Edwin Valero - How far could he have gone?

I mentioned him yesterday in "Fighters who let you down". Following his arrest and subsequent suicide, his “legacy” in the ring isn’t often talked about. But after I mentioned him yesterday I watched a couple of his fights. Please note, this isn’t a gushing tribute to a murdering sociopath – I’m primarily talking about his style and what his future could have been.

I was a massive fan of his, his aggressive style, the ease in which he cut off the ring, his pure power. He wasn’t pretty to watch, he was punched easily but if a fighter was lucky enough to land one punch, there would be one coming straight back at him with sheer venom. He was relentless… borderline BRUTAL.

At present, the Lightweight and Welterweight divisions are the most talent-stacked and Valero would have been smack bang in the middle of the likes of Adrien Broner, Brandon Rios, Danny Garcia, Lucas Matthysse and Amir Khan… at a push (and assuming he could have eventually ended up in the Welterweight division). There’s an abundance of huge names…

The more I think about Valero (in boxing alone) the more I think that with the current crop of Lightweight and Light Welterweights, he may have been able to beat the majority of the guys I’ve listed...

He was knocked down only once in his career, was easy to hit and often wild, but for every 1 punch thrown he would land 2 or 3 bombs. He only boxed 67 pro rounds (the longest lasting 10 rounds). How would he have coped with a slick counter puncher with his style?

Amir Khan would have been torn up by Valero. As I believe Danny Garcia would have been also…

But would Broner have been able to keep Valero at bay and stop a swarm of attacks? It’s thought that “swarmers” often beat counter punchers.
Matthysse is a great pressure fighter, but would he come forward and push Valero back? The guy is number one LWW in my book for a reason, does he do enough to win?
Brandon Rios LOVES an inside tear up, would he claim the centre of the ring as much as he usually does?

The reason I feel let down by him is the fact he could have been the single most exciting fighter to watch. If only he had been able to control the monster outside of the ring and used it ONLY in the ring.

How far could he have gone?

Well all the way as it turns out.

"Swarmers often beat counterpunchers"............Sorry but the art of counterpunching is a lot more effective than swarming as you call it........

How many guys have tried to swarm all over Starling, Mayweather types..

Poor argument that is...........Counterpunchers love swarmers.......Hatton Mayweather anyone??

Valero was a good fighter but only that..

I think Valero could have gone on to be far better than good. He had three very important attributes (more than 3), but 3 that reall matter:

immense power, southpaw stance and a good chin.

On top of that, he could counter, cut off the ring and throw in bunches.

His destruction of DeMarco was very good, especially considering the fact he had one of the worst gashes on his forehead that you have ever seen.

Truss is just being contrary. Valero had all the tools to beat or compete with every LW that has been in the division since.

Valero v Marquez would be a clash of styles I would have paid PPV to see. Would have loved that fight.

Don't tell me what I think or what I'm doing thank you...

How patronising...........I'm allowed an opinion...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't tell me what I think or what I'm doing thank you...

How patronising...........I'm allowed an opinion...

You are being contrary. Ha. And I don't care what you are thinking (although I imagine it is whether to use your American or English accent today). Schoolproject offered an opinion. Truss offered the opposite. Contrary.

And of course you are allowed an opinion. This is a democracy.

What do you mean....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What do you mean....

what I say

You're just being confrontational..............

If suggesting a counterpuncher beats a swarmer is contrary then I'll hold my hands..........

But unless you can formulate an argument as to why I'm wrong then being a so-called mod I suggest you should cut the insults...as others tend to get kicked off for being confrontational..

Haven't got an English accent yet..

I think a lot of fighters would have been beat prior to getting in the ring with him. Fearsome reputation.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're just being confrontational..............

If suggesting a counterpuncher beats a swarmer is contrary then I'll hold my hands..........

But unless you can formulate an argument as to why I'm wrong then being a so-called mod I suggest you should cut the insults...as others tend to get kicked off for being confrontational..

Haven't got an English accent yet..

Trussy, where is all this anger coming from? This is not very American.

Re read my post, if you ever did. All I am suggesting is that Valero had the tools to beat or compete with all current LW fighters. I never mentioned the word "swarm" or "swarmer", although since you have I now have a hankering for some sort of Greek food, and bees.

As for being confrontational. That just simply isn't the case. I just want to debate, not denegrate, or hate.


Let us speak specifics.

I don't think TRUSS is being contrary at all.

He is just pointing out that some fighters are made for others as we all know. Valero had great power and a good chin as stated but how would he fair against a fighter who he can't hit?

How many times have we seen frustration build up in a fighter who fails to land and sees the fight running away from him. From what we know of Valero he did not have a strong mentality. Going up against Broner would have been Duran v Leonard 2 all over again with Valero resorting to dirty tactics to get out of the fight.

I started a thread on Valero a while back as I recently bought a couple of fighters careers in DVD (Valero, Micky ward and katsidis). Watched a few of his fights and he was a beast, but reckless. It's mentioned he would have been mixing with the top names at or around his weight class but how many would fight him. He only got a licence in the states to fight in Texas, the rest of the time he fought in South America and Japan. Due to his fearlessness, brutal punching power many would not have wanted to fight him and could have used to licence issues as an excuse not to get out of it. Nightmare for most fighters but a slick intelligent boxer with power of there own would have beaten him.

You were dismissing my opinion as being contrary.....without refuting it..

You have no idea what I think..............okay...

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I don't think TRUSS is being contrary at all.

He is just pointing out that some fighters are made for others as we all know. Valero had great power and a good chin as stated but how would he fair against a fighter who he can't hit?

How many times have we seen frustration build up in a fighter who fails to land and sees the fight running away from him. From what we know of Valero he did not have a strong mentality. Going up against Broner would have been Duran v Leonard 2 all over again with Valero resorting to dirty tactics to get out of the fight.

This is such a sweeping and unfounding statement I am aghast.... Aghast I say....Oh, it is from ONETWO. Cancel the aghast statement.

In the first stanza you ask the question and in the last you answer it by saying Valero would basically cheat his way out of the fight.

You get one of these

And you earned it

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You were dismissing my opinion as being contrary.....without refuting it..

You have no idea what I think..............okay...

I did refute it. I outlined the skills he had that would make him a nightmare for any current LW

And I also stated I do not care what you think, although in that moment I was forced to consider it and decided you were considering which accent to put on at work.

I feel I have been very clear?

ONETWO is speculating on the fight...........

I see nothing wrong with it.....At least he can formulate an opinion.....

Notice you're "trying" to patronise him too with the "afghast" s**t...........

I refuted the swarmer usually beats a counterpuncher argument If you read it again..

The man was was not all together there sean.

I see Broner playing with him and Valero loosing the plot. It happens to hot heads.

Tyson
Duran
Golota
Bowe
etc

Duran never lost the plot.....Just found it difficult against smooth boxers..

When was Bowe a hot head..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran never lost the plot.....Just found it difficult against smooth boxers..

When was Bowe a hot head..

When was Bowe a hot head AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Just look at his pre fight press conferences, erm his domestic abuse issues, erm Larry Donaldson springs to mind, erm I remember him knocking a guy over the ropes in a fight after the guy was half way leaning over the ropes anyway.

C'mon TRUSS Bowe had issues.

I'm talking about in the ring.........Sure he took offence to Tillery kicking him but i can't see elsewhere where he wasn't professional.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONETWO is speculating on the fight...........

I see nothing wrong with it.....At least he can formulate an opinion.....

Notice you're "trying" to patronise him too with the "afghast" s**t...........

please do not swear, even with star bangled stars to hide it. Tut tut

I offered an opinion, you are just choosing to ignore it, which is your right, but I offered one. ONETWO made a bit of a wild statement, IMO, but that's just me.

As for patronising. Only thing I like to patronise is the pub, and fools. You aren't a pub or a fool, so far as I can tell. :

yawn...........

Valero was capable of throwing at range in bursts to work his way inside - he'd rush you back into the ropes if you dared not trade with him. Although he was not the greatest technician, look at his foot movement from the south paw stance to keep his opponents in no mans land.

From a stylistic point of view, he was a swarmer AND he had devastating power. If against an orthadox counter puncher he would cause them a sheer nightmare. He looked wild, but I picked up a lot from his style when watching and convinced he beats a number of counter punchers. How?:

1. Cut off the ring with the southpaw jab.
2. Right foot on the outside of opponents lead foot.
3. Opponent can't plant to land punch as off balance and under fire.
4. Opponent moves left away from left hook - still off balance when circling/opponent circles right into Valeros left hook.

Like I said, plant your feet and land one punch on him, you've taken at least 2 or 3 clean on the chin in return.

He left a number of fighters in unwinnable positions. Swarmers ARE a counter punchers nightmare and unless you are the Will o' the Wisp, Sweet Pea or Mayweather, someone like Valero will give you nightmares.

Also, in defense of my statement of "It is thought swarmers beat counter punchers" - I would have thought it was obvious I was referring to the old Boxer-Swarmer-Slugger argument?

Maybe I've been a little over the top Sean.............

I take it back..getting a little sensitive in my old age..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maybe I've been a little over the top Sean.............

I take it back..getting a little sensitive in my old age..

Nah, it's cool. I might be being a little more wumtastic than is the norm for me, too. I did rate Valero though, just wish he wasn't such a tragic figure outside of the ring. and that poor wife of his. Feel so bad for her.

School Project wrote:Valero was capable of throwing at range in bursts to work his way inside - he'd rush you back into the ropes if you dared not trade with him. Although he was not the greatest technician, look at his foot movement from the south paw stance to keep his opponents in no mans land.

From a stylistic point of view, he was a swarmer AND he had devastating power. If against an orthadox counter puncher he would cause them a sheer nightmare. He looked wild, but I picked up a lot from his style when watching and convinced he beats a number of counter punchers. How?:

1. Cut off the ring with the southpaw jab.
2. Right foot on the outside of opponents lead foot.
3. Opponent can't plant to land punch as off balance and under fire.
4. Opponent moves left away from left hook - still off balance when circling/opponent circles right into Valeros left hook.

Like I said, plant your feet and land one punch on him, you've taken at least 2 or 3 clean on the chin in return.

He left a number of fighters in unwinnable positions. Swarmers ARE a counter punchers nightmare and unless you are the Will o' the Wisp, Sweet Pea or Mayweather, someone like Valero will give you nightmares.

Also, in defense of my statement of "It is thought swarmers beat counter punchers" - I would have thought it was obvious I was referring to the old Boxer-Swarmer-Slugger argument?

I think you make a fair argument.

It's alright highlighting it is thought..............I could say it is thought that David Cameron hates Mongolians...............

Who thinks it???

I don't know Truss, have a look on Google at the number of Boxer-Swarmer-Slugger scenarios and you'll get an idea of the amount of "thought" behind it.

Argue the wording of my post as much as you want, but the scenario between the 3 styles has been in place for years and it has been thought for years that swarmers generally beat and outwork boxers...

Back on subject: Edwin Valero?

I'm not looking for trouble but that is bull..........I mean it is dependent on who you type in..........

I could tell you that maybe 5 out of the top 50 ATG's are swarmers at best.......

Wheras at least 20 will be counterpunchers..........

Argument doesn't wash..

The thing is... it isn't an argument, nor is it a personal statement and it isn't a debate that I was looking to have because it isn't something I particularly care too much about. I was leading to a question based on the age old boxing addage of "Swarmers beat boxers".

I'm not going to bother explaining myself on my own post any further, nor is it fair to hijack a perfectly reasonable debate on who Edwin Valero would beat with the subject.

I suggest you take your points on it here if you want to discuss it any further:

https://www.606v2.com/t10834-boxer-beats-puncher-puncher-beats-swarmer-swarmer-beats-boxer

Alternatively, raise your valid points in your own bloody post and I'd be happy to continue our discussion there

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not looking for trouble but that is bull..........I mean it is dependent on who you type in..........

I could tell you that maybe 5 out of the top 50 ATG's are swarmers at best.......

Wheras at least 20 will be counterpunchers..........

Argument doesn't wash..

I think we shouldn't reduce this discussion to an argument about whether Valero was a swarmer or not.
Valero was formidable.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not looking for trouble but that is bull..........I mean it is dependent on who you type in..........

I could tell you that maybe 5 out of the top 50 ATG's are swarmers at best.......

Wheras at least 20 will be counterpunchers..........

Argument doesn't wash..

I think we shouldn't reduce this discussion to an argument about whether Valero was a swarmer or not.
Valero was formidable.

But which swarmer was he? A termite or an Ant?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwdXQhl1P-22go_UWGm5KB7TfVcY8elk_jH1Uo1CUjmwkKes_2

Not talking about Valero being a swarmer or not....Wake up..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
You have no idea what I think..............okay...

Meg Ryan......
Squats........
I am such a beefster.....
I havent made a Top 10 article in a while.......

Why stop there...five is my lucky number..

"swarmers beat boxers" is as true as it's opposite adage "a good boxer beats a good fighter".

It's fair to say, all things being equal, a boxer beats a fighter.
It's also true to say, lots of counter punches prefer not to be pressed by a combination puncher.

If a "fighters" attributes are not up to that of the "counter-puncher" they are facing, then it's possibly best to try and swarm them, after all, they are never going to win a "boxing match".

It's been a long day Mackem....

relax pal, it's nearly the weekend!