BoxRec

Further to the post about Rodrigo Valdez vs Nigel Benn, how do you think that the peak Valdez would have fared against: -
Roy Jones
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Mike McCallum
Gerald McClellan

My picks are :- Jones points or Valdez KO, Hopkins by narrow points, Toney and McCallum I slightly favour Valdez on points in both these, and Valdez by KO vs McClellan.
What do you think?

I think Valdez would ko Jones, beat Hopkins on points, Toney and Mccallum are 50-50 fights, though I'd give Valdez a slight edge over Toney.... and Mcclellan would be Koed....
What about Hagler??!... tough fight to call!... I'd favour Marvin by a narrow points decision... but this would be another 50-50 fight....

A lot of close fights.

Jones: 50-50 for me. valdez has to stop him to win, but he can do it.

Hopkins: edge to Valdez

Toney: edge to Valdez

Mccallum: edge to Mccallum

MCClellan: Valdez stops him late.

Ezzard wrote:A lot of close fights.

Jones: 50-50 for me. valdez has to stop him to win, but he can do it.

Hopkins: edge to Valdez

Toney: edge to Valdez

Mccallum: edge to Mccallum

MCClellan: Valdez stops him late.

Why do you veer towards Valdez against Hopkins and Toney but not against McCallum? Technically I'd put all 3 on about a par, maybe Hopkins a fraction ahead of Toney and McCallum.

silkov wrote:I think Valdez would ko Jones, beat Hopkins on points, Toney and Mccallum are 50-50 fights, though I'd give Valdez a slight edge over Toney.... and Mcclellan would be Koed....
What about Hagler??!... tough fight to call!... I'd favour Marvin by a narrow points decision... but this would be another 50-50 fight....

Agree, I'd go with Hagler on a close points win over Valdez

Valdez UD15 McCallum

Hopkins SD15 Valdez

Valdez UD15 Toney

Valdez KO10 Jones

Valdez KO8 McClellan

What about Valdez vs Kalambay?>.... I think Kalambay was the most underrated middleweight of his era, when you look at the people he beat its quite incredible... he would have given Valdez a tough fight... probably Valdez on points, but very close...

kalambay would have outpointed Valdez IMO.


He's got just the right style to diffuse Rodrigo, though it would be a tough fight of course.

close fights but Valdez loses to each of them -- maybe McClellan is a 50-50 bout

torodecayey wrote:close fights but Valdez loses to each of them -- maybe McClellan is a 50-50 bout

Have you seen Valdez at his peak? He was unquestionably a superior fighter to McClellan. They both punched with around the same venom and probably possessed a similar level of durability, except Valdez had superior stamina, a far better defence and threw a wider variety of punches. I would say he was the more intelligent fighter as well. I think you're selling him short.

Whoa . . .Valdez was a very good offensive fighter and puncher but now he's beating Jones Jr, Toney, Hopkins, and McCallum??? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

He'd have a chance at knocking out Jones Jr but I'd still make Roy the favorite.Show me anyone Valdez beat who had near the mixture of natural speed and power of Roy at middleweight.

Toney-Valdez would be a war. Pick'em fight but I do lean towards Rodrigo.

Hopkins at his best wins a definitive decision over Valdez, as does McCallum. Valdez was not a very skilled boxer.

dempseyfire wrote:Whoa . . .Valdez was a very good offensive fighter and puncher but now he's beating Jones Jr, Toney, Hopkins, and McCallum??? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

He'd have a chance at knocking out Jones Jr but I'd still make Roy the favorite.Show me anyone Valdez beat who had near the mixture of natural speed and power of Roy at middleweight.

Toney-Valdez would be a war. Pick'em fight but I do lean towards Rodrigo.

Hopkins at his best wins a definitive decision over Valdez, as does McCallum. Valdez was not a very skilled boxer.

Valdez was a very good offensive fighter and puncher

He was infact a good all rounder; a great puncher who could jab and box quite well, slipping and blocking many shots that came his way.

Jones Jr

I consider Valdez-Jones a very close fight. It goes two ways; Jones convincingly outpoints Valdez, or Valdez wrecks Jones with a one-off assault somewhere in the fight. I would put my faith in Valdez.

Toney

Toney wasn't all that great at middleweight, honestly. He's became quite overrated at the weight. Valdez' stamina and powerful assault would break down any walls between the two and he'd start to take over in the mid rounds for a points decision.

Hopkins

I think Valdez would lose this one on points. Hopkins would most likely stand up under Valdez' withering barrages, work him out and put his refined ring craft to good use, much the same way Hagler would.

McCallum

McCallum was a very good middleweight, but I wouldn't say he was as good as Valdez.

Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

Hope that wasn't aimed at me. I think I'm being quite realistic.

Valdez was not a very skilled boxer.

That's where you're wrong. Valdez slipped and countered very nicely, I've seen it myself. Good jab, tight punches, solid defence, pretty good movement.

Thing is who did Jones beat at 160?... its easy to look great when your fighting mediocre opposition... same goes for Hopkins, record number of defences perhaps but also the poorest opposition of any of the top 160 champs... Valdez fought at a time when the division was full of talent and he gave a great champion 2 of his toughest bouts...

dr_devious wrote:

Ezzard wrote:A lot of close fights.

Jones: 50-50 for me. valdez has to stop him to win, but he can do it.

Hopkins: edge to Valdez

Toney: edge to Valdez

Mccallum: edge to Mccallum

MCClellan: Valdez stops him late.

Why do you veer towards Valdez against Hopkins and Toney but not against McCallum? Technically I'd put all 3 on about a par, maybe Hopkins a fraction ahead of Toney and McCallum.

I'll admit my bias on McCallum. Although people rave about Hopkins (and rightfully so) IMO Mike was one of the best improvisers in the game and was ore adaptable than Hopkins. he also beat better fighters than Toney and Hopkins. He also deserved at least one of the decisions against Toney.

Yeah but who did Hopkins really beat at 160?... he certainly wouldnt be able to dictate the pace of the fight against Valdez...

silkov wrote:Yeah but who did Hopkins really beat at 160?... he certainly wouldnt be able to dictate the pace of the fight against Valdez...

That's when I see Hopkins struggling. I think it's a 50-50 fight but Hopkins needs to impose his rhythm or he loses.

Ezzard wrote: I'll admit my bias on McCallum. Although people rave about Hopkins (and rightfully so) IMO Mike was one of the best improvisers in the game and was ore adaptable than Hopkins. he also beat better fighters than Toney and Hopkins. He also deserved at least one of the decisions against Toney.

I agree, though much of McCallums best work was done in the light middleweight division. Plus, Big Mac was slightly past his best when he fought Toney. Id put him in top 2 LMs in history with Hearns. His record at middleweight wasnt as strong though. At his best hes up there with Toney etc