. The opposite is not true. Loma doesn't have the firepower to seriously threaten Hector. Once Loma is stunned by Hector's handspeed and power at 130, he would become gunshy. Camacho is NOT Gary Russell, and even Gary Russell took about 4 rounds. Sometimes I think you pick newer fighter over older fighter with no basis whatsoever. Just for the Hell of it of "newer guy = better." Mythical Matchups shouldn't be about that. They should be about which guy was better, but your MO is always clear. You'll pick the newer generation fighter in 98% of matchups. When has Loma ever demonstrated that he could beat a great fighter NOT two natural weight classes below him? I'll wait. Camacho is by leaps and bounds the more proven fighter, yet somehow Loma "clearly" wins? Yeah, ok. Camacho has SHUT OUT wins over very good fighters. Ramirez and Howard Davis did not win a SINGLE round off of him between the two of them. Loma never did anything like that to a top fighter. As usual, you show recency bias with nothing to back it up with. Try harder next time.
A better matchup is Loma vs Casamayor at 130. That's a very good fight, and a case can be made for either guy. Prime Camacho was better than both of them. Results back that claim. Camacho wouldn't lose to Salido, Freitas, and Fimo. Mid-80s Hector would beat the shit outta Frietas and Fimo, in all honesty. Especially Frietas. I don't think Frietas even sees the distance with prime Camacho. Hector is very disrespected at times on this forum. Yeah, he was a piece of shit cokehead, but he was amazing from 83-85, and remained quality until the early 90s. Neither Loma nor Casa has as good a resume of wins as Hector, and that's OBJECTIVELY true.
This thread actually prompted me to rewatch a few prime Casa fights from the early 00s, namely against Baek when he won the title, which I hadn't watched in many years. Admittedly, I forgot how good Casa was. Camacho wouldn't dominate him in the fashion I originally said. Camacho does win though. That version of Casa vs Loma is a 50-50 fight imo.
Right. He doesn't even have the style for it. You need legit firepower to make prime Camacho gunshy. I really think Ugo is thinking of the older, more passive Camacho. The 130 Camacho would be freely letting his hands go against Loma, and Loma would not be getting the better of it, considering that Camacho was faster and had a FAR better chin. Camacho was also a meaner and tougher fighter than Loma. As I said, Loma vs Casa is the more competitive fight. I think Loma and Casa both lose to prime Camacho 9-3 or 8-4.
Again this stupendous logic. By this token, the more proven guy wins every single time. Thus, the correct pick for Berbick vs Tyson in '86 is Berbick, since he had much the better resume, and also Berbick was no David Jaco. Now I know X is able to make better picks than this, but when the fight includes a fighter he hates (Loma, Canelo, Oscar or such) this becomes your approach. In fact, this thread didn't even include Loma, but you just had to take a shot at him. And once again, picking Camacho is totally plausible, but to portray it as s mismatch is not, and this logic definitely is not. We mention how Loma lost three rounds (in his third pro fight) against Russell Jr. Yet, we completely overlook how Camacho lost four against Blaine Dickson. This super-fast Camacho with Hearns' power in both fists who would steamroll the Loma Primadonna sure didn't look like that in every fight. Picking and choosing stuff that supports our stance isn't sign of objectivity either. This lack of logic when comparing eras has always my problem, not the picks.
You're literally making up shit in that last paragraph, the sign of someone who is low on points to make. When did I even SUGGEST that Camacho had comparable power to Hearns? I didn't say he stops Loma, or even blitzes Loma. I said he had the power to hurt Loma, which is very true. That's not even your style to exaggerate like that, so I know you're desperate. Does Loma's resume of wins compare to Camacho's? Yes or no? You can't objectively say yes, because it would be untrue. Loma WISHES he had a resume of wins that consists of Rosario, Limon, Ramirez, Pazienza, Davis, Boza, Haugen, and Mancini. Loma has every excuse in the book made for both his losses. His fans claim he was green in the Saldido fight, and then he went onto to put on a masterclass against Russell a very short time later. He simply is not as good as his hype. Camacho was a better fighter, whether you choose to believe it or not, results reflect that Hector was better. Prime Camacho is never in a million years losing to Teofimo. And Rosario knocks out Loma.
I've been accused of having nostalgia bias, but I try to make a point to pick the better fighter, regardless of era. If someone made a Pac vs Ray Mancini thread, I'm gonna say Pac by slaughter, despite the fact that he fought in current times and Ray fought in the 80s. And I already said that I would pick Floyd and Pac (two modern guys) over Camacho. Your recency bias on the other hand runs deep. We could even reference a few years ago when you suggested Inoue beats Wilfredo Gomez with no evidence. You will invariably favor the newer fight, almost all the time.
Now you got stuck in an expression that I used, which was an obvious hyperbole. "Loma's overrated ass who can't beat frauds" doesn't sound very objective approach to me, which was the point of the hyperbole. I never said Loma has as good a resume. He doesn't. I said resume doesn't decide the winner of a fight. You know this to be true. Loma has excuses yes. Camacho had poor showings but they are forgotten so he doesn't even need excuses. Exactly my point. Loma and Camacho are close in class, which is why styles to matter a lot here
I never said that. I said Inoue can give him a run for his money, and I maintain that take. If you want to continue on this personal level, I can also find the post where you said LeBron's overrated and choking ass is never going to be on the level of Magic and Bird. But I'd rather concentrate on fights instead of posters
We'll just have to disagree on that last point. I think Camacho's peak was clearly higher. I wouldn't be 100% comfortable with even taking Loma over Ramirez. If he did beat Ramirez, it would be competitive, not a 12-0 rout like what Camacho did to him. I see Loma as closer to Casamayor's level than Camacho's. But its okay if we don't agree on that.
Lebron ended up greater than Magic and Bird, but he has soft character traits in him than those two didn't have. He's an outstanding player, but a whiney little bitch. I'd rather LeBron if it's team lacking in talent, as he could do more with less.. If it's a team with well balanced talent, I'd rather have Magic or Bird as my main man.
