Welterweights: Carlos Palomino vs Pipino Cuevas

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:28

You really do have a bad case of wet brain silkov.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Sep 2006, 16:03

Ambling Alp wrote:This debate really suprises me. When they were both champions in the late 1970's, it seemed like most people thought Palomino was the "real" champion.

And exactly who were “most people”? Palomino was somewhat of a media child with guest appearances on Taxi and many of his fights on national TV. Most likely because he was a good looking young fighter who could speak well, while Cuevas was simply a tough Mexican killer. I don’t think very many real boxing people regarded Palomino as the “real” champion -- just those that got all of their boxing knowledge from TV broadcasts.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 20 Sep 2006, 16:38

The Great John L wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:This debate really suprises me. When they were both champions in the late 1970's, it seemed like most people thought Palomino was the "real" champion.
And exactly who were “most people”? Palomino was somewhat of a media child with guest appearances on Taxi and many of his fights on national TV. Most likely because he was a good looking young fighter who could speak well, while Cuevas was simply a tough Mexican killer. I don’t think very many real boxing people regarded Palomino as the “real” champion -- just those that got all of their boxing knowledge from TV broadcasts.

Don't forget about his beer comercial.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 21 Sep 2006, 01:59

Seems to me he did the beer commerical after he lost the title. There was the hint of the commerical in my first post...."

You guys need to get with it!!

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 21 Sep 2006, 08:10

ringsider wrote:Seems to me he did the beer commerical after he lost the title. There was the hint of the commerical in my first post...." You guys need to get with it!!

I didn't pick up on it because I don't read you're stuff.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Sep 2006, 12:23

Also one thing that seems to have eluded some on here is that Mr Andy Price outpointed a certain Mr Palomino as well... so there!...

....boxing records are wonderful things, read them, and learn something!....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:50

Yes, I realized that Palomino lost to Price. However, since it was only Palomino's 12th fight, I didn't think that it meant much. Since we don't count Cuevas's early losses it seemed fair.
However, I ask again, how can you you not count Cuevas' loss to Price when it was the last fight (just 45 days) before he beat Espada for the title? Also, how can you say that the lost to Stafford and and got crushed by Hearns were when Cuevas was past it?

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 22 Sep 2006, 01:55

I didn't pick up on it because I don't read you're stuff.

That is obviously a lie Kick Asner, as you had to read it, to respond to it.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 22 Sep 2006, 06:39

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes, I realized that Palomino lost to Price. However, since it was only Palomino's 12th fight, I didn't think that it meant much. Since we don't count Cuevas's early losses it seemed fair.
However, I ask again, how can you you not count Cuevas' loss to Price when it was the last fight (just 45 days) before he beat Espada for the title? Also, how can you say that the lost to Stafford and and got crushed by Hearns were when Cuevas was past it?

You dont think Cuevas was past it when he lost to Stafford??... have you even seen any early Cuevas fights???

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Sep 2006, 15:22

Cuevas looked good when he fought the weak competition that he defended his titles against. Did he really need to knockout Espada 3 times? However when he fought a guy that wasn't scared of him and had some skills he lost. He was aggressive and hit hard, but he was easy to hit, and had a mediocre chin.

I'm not saying Palomino beat great competition either. However, he only lost twice in his career, both times against great fighters and he didn't get crushed.

We not supposed to count Cuevas' early losses, (I can buy that up to the Price fight),not supposed to count the fights when he was still young against Hearns and Stafford or any fights after that? Come on. How many benefits of the doubt does he get?

As for the Duran, fight, I'm saying it was embarrasing that he lost. However, he got the crap kicked out of him.

We are supposed to believe that after Cuevas lost to Price in June of 1976, he improved dramatically in the next month, beat Espada, (who we are supposed to believe was a really good fighter for some reason), was brilliant for about 4 years, then was suddenly washed up at the age of 23 and thats why he got crushed by Hearns, and lost to Stafford? That is a lot to swallow.
I'm not buying it.
The truth is that he was effective against mediocre competiton that he faced in the late 1970's and couldn't handle it when he fought better fighters.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Sep 2006, 15:42

Ambling Alp wrote:Cuevas looked good when he fought the weak competition that he defended his titles against.

Are you kidding me!? Palomino fought guys like Sorimachi, Mohatar, Azevedo and Palacios, and you’re being critical of Cuevas’s opposition!!! Besides Muniz and his loss to Benitez, his opponents were just about as bad as it got for any champion back then. And we had to watch most of those crap matchups on national TV because Palomino was some kind of a media favorite. At least Cuevas fought Gray, Espada and Weston.

I agree with your assessments of Cuevas’s shortcomings, but neither of these guys were greats, and yes Palomino was more skilled, but he was relatively easy to hit and Cuevas was a HUGE hitter. Just out of curiosity, weren you a boxing fan during that time?

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Sep 2006, 15:56

Yes I was a boxing fan back then. And no I wasn't impressed with Palomino's competition either. However I didn't think Gray or Espada or anyone else that Cuevas beat was that good either. The division was fairly weak at the time. If Cuevas was that good, he would have beat Price and Stafford, and at least put in a decent showing against Hearns and Duran.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Sep 2006, 17:39

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes I was a boxing fan back then. And no I wasn't impressed with Palomino's competition either. However I didn't think Gray or Espada or anyone else that Cuevas beat was that good either. The division was fairly weak at the time. If Cuevas was that good, he would have beat Price and Stafford, and at least put in a decent showing against Hearns and Duran.

Gray, Weston and Espada were all legitimate world class WW's for several years. Palomino also fought a few good opponents when he first won the title (Muniz and Green), but then descended into those awful televised outings against Azevedo, Palacios, Sorimachi and Mohatar, who may be the worst back-to back challengers for a title that I can recall in my 40 years as a boxing fan. He does get props for fighting Muniz twice and Benitez, but with your reasoning couldn't I ask "Did he really have to fight Muniz twice?"

Cuevas fought Espada 3 times because Espada was a top 5 WW for a number of years. Better to fight Espada 3 times than Azevedo, Palacios, Sorimachi and Mohatar. And Cuevas didn't just beat top 5 WW's, he destroyed them. If you were truly a fan and not just a boxing observer during that time you would know that Cuevas probably broke more opponents bones than any other WW title holder in history. Broken jaws and ribs were pretty routine, and I also recall a broken eye socket as well. Palomino's brain trust wanted nothing to do with Cuevas. He may have been able to beat him, but there was no reason to risk it since Palomino got all of the US TV money.

And yes, Cuevas did lose spectacularly against Duran and Hearns, but so what? Would you also say that if Duran was any good he would have at least put up a decent showing against Hearns? These results are due to styles.

Palomino was hittable and Cuevas was a HUGE puncher, so I would expect that Palomino would have lost in a spectacular fashion to Cuevas, probably with a borken bone or two.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this I guess. See you on another thread where we can spar again...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Sep 2006, 13:52

Well, I guess that we will have to agree to disagree about this. (By the way I do count it against Duran that he lost so badly to Hearns; I would rate him even higher pound for pound if that wouldn't have happened.)
How a fighter perfoms against the best competition that he faces is a huge factor when rating him. It tells a lot about how good he really is. In Cuevas's case, he failed miserably both times when he fought the only great fighters in his career.

There are much bigger disagreements that I have on this forum than Cuevas-Palomino. I think agree we have beat this topic to death, but if you want I will give you the last word. It would be boring if everyone always agreed all of the time.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Sep 2006, 14:02

Ambling Alp wrote:I think agree we have beat this topic to death, but if you want I will give you the last word.

Word.