Miguel Cotto's opponents

[-DSG-]

Cotto has one real good win over Mosley, a couple solid wins over Judah and Clottey, than a bunch of average at best wins. That's it. He has 3 wins above average.

Castillo has Johnston (#1 135), Lazcano (not amazing, but the guy was #1 at 135 at the time), Corrales, and Casamayor. That's 4 wins that are above average, and not to mention he arguably beat a prime Mayweather, the only guy to ever do so.

When you take all that into account, he's greater than Cotto. I'm sorry.

Mosley> all of them.

[4Corners]

Lol this so ****** you lose a couple of fights and your a bum. Cotto has great resume Mosley,clottey,judah,margarito,malignaggi

You actually rate the 2011 Margarito win??? He was coming off two ass kickings and had a completely f**ked eye. He was done. It would have been pathetic if Cotto didn't beat him that night. But I do get why Cotto took the fight, he had to get his redemption after the plaster fight.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Lol this so ****** you lose a couple of fights and your a bum. Cotto has great resume Mosley,clottey,judah,margarito,malignaggi

That's not a great resume, he has a good resume though. Would have been better if he got it together and actually pushed himself to make '47.

[Danny Gunz]

He makes for exciting fight and is a good fighter

[4Corners]

Mosley> all of them.

No. Mosley wasn't even prime in 2007. It was a real good win, followed by 2 decent wins, and a ton of mid level average wins.

Johnston was a very good win for Castillo, Corrales was still a good win, tainted by the weight. Casamayor another good win. Lazcano another good win. And if you count Mayweather, it's not even close.

[Kagami Taiga]

Some good things being said in this thread. Anyways I hate arguing with cotto fans, they take it so personal. Cotto is a very good fighter for the modern day but I don't think his resume is hof worthy. He'll get in and maybe he should but it won't solely be based on resume.

[Exciterx30]

Some replies around here have gotten a bit repetitive and seem to go nowhere but, anyway, I will add something I have not seen yet. From what I remember, all of Castillo's accomplishments were, exclusively, at 135 and, yes, Castillo was a very good fighter who, arguably, beat Mayweather in a close fight eleven years ago. He also has a handful of solid wins and was a top lightweight about a decade ago.

Cotto, on the other hand, decided to go up in weight. Whether it was because he was looking for challenges or because he could or would not make weight is unclear, but when he went up in weight he started to take on more challenges against bigger guys. He managed to become a 4 time champion in three weight divisions and beat some pretty credible fighters along the way. Had Cotto stayed at a lower weight maybe he would have been undefeated, but he dared to be great, whether that was the right move or not, and took some losses in the process but that is normal. Pretty much, everyone loses at one point or another.

I think it is something to consider before deciding who is better than the other. Would Castillo be successful at 140 and 147 also? Would he be able to win titles two divisions above even if some of those titles were vacant? The point is you have to be, at least, a very good fighter to become a 3 division champion and remain a top guy in the sport for close to a decade without picking tailor made opponents.

[$coinblatt$]

Cotto was the first guy to beat a lot of guys that never beat anybody else. That's basically what's being said here.

this is actually what his fans bring up to defend his overrated legacy. He beat alot of undefeated fighters, so what? does anybody really think Malifaggi was a good fighter because he was undefeated? Kelson Pinto? LOL where was he ranked at and he was a good win because he beat Cotto in the amateurs? LOL!!

[4Corners]

Some replies around here have gotten a bit repetitive and seem to go nowhere but, anyway, I will add something I have not seen yet. From what I remember, all of Castillo's accomplishments were, exclusively, at 135 and, yes, Castillo was a very good fighter who, arguably, beat Mayweather in a close fight eleven years ago. He also has a handful of solid wins and was a top lightweight about a decade ago.

Cotto, on the other hand, decided to go up in weight. Whether it was because he was looking for challenges or because he could or would not make weight is unclear, but when he went up in weight he started to take on more challenges against bigger guys. He managed to become a 4 time champion in three weight divisions and beat some pretty credible fighters along the way. Had Cotto stayed at a lower weight maybe he would have been undefeated, but he dared to be great, whether that was the right move or not, and took some losses in the process but that is normal. Pretty much, everyone loses at one point or another.

I think it is something to consider before deciding who is better than the other. Would Castillo be successful at 140 and 147 also? Would he be able to win titles two divisions above even if some of those titles were vacant? The point is you have to be, at least, a very good fighter to become a 3 division champion and remain a top guy in the sport for close to a decade without picking tailor made opponents.

I agree. The fact that Cotto hasn't actually had an above average win 2009 and has managed to stay relevant, is truly amazing.

Castillo fought everyone and his Lightweight run is more impressive than any run Cotto's ever had.

[$coinblatt$]

Paulie Malignaggi and Carlos Quintana were better fighters than guys like Robert Guerrero, Arturo Gatti, Genaro Hernandez, Emanuel Agustus and Carlos Baldomir

your and idiot, Genaro Hernandez alone is leagues above **** fighters like Quintana and Malifaggi. Log the fuck off ******