Pipino Cuevas

[Ambling Alp II]

I think he had a career that is a good example of how silly it is to go by numbers in boxing.

On the one hand, he had 11 title defenses. Going by the sheer numbers, that is a lot. However, none of them were against anyone close to be being a great fighter. (The fighter he won the title from was a below average title holder)A few defenses were against good opponents, some were not.
There is a solid mathematical formula for how much value should be put in the sheer number of title defenses. Take what the number is (in this case 11) and multiply that number zero. That is how much stock should be given to the sheer amount of title defenses.

On the other hand , take his win/loss record: 35-15. That doesn't seem that impressive at all at first glance.
However, if take a hard look, you see how deceiving that is. He lost 5 fights before he was even 16 years old.
He also fought sporadically for several years later in career and had more losses that he should have had.

So how good was Cuevas? We have to look way past the deceiving numbers.

Well how did he do against great competition? He was 0-2. However, it's not just the sheer numbers that indicates how did. He got beaten very badly both times. He was not competitive.

How did he do against good fighters? Very well. He several other them, sometimes pretty handily.

Did he have some off nights and lose or almost lose to fighters he should have beaten handily? Not really.

How did he look film? Fairly impressive except against great fighters.

Finally, so again, how good was he? Not great, but more than merely good. Shows how large the range form good to great is. He was very good.

Look forward to hearing some words of wisdom from my esteemed colleagues.

[Onetimeonly]

Nothing to add, he was fearsome for a stretch and I think he could beat fighters better than he did. Him and palomino would have been great.

That being said, Carlos was competitive with great fighters and he beat good fighters better than the ones cuevas did. As I said last night, pipino was scary but no business in the hof.

Obviously all 15 losses don't count against him, but not one of them would be categorized as a good loss that enhances his resume.

[mjaco]

I think he had a career that is a good example of how silly it is to go by numbers in boxing.

On the one hand, he had 11 title defenses. Going by the sheer numbers, that is a lot. However, none of them were against anyone close to be being a great fighter. (The fighter he won the title from was a below average title holder)A few defenses were against good opponents, some were not.
There is a solid mathematical formula for how much value should be put in the sheer number of title defenses. Take what the number is (in this case 11) and multiply that number zero. That is how much stock should be given to the sheer amount of title defenses.

On the other hand , take his win/loss record: 35-15. That doesn't seem that impressive at all at first glance.
However, if take a hard look, you see how deceiving that is. He lost 5 fights before he was even 16 years old.
He also fought sporadically for several years later in career and had more losses that he should have had.

So how good was Cuevas? We have to look way past the deceiving numbers.

Well how did he do against great competition? He was 0-2. However, it's not just the sheer numbers that indicates how did. He got beaten very badly both times. He was not competitive.

How did he do against good fighters? Very well. He several other them, sometimes pretty handily.

Did he have some off nights and lose or almost lose to fighters he should have beaten handily? Not really.

How did he look film? Fairly impressive except against great fighters.

Finally, so again, how good was he? Not great, but more than merely good. Shows how large the range form good to great is. He was very good.

Look forward to hearing some words of wisdom from my esteemed colleagues.

That's an excellent analysis of how to historically rate a fighter and somewhat close to my own method. The only minor disagreement I'd have is in giving absolutely no weight to title defenses. Though too much can certainly be made out of that stat, I believe fighters are generally more likely to bring their "A game" to a title fight, particularly as a challenger. So you're probably getting the best the opponent, of whatever caliber, has to give and a win over him in a title defense would therefore carry a little more weight than a win over the same opponent in a non-title fight. There's also probably a little more psychological pressure in having to continuously defend a title.

As for whether Pipino belongs in the IBHOF, probably not but he wouldn't be among the first names I'd get rid of. Honestly, I'd take an eraser to about half the names in there. But I'm probably getting grumpy in my middle age.

[elmersalsa]

Pipino Cuevas was an exciting puncher. THAT'S what I remember of him in the late 70s decade. I always wanted to see him fight the great Roberto Duran in 1979, but it didn't happen.

As for hof goes, he only had those 12 title defenses, 11 by knockout. It is a big weight in his resume as 4 years as champion, but not enough.

ALSO, the Tommy Hearns knockout got a lot to do with his legacy. IT was a very devastating KO that he was never the same fighter after that.

Should he be hot worthy? NOT in my view. BUT, if Barry McGuigan is in the hall, then PIPINO IS deserving, too.

[giacomino]

Big hitter, fun to watch in his prime. He beat some decent fighters but he was never in the class of the big four (Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Benitez), he would have gotten hammered by Palomino if they’d been matched and IMO would have been outboxed by Cervantes, who was junior WW belt holder at the time and hammered by his successor, Pryor, in that era. But those were all great fighters and Pipino was still a lot of fun to watch because one left hook and a fight was over.

[goose 5]

I thought Randy Shields beat him, but it was very close and I wouldn't call it a robbery. Cuevas destroyed Backus and Clyde Gray and blew out Ranzany but Backus and Gray were not at their peak. And, of course, he stopped Espada, who was a good fighter, 3 times. Those are the first memories that come to me when I think of Cuevas.

I'd take a lot of guys who came after him to beat him, such as : Leonard, Benitez, Whitaker, Mayweather, De La Hoya, Curry, among others. As for earlier eras, I don't see him getting anywhere near a title shot if we are talking the 40's, 50's and 60's. But, for what he did in his time, he deserves his place in the HOF.

[chrisjs1985]

A fun fighter and murderous puncher. I agree the numbers don’t tell the truth. He had a number of losses on the way up and on the way out. But look at how little resistance he offered against the two top guys and was there enough depth and quality to his championship opponents?

I made this comment in the other thread. Did he do more than Alfonso Zamora?

Zamora was equally (or perhaps even more) destructive as a pure puncher. Didn’t have the early career woes of Pipino but had a similar fall. Zamora was lineal but made about 5-6 less defenses. Zamora beat a better champion in Soo-Hwang Hong and also defended against Pedroza (of course pre prime) was thrashed against an all-timer and then beaten by the superb Luján but actually scored a great victory over Sandoval on when on the downside of his career.

[elmersalsa]

IF the welter crowns were unified, I don't know if Pipino Cuevas would have had all those title defenses. BUT, hey! WE will never know if he would have gotten that far. Many fighters that were less talented than he also became undisputed world champions.

[Nile4000]

He was something else during his reign. Interesting that Duran didn't fight him instead of Sugar Ray Leonard when he challenged for the title.

[Wee Tommy]

I think he had a career that is a good example of how silly it is to go by numbers in boxing.

On the one hand, he had 11 title defenses. Going by the sheer numbers, that is a lot. However, none of them were against anyone close to be being a great fighter. (The fighter he won the title from was a below average title holder)A few defenses were against good opponents, some were not.
There is a solid mathematical formula for how much value should be put in the sheer number of title defenses. Take what the number is (in this case 11) and multiply that number zero. That is how much stock should be given to the sheer amount of title defenses.

On the other hand , take his win/loss record: 35-15. That doesn't seem that impressive at all at first glance.
However, if take a hard look, you see how deceiving that is. He lost 5 fights before he was even 16 years old.
He also fought sporadically for several years later in career and had more losses that he should have had.

So how good was Cuevas? We have to look way past the deceiving numbers.

Well how did he do against great competition? He was 0-2. However, it's not just the sheer numbers that indicates how did. He got beaten very badly both times. He was not competitive.

How did he do against good fighters? Very well. He several other them, sometimes pretty handily.

Did he have some off nights and lose or almost lose to fighters he should have beaten handily? Not really.

How did he look film? Fairly impressive except against great fighters.

Finally, so again, how good was he? Not great, but more than merely good. Shows how large the range form good to great is. He was very good.

Look forward to hearing some words of wisdom from my esteemed colleagues.

Well said.