BoxRec

I'd go for Cuevas... just too strong for Palomino... what an awesome warrior Pipino was... Palomino was very good but at his best Pipino was great imo... Pipino on points or late ko...

I liked Carlos but I wouldnt bet on him on this one.

I saw the Palamino/Benitiz fight on CBS sports spectacular. I thought Palimino beat Wilfredo when they took his title away and gave a SD to Benitez.. If Palamino fought Ceuvas, I just can't see Pipino winning he was just to one dimensional, and too short. Duran made Carlos look silly boxing and won a lopsided UD, and Duran KO'd Ceuvas. So I have to think Carlos wins an easy decision........But he would not be drinking the water!!

silkov you are blind. Pipino was never GREAT, or should he ever be consider one of the GREAT.

ringsider wrote:I saw the Palamino/Benitiz fight on CBS sports spectacular. I thought Palimino beat Wilfredo when they took his title away and gave a SD to Benitez.. If Palamino fought Ceuvas, I just can't see Pipino winning he was just to one dimensional, and too short. Duran made Carlos look silly boxing and won a lopsided UD, and Duran KO'd Ceuvas. So I have to think Carlos wins an easy decision........But he would not be drinking the water!!

silkov you are blind. Pipino was never GREAT, or should he ever be consider one of the GREAT.

You take great pleasure in talking pure crap mate!... keep it up!...

Cuevas was one of the hardest punchers in history, and while Palomino was clearly a better boxer, he was not exactly a defensive genius and was hit pretty cleanly even by some of the mediocre guys he defended his title against. I’ve got to think that Cuevas would have been able to catch him sometime before the end of the 5th for one his spectacular KOs.

BTW, I don’t think either of these guys were great. Cuevas was a great puncher, but not a great fighter.

silkov you must have me confused with a woman, or are you really desperate........... I am not your "mate".

This statement is also pure BS.

Cuevas was one of the hardest punchers in history,

According to who?

ringsider wrote:silkov you must have me confused with a woman, or are you really desperate........... I am not your "mate".

This statement is also pure BS.

Cuevas was one of the hardest punchers in history,

According to who?

You could start by asking all of the guys who fought him and left the ring with broken jaws, ribs and cheekbones. You must be too young to have been around when he was champ, or you wouldn't ask such a question.

All chumps....everyone who Pipino ever fought who was any good destroyed him. Hearns and Duran come to mind.......Breaking any chump's jaw or ribs isn't that tough, when they can't defend themselves to begin with.

Cuevas was the hard puncher of the two; but Palomino was better defensively and probably had the better chin.

A lot of people seem to forget that Cuevas lost to Andy Price, right before he won the title. He also lost Roger Stafford right after he got crushed by Hearns. Cuevas certainly would have a punchers chance here; but Palomino had the skills to outbox Cuevas and probably would have. I would pick Palomino by decision.

Thank you Ambling Alp!

The Great John L wrote:Cuevas was one of the hardest punchers in history, and while Palomino was clearly a better boxer, he was not exactly a defensive genius and was hit pretty cleanly even by some of the mediocre guys he defended his title against. I’ve got to think that Cuevas would have been able to catch him sometime before the end of the 5th for one his spectacular KOs.

BTW, I don’t think either of these guys were great. Cuevas was a great puncher, but not a great fighter.

I more or less agree with this one, although as Boxbuzz mentioned, I wouldn't bet on this one. Palomino was a very good fighter, but he was hittable (which helped his fights become much more exciting), against someone like Cuevas, being hittable meant having a cheekbone, nose, rib, or eyesocket broken. Every punch from Cuevas seemed like it was meant to kill, pre Hearns Cuevas would probably hurt and batter Palomino physically, ending in stoppage. Post Hearns Cuevas would likely lose against Palomino. Neither of these fighters are all time greats, but they are very very good and they are two of the most entertaining fighters. Both fighters had the heart and courage of great fighters, but sometimes that's not enough.

Decagon wrote:Ambling Alp uses Boxrec the same way a drunk uses a lightpost - for support, rather than illumination.

I don't think your personal attack was necessary.
I do use the the boxrec data base because it has a lot of information in one place. However, I realize it's not perfect and doesn't tell the whole story.
I was a boxing fan and watched for almost 30 years before I had even heard of Boxrec. The 3 major networks used to show fights almost every weekend. These were competitive fights between two serious contenders or championship fights. It wasn't setup fights like on ESPN where they are usually showcasing 1 "prospect" against a tomato can.

Watching fights is great, but you can only see a small fraction of the fights of most fighter's careers. I don't assume that since I didn't see it that it didn't happen. That is why the boxrec database, magazines, books etc. come in handy.

As for Cuevas and Palomino, I have seen them both fight against top fighters. From what have seen on tape and the information I know about the two fighters, I give the edge to Palomino. If you feel otherwise just say so and say why. You don't have to be nasty about it.

Don't fret Ambling Alp, Decagon is a putz.....

and he shows no predjudice...he attacks us all equally. You just have to get used to it. ...It's.. well.......it's just his way.

ringsider wrote:Don't fret Ambling Alp, Decagon is a putz.....

dECAGON is a genius compared with you... you're not even worth arguing with... come back when you actually have something knowledgable to say...

Ambling Alp wrote:Cuevas was the hard puncher of the two; but Palomino was better defensively and probably had the better chin.

A lot of people seem to forget that Cuevas lost to Andy Price, right before he won the title. He also lost Roger Stafford right after he got crushed by Hearns. Cuevas certainly would have a punchers chance here; but Palomino had the skills to outbox Cuevas and probably would have. I would pick Palomino by decision.

Have you ever heard of a fighter improving?... Cuevas was just a kid when he lost to Price... and he was past it when he lost to Stafford.... have you seen Cuevas beat Weston?... one of the best boxers of his era who gave Benitez and Hearns fits?.... if Cuevas couldnt beat boxers how did he beat Weston, who was a better boxer skills wise than Palomino...
Its also debatable whether Palomino was better than Espada whom Cuevas won the title from and beat 3 times.... I find many people who go on about Pipinos limitations have only seen him against Hearns, Duran and Stafford!!.... Pipino in his prime was a completely different fighter to the man who fought those guys...

Ambling Alp wrote:

Decagon wrote:Ambling Alp uses Boxrec the same way a drunk uses a lightpost - for support, rather than illumination.

I don't think your personal attack was necessary.
I do use the the boxrec data base because it has a lot of information in one place. However, I realize it's not perfect and doesn't tell the whole story.
I was a boxing fan and watched for almost 30 years before I had even heard of Boxrec. The 3 major networks used to show fights almost every weekend. These were competitive fights between two serious contenders or championship fights. It wasn't setup fights like on ESPN where they are usually showcasing 1 "prospect" against a tomato can.

Watching fights is great, but you can only see a small fraction of the fights of most fighter's careers. I don't assume that since I didn't see it that it didn't happen. That is why the boxrec database, magazines, books etc. come in handy.

As for Cuevas and Palomino, I have seen them both fight against top fighters. From what have seen on tape and the information I know about the two fighters, I give the edge to Palomino. If you feel otherwise just say so and say why. You don't have to be nasty about it.

What fights have you seen of Cuevas?... not many before 1981 I'd bet!....

Like others round here, im thinking Palomino is too easy to hit. In fact i dont even think he was all that great to begin. Cuevas would bang him out probably before rd 10, in a tough, ugly fight.

Ignore the troll guys, you all know who i'm referring to.

One fight to watch regarding this match up is Palomino vs Dave boy Green... terrific fight, Green had a simular style to cuevas but not half his power... he swarmed all over Carlos for the first 10 rounds and the fight only turned when Green tired and had his eye closed... had that been Cuevas in there then he certainly would have won imo... same with Palominos fights with Muniz... Palomino was a good champ but Pipino would just have been too strong and would probably have won a lopsided decision or by a late stoppage...

Palomino was never knocked out by anyone, now that's not to say that it wouldn't be possible to be knocked out by Cuevas. I just don't see Cuevas winning this fight, I think he's a vastly overrated fighter, fun to watch, sure, but overrated nonetheless. Palomino late or by decision.

What can we see from silkov's stupid twist reasoning, and skewed logic?......Well it is obvious he likes to hit the bottle before posting.

Davey "boy" Green was one of the biggest chumps in the welterweight divison back then, and he was from Britain...which made him twice as bad. Britts can't fight.

Decagon wrote:Ambling Alp uses Boxrec the same way a drunk uses a lightpost - for support, rather than illumination.

I don't really know to what extent Ambling Alp uses Boxrec but you would not have had to have gone to Boxrec to have knowledge of those fights as they were talked about to the point of common knowledge in the late seventies and early eighties. Ray Leonard talked about how he was not Quevous or Palimino the two guys Price beat after he knocked out Andy Price. Also they used to show the highlight of Roger Stafford knocking down Pipino Quevous. It's fair to give a man the benifit of the doubt and think that he might have obtained his knowlege from following the sport.

silkov wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Cuevas was the hard puncher of the two; but Palomino was better defensively and probably had the better chin.

A lot of people seem to forget that Cuevas lost to Andy Price, right before he won the title. He also lost Roger Stafford right after he got crushed by Hearns. Cuevas certainly would have a punchers chance here; but Palomino had the skills to outbox Cuevas and probably would have. I would pick Palomino by decision.

Have you ever heard of a fighter improving?... Cuevas was just a kid when he lost to Price... and he was past it when he lost to Stafford.... have you seen Cuevas beat Weston?... one of the best boxers of his era who gave Benitez and Hearns fits?.... if Cuevas couldnt beat boxers how did he beat Weston, who was a better boxer skills wise than Palomino...
Its also debatable whether Palomino was better than Espada whom Cuevas won the title from and beat 3 times.... I find many people who go on about Pipinos limitations have only seen him against Hearns, Duran and Stafford!!.... Pipino in his prime was a completely different fighter to the man who fought those guys...

Of course I have heard of fighters improving.
I don't see how you can't count the the loss to Price against Cuevas. As mentioned before, it was the last fight he had before he won the title. In fact it was just 45 days before he beat the great Espada. Cuevas couldn't have been that much better in such a short time.

As for Cuevas' loss to Stafford, how can you not count that? Cuevas wasn't even 24 years old yet. This was before Cuevas lost to Duran.

There is no way that Angel Espada was as good as Palomino. Palomino would have beaten him. Palomino wasn't a legend, but when he lost in his prime it was to Benitez and Duran. Neither time was he crushed like Cuevas was against Hearns and Duran. In fact Palomino almost beat Benitez.

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.

Ambling Alp wrote:

silkov wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Cuevas was the hard puncher of the two; but Palomino was better defensively and probably had the better chin.

A lot of people seem to forget that Cuevas lost to Andy Price, right before he won the title. He also lost Roger Stafford right after he got crushed by Hearns. Cuevas certainly would have a punchers chance here; but Palomino had the skills to outbox Cuevas and probably would have. I would pick Palomino by decision.

Have you ever heard of a fighter improving?... Cuevas was just a kid when he lost to Price... and he was past it when he lost to Stafford.... have you seen Cuevas beat Weston?... one of the best boxers of his era who gave Benitez and Hearns fits?.... if Cuevas couldnt beat boxers how did he beat Weston, who was a better boxer skills wise than Palomino...
Its also debatable whether Palomino was better than Espada whom Cuevas won the title from and beat 3 times.... I find many people who go on about Pipinos limitations have only seen him against Hearns, Duran and Stafford!!.... Pipino in his prime was a completely different fighter to the man who fought those guys...

Of course I have heard of fighters improving.
I don't see how you can't count the the loss to Price against Cuevas. As mentioned before, it was the last fight he had before he won the title. In fact it was just 45 days before he beat the great Espada. Cuevas couldn't have been that much better in such a short time.

As for Cuevas' loss to Stafford, how can you not count that? Cuevas wasn't even 24 years old yet. This was before Cuevas lost to Duran.

There is no way that Angel Espada was as good as Palomino. Palomino would have beaten him. Palomino wasn't a legend, but when he lost in his prime it was to Benitez and Duran. Neither time was he crushed like Cuevas was against Hearns and Duran. In fact Palomino almost beat Benitez.

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.

You dont get it do you... Cuevas hadn't fought for 16 months when he faced Duran and he was well past his best, ....pretty much shot... do you judge Benitez by his losses to Hamsho and Hilton?....