Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Now of course I want you guys to think up who are the up and comers and young guns of 154-160 and how they would do vs Canelo during his prime or down the road when he fights them or ducks them...but I really want all you bastards to tell me how Alvarez would (or wouldn't) handle boxing's best from 147-160 champions, contenders, hell even some journeymen who had the style the skill the tools to beat Canelo and who could Canelo beat?
I think hypothetically you've got some absolute battles when you bring up Mayorga, Vargas, Margarito, and Cotto (in his prime mind you).
I think Canelo would have been absolutely schooled by Hopkins, Martinez, Leonard.
How much would you pay to watch Julian Jackson vs Canelo????
Go at it fellas
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Leonard and Hopkins oh my God.... Leonard Would stop Canelo by the sixth round.....
Hopkins in his prime would KTFO Canelo out by the 3rd or the 4th
I think Miguel Cotto would have a very hard time though because of the styles
I still would not ranked Canelo up among the top unless he beats Triple G decisively which I think he will do
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Canelo has a solid chin and pretty good power. He boxes decently and has decent defense. He has problems with fighters that don’t let him set his feet.
I think in reality he is on par with someone like Fernando Vargas. A good fighter that was never a top fighter but always on the cusp of it. Canelo has struggled multiple times in his career and basically struggled against all of his best opponents. He has never had a career defining win.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
It is difficult to say how good Canelo is historically at middleweight because he has spent most of his career at the lower weight. He has avoided a truly great middleweight in Golovkin. Canelo may not be at his peak and could conceivably get better.
This current version is at the level of Benn, Eubank and Watson who would beat him if it was in England.
Think Canelo beats our other British fighters Macklin, Murray etc
Canelo would have no chance against Roy Jones, Monzon and Hopkins.
What a great fight it would be against Tito Trinidad and Hearns.
Canelo beats the German fighters Sturm, Abraham etc
Leonard was not a true middweight
I think BJS outboxes Canelo but could see Saul beat Lemieux.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
I agree Canelo hasn't really done enough at 160 yet to get an idea how good he is. A KO of GGG changes all that.
With the current crop, I think he beats Jacobs, Saunders and Jermall but could see each being controversial.
Still some great fights to make for both the winner and loser of this weeks fight.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Well if you think Canelo is too small or untested at 160 then please 147-154 who does he beat who beats him? Who would give him trouble? Who would he give trouble to?
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Terry Norris beats the snot out of Canelo, young Vargas, Tito, Oscar at light middle. Those fights would be entertaining.
Think Shane Mosley and Cotto would never be big enough.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Well if you think Canelo is too small or untested at 160 then please 147-154 who does he beat who beats him? Who would give him trouble? Who would he give trouble to?
Wright beats him at either weight.
I see Pavlik beating him.
He beats Taylor.
I see him beating Mosley and Forrest at either weight.
I think he beats Paul Williams.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Cotto at 147 makes short work of Canelo and it wouldn't be close. As you go up in weight, Cotto's smaller frame would be his disadvantage and into Canelo's wheelhouse. Canelo beat Cotto at 155, but Cotto was very much past his prime. A prime Cotto would've probably been a different story.
Canelo gets annihilated by any of the ATG's at 147. He probably wouldn't fare very well at MW either against the likes of Hagler, Monzon, Hopkins.
Canelo's saving grace is his chin. He can take a shot, no doubt about that. But he gets embarrassed by great boxers, much like he was embarrassed by Floyd.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Oh and pleeeeease....... Canelo is NOT too small for 160. Hasn't been for years. He fought JCC Jr. at 170 ffs.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Oh and pleeeeease....... Canelo is NOT too small for 160. Hasn't been for years. He fought JCC Jr. at 170 ffs.
Exactly! Let’s not forget, a lot of these old timers had same day weigh ins. If Canelo had to do that, he’d struggle to make LHW!
He’s never been a LMW or a MW because of these nonsensical catchweights, and I don’t really think him OR GGG stack up against many from the past. There, I said it!
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Oh and pleeeeease....... Canelo is NOT too small for 160. Hasn't been for years. He fought JCC Jr. at 170 ffs.
I think Kabong was responding to me, when I said he hasn't done enough at 160 yet for me to accurately assess. Not that he is too small.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
I must say I think a young Vargas (prior to Tito) gives him hell.
Quartey at 147 would be sweet.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
I must say I think a young Vargas (prior to Tito) gives him hell.
Quartey at 147 would be sweet.
Vargas-Canelo would've been a hell of an entertaining fight. Vargas would be too much for Canelo though, IMO.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
I must say I think a young Vargas (prior to Tito) gives him hell.
Quartey at 147 would be sweet.
Vargas-Canelo would've been a hell of an entertaining fight. Vargas would be too much for Canelo though, IMO.
50/50 for me.
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Mayweather, Lara, Trout and GGG have already gave him a few problems
Re: Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez how does he stack up historically?
Off the top and current 160 with the Canelo we last watched..I favor Saunders, Golovkin and Charlo to beat him. Close with Jacobs only thing I cannot get beyond is Jacobs beard and fondness for quick right hands. But hey Jacobs knows all about coming in at cruiserweight too :-X so I think it's 50-50. At 154 and Canelo facing some top guys from days gone by it can be an interesting mix. Style wise Canelo has and will have his problems with Mayweather Lara types. Fast hands long range and cagey defense. Physically you expect a wrecking machine when you look at Canelo but he really does think he's some calculating boxer. He fooled himself thinking it would prepare for Mayweather and he looked less than stellar trying it with Trout to even get there. I think Canelo needs a frontal foil and thats when he looks really devastating.
Can see guys like John David Jackson really painting him. Winky Wright even though Winkey was somewhat stationary and flat footed..in a great way.. with defense and you had to work around those elbows, arms and a master jab ramming you in the face all the time and very sharp uppercuts. Now Fernando Vargas as much as I hate to say it, Canelo would benefit from the Vargas attack and willingness to walk through fire. Canelo gets to play boxer. Seemed like Vargas took facial damage a bit too.