View Full Version : How will Hector Camacho be rated by history?
05-27-2006, 10:37 AM
Camacho had two careers: before Rosario tagged him in their memorial Garden bout and after Rosario tagged him. His career fragmented right there in the ring...
Up till that point he was one of the very best fighters in the world, right behind Ray Leonard...Camacho's rise was spectacular to watch..his televised bouts were amazing...his pre jr. lightweight title victories...his demolishing of Limon...his complete shutout over Ramirez...he was a tremendous fighter...
Going into the Rosario fight, Hector was a huge favorite...he was picked to demolish Rosario, himself thought to be unbeatable just a few years earlier...I was at the old Gleason's on 30th street and watched them both train...I remember Rosario looked carved out of stone, his abs like an ice cube tray...he was ready for the fight...Camacho was a bully and a street guy even in training...he started shit with other fighters in the gym and added an air of tension whenever he came to train. However he also had the air of excitement and charisma around him...he drew attention...
It was a big fight at the Garden. It was pretty packed. Every newspaper picked Hector to toy with and stop Edwin...Anyone familiar with the bout knew what happened...Hector was outboxing a stalking Rosario when , in a middle round, Roario unloaded with tremendous bombs and had Camacho out on his feet, fighting for his life...Camacho survived and immediately became the jab, run and clinch fighter we saw for the rest of his career. He took a razor thin decision that easily could have been a draw but he was never the same.
His next fight , against Boza-Edwards, proved this. Hector was expected to blow out the shop worn and old Edwards. He dropped him in the first but after that never was able to put it togther and won a boring decision...he pretty much dereorated from there.
I know a major part of Camacho's fall was drugs but I also feel he never was the same inside the ring as a result of the power of Rosario's punches...Hector showed heart when he had to, in his losses to Chavez, Tito and Camacho. He was too vain to get KO'ed but he never again approached what he was reaching at the time of the Rosario bout...
What are your thoughts?
05-27-2006, 02:06 PM
Great question.At first Camacho had blazing speed and great boxing skills.
EVERYONE was hailing him as a future great.
But he wasted it.I think he will be remembered as a boxer who could have been an all-time great and wasted his talents.
05-27-2006, 05:05 PM
Oh man, people still talk about the young Camacho. As my uncle once said while watching Camacho Jr., "He sure ain't anything like his father. Nobody could hit his father."
I think HE's post is dead on! Yes, street guys can be very tough, but the human side usually comes out when their human qualities are exposed. Their belief that they are super-human crumbles when they are exposed to very human pain, like an arrogant intellectual who is beaten by a smarter man. Sometimes, the macho-thing is simply an act put on by people who are, deep down inside, very fearful, like Ali. With Camacho, it wasn't an act. He fought like he was invincible early in career. He believed that nobody could stop him, as his macho persona highly evinced. After that belief or attitude waslost, then it radically altered his attitude and the way he fought. That's kind of why I will always maintain that Ricardo Mayorga's rants were simply acts. Even after he was beaten to a pulp by Trinidad, he never changed the way he fought (though some would argue that he does not know any other way to fight). Then again, it's all consistent with the in-ring display of drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and giving away his in-ring earnings in his native homeland. Boxing is the very ring where people who believe they are indomitable are dominated. You can even argue the same thing happened with Roy Jones. Jones was so used to walking over light-heavyweights, and his belief had always been that nobody could beat him. Tarver changed him in their first two fights. In fact, you can argue that that really is what defines a truly great fighter-how they react to their veil of invicibility being taken down. Ali reacted excellently, Foreman reacted with a couple of decent wins and a very good second career. Sugar Ray Robinson won just about every re-match he had up to the point where he was completely washed-up. And Lennox Lewis won both of his re-matches after being KO'd.
05-27-2006, 09:05 PM
Too often when people discuss Lewis all they mention are his two KO losses. They rarely mention two other issues regarding the losses...the first was going in to both fights he was overconfident, arrogant, undertrained, cocky and lethargic ... the second was that he came back to destroy the other guy both times...McCall cracked in the ring but only after Lewis was handling him like a kid...Rock was simply exposed as a one time wonder. Lewis ability to come back showed me more than most of his wins...He was never defeated in a fight he came in focused for by any man. In addition, he fought and defeated every man he ever fought.
Lennox Lewis is possibly the most underated heavyweight of all time...he was definately a mid-top ten guy in my book.
05-28-2006, 11:17 AM
I have never seen a prime Camacho fight, but have read quite a bit about him and saw some of his scraps post-Rosario...
In any event, Camacho reminds me a bit of Naseem Hamed, with the flash and cockiness, and with Barrera in the role of Hamed's Rosario... the difference being Camacho did win that fight, came back and continued his career, fought and showed grit, while Hamed, aside from one (or two?) fights disappeared and now sits in prison...
Which still leaves me with your question, how will Hector be rated? Good, but not great fighter... not a HOFer in my opinion but still notable and more than a one-hit wonder.
BTW HE -- spot on with LL there -- he got KO'd and came back and won -- there is greatness there for sure, flawed though he may be. The reaction to adversity and setbacks are very important to my assessment of a fighter.
05-29-2006, 06:57 PM
The lack of interest in this thread is most likely the answer..he will be forgotten because he ruined a great career up his nose.
05-29-2006, 07:01 PM
I think you're right HE -- although I thought it was a great topic...
05-30-2006, 01:53 PM
(not based on style, but on how they were precieved): Mike Tyson and to a lesser extent, Donald Curry.
Tyson, pre Douglas, was gaining mythological proportions. His onesided domination and loss to Douglas, IMMEDIATELY changed those thoughts. Camacho was approaching this following his win over Ramirez and going into the Rosario bout. Inactivity certainly stymied his progress.
How Camacho's win over Rosario differs from Tyson's loss to Douglas is obvious in that one was a ko loss and one was split decision win (I had Hector by a point). Camacho ALSO showed, some spirit in coming back in the bout after being severly hurt midway through. Granted he was fighting a much more cautious bout, but he was regainging control when he was hurt agian badly in the 11th. That round changed him forever.
Curry is a bit lesser extent than these two in that his considered greatness was too brief and his fall from respect rather fast and dramatic. By the time the McCallum Ko took place, many were trying to act as if thier previous praise that they heaped upon the Cobra, never took place. It was a "Whistle", Nothing to see here. I never said a thing! Never happened, type of attitude.
Certainly where each fighter lived and their personalities, helped the perception of each. Camacho and Tyson were both from New York and could be engaging personalities. Curry was quiet and polite and from Texas.
But all three you could see a clear difference in the Before Exposure perception and a Post Exposure perception for each. Tyson is the clearest example of this. Then Camacho and then Curry. I say Exposure as REALLY, that's how it needs to be qualified.
None of these three were able to come back and truly put these performances into the astericks or bad night category. None were ever the same and as a result of that, I think it is almost proof that none were as good as many of us originally thought.
It's what seperates the truly great from the nearly or almost great.
Tough. But Fair.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.