So Ortiz, Gomez, Tito, and Benitez are the undisputed 4 best fighters to ever come out of Puerto Rico. But that 5 spot is up for debate, at least in terms of greatness. I don't think anyone would argue who was BETTER between Cotto and Camacho, because the answer is easily Hector. Cotto was never on the level of the early-to-mid 80s Camacho. But who deserves to be remembered as greater? To me, it's still Camacho, but wondering if there's any pro-Cotto opinions. I rank Camacho as the 5th greatest PR fighter, and Cotto as 6.
Cotto pretty clearly for me. Camacho turned a bit into a joke after the rosario fight, and that affects his legacy imo. Not to mention that while both lost to all the atg they faced in their prime, cotto was very competitive with pbf, while camacho lost every seconds he was in the ring with an atg
I think calling Cotto "better" is really short-selling Hector, who was a top 5 P4P fighter at one stage in an INSANELY deep decade. There aren't more than a handful of junior lightweights in history who could take Camacho. That can't be said of Cotto at any weight... that he would only lose to a handful of guys. Cotto's style was solid, methodical, but he was never at any point capable of blitzing or dominating a top fighter like Camacho could.
Camacho certainly had more potential. Was more talented, had more ability, etc. It’s only the lack of dedication that Camacho had that really makes this close. I still think Hector was more special and this a little greater, despite Cotto having more longevity.
Hector was far more talented than Cotto but I think he kind of blew it as his career went on and he lost his dedication. Cotto was more consistent and despite losing along the way he still managed to pick up some good wins onwards. I think in terms of achievement Cotto has to be greater. Camacho was a better fighter H2H
Cotto is usually underrated, while camacho is overrated. Bar being faster and more flashy, there's nothing that suggest camacho was better than Cotto, and i think cotto resume and achievements are a good level above macho man
The same Cotto who was out on his feet against Corley, you mean? The 87 Camacho who shut out Davis would beat Cotto at 140 imo. Or at least, it would be a close fight. Camacho ain't Paulie, and Cotto ain't Chavez.
Corley also had pbf out on his feet btw Cotto was evidently weight drain against Paulie, and cotto doesnt have to be nearly as good as chavez to beat camacho, since chavez didnt win a second of that fight
Neil said give him a hiding. Cotto is not giving the 80s Camacho a one sided beating, and to think otherwise is either underrating Camacho or severely overrating Cotto. Cotto never beat a single elite fighter in one sided fashion, unless you count a crippled Sergio Martinez. Camacho had lost a lot by the late 80s to early 90s, but if we take the mid-80s Camacho at 140, there's no way in Hell Cotto wins one sidedly. Miggy wasn't good enough to do that.
you guys think more highly of camacho than i do. i dont consider him an elite 140lber howard davis didnt have the physical strength or power of cotto. i dont see how that fight has any bearing on the matchup.
Then maybe question Mel Taylor's worth. Camacho pitched a shut out over the same Davis who threw with Taylor. He also virtually shut out Paz at 140. So you got Paz and Davis, versus... who the Hell did Cotto beat at 140? Only your bum hero Bailey. Who else? Paulie and Pinto? Lol
Likewise, Camacho wouldn't struggle with any 140 Cotto opponent. Still, Howard Davis, Paz, and Haugen are better than anyone Cotto beat at 140.
cotto was a wrecking ball at 140. as he outgrew the division his chin was vulnerable. but all these feather fists like davis, camacho, taylor were not gonna be able to keep him off
Taylor??? I hope you mean a green Taylor. Because the Taylor who beat McGirt and fought Chavez would beat the ever living fuck outta Cotto. Prime Taylor stops Cotto at 140.
Camacho was a bit of a one trick pony, if you could handle the speed and the movement he didn't have much beside. Cotto was more versatile and would never lose to a guy like Haugen imo. In a fight at 140 lbs, I would nonetheless give the edge to Camacho (Cotto struggle against Malignaggi, a poor Camacho imitation, make it hard to pick otherwise). But overall, I think Cotto was definitely greater and better too (mainly because Camacho wasted a lot of his potential).
The same Corley that had Mayweather on queer street. Corley had the ability to rise above his level when fighting better fighters. He may have looked and dressed like a maricon but gave good performances from time to time.
This. I don't know who to pick here since it is easy to find proof either way, but this logic just doesn't work
Does the logic that Cotto would give a prime Camacho a "hiding" work? If Neil had said "Cotto beats Camacho at 140" I wouldn't have even responded, because that's a respectable opinion to have. Everyone is pretending like they don't see my point. Cotto isn't good enough to give a prime Camacho a "hiding". The Chavez comparison is valid, because Cotto lacked the attributes of JCC to dominate Camacho. "Logic" that.
Depends which Camacho shows up. Is it the ancient Roman homosexual or the disco space cadet? And how grown out is his curly tail of hair in the back? In the front?
All these Camacho jokes, yet he's the one with more decisive wins over top fighters. What's Cotto's defining win? A narrow victory over a faded Mosley?
Camacho seems like an under achiever. Wasted talent. I know it sounds harsh but I never took him seriously. I thought of him as a circus clown like a Puerto Rican Paez. Obviously Hector had more talent and was greater than Paez.
