It can't get anymore violent than this. If 122 was around for Ruben, I'm sure he would have campaigned there. And my God would there be blood. Who you got?

Puas by KO. The weight would have been perfect for him. Assuming he was motivated and in shape, he puts Vasquez away IMO. Hard to get too analytical because this fight is a war but I just think Ruben was the better fighter. Vasquez could have won on a given day but if they fight multiple times, Ruben wins more than he loses.

Absolutely, Olivares wins. I've never been as high on Vazquez as many --- he is essentially a face-first brawler, more crude than crafted --- though he has improved in that regard (probably going downhill today, though) & you can't fault the man's courage, power, or endurance. I picked against him all three times when he battled Marquez (perhaps a little bias on my part, as I've always been an admirer of the brothers, though I did genuinely believe Marquez to be the better fighter), & he did essentially prove me wrong (the second fight was stopped prematurely, though).

He is, as stated, just plainly up against the better man. I'm not convinced Vazquez is the type who can overcome that with his skill-set. It would indeed be violent for a time.

Olivares was stopped by lesser fighters than Vazquez.

Yeah, that'll happen to you, in a 100+ fight career

In earnest, though, the same could be said of Vazquez. Look at the disparity in the bodies of work, though. Olivares fought some competition which would've looked brilliant on Vazquez's resume --- fellas like Rose, Hernandez, & Castillo --- in addition to fights with, what I would say, was a generally higher level of opposition.

He just flat-out can & does do more inbetween those ropes, for mine. Even look at the fight with an excellent man, like Pedroza. That was at the very end of his career, but he put up an admirable showing. Even at the height of his powers, Vazquez wouldn't be there for twelve with Pedroza. I know he did lose several of his biggest bouts, but I really can't give Vazquez a leg-up for that, since I don't think he does any better in fights with Arguello, Chacon & Lopez.

Put simply, I think if you reversed their careers, Vazquez has less success, & burns out quicker with Olivares' resume, while Olivares, for his part, positively shines when placed in Vazquez's era, & facing his competition.

It'd be savage, but I see Olivares as a full notch higher on the class scale.

I would certainly favor Ruben, but not by a lot. I would be utterly shocked if both men didn't see the canvas and gush pints of blood. Izzy is a bigger guy, that will help him hang. If Chuco Castillo could war late with a prime Olivares, I don't see why Vazquez couldn't. Anything from yesteryear is higher level in your view. Rose & Castillo weren't in the vicinity of Marquez and Larios was probably better as well. Pedroza is a favorite of mine but he wasn't a merciless puncher, Vazquez doesn't see 12? GTFOH

As much as you don't like to credit them, todays best could fight in any era. Olivares was definitely the greater fighter here, but far from a sure thing. I imagine Terry Mcgovern would mutilate both of them?

Ruben two out of three in a vicious trilogy.

No one said Pedroza was going to blow him out. Cut him to pieces, is more akin to what I'm thinking. Like I said, I haven't been as high on Vazquez as most, though I admit he's proven me wrong more than once.

Edit: Boxing is about who you imagine the better man was based on what you can interpret, not whose birthday comes first on the calendar. There is evidence the sport has declined in its level (& depth) of competition, however, & it's easier now than it was then. Not saying that gives anyone a pass, just that it's a factor. Maybe you disagree.

I think Marquez is better than Izzy as well. One of these modern fighters would have to prove you wrong once, I've never seen you pick one of them in any fight.




I don't disagree that the sport was better in years past. Mainly from a depth stand point. I love old timers, I'm just not as closed minded as you are to the chances of a Bernard Hopkins to stand up to anybody, in any era.

I do agree there's a pattern there (not an absolute one, as you imply), but I think more of it has to do with the incidental nature of the matches than you probably are inclined to believe.

I don't recall saying Hopkins couldn't stand up to anyone from any era. Hopkins is in my top ten for all-timers at Middleweight.

I can only go by what I read. It's not that I don't respect your opinion, I do. Just some of the stuff comes off Bert sugarish to me.

The Hopkins couldn't possibly last the distance with harry Greb will never leave me. Perhaps you were overstating for effect. I do that at times myself. But Greb has a 0% chance of stopping Nard.

It wasn't really a traditional stoppage I was envisioning, & while I did say I don't think it runs to the final bell, I would never say there's, "no chance" of that happening. What I imagine is a wretched, foul-replete affair, the likes of which is rarely seen.

Hopkins is the best dirty fighter of his generation (better, overall, than Holyfield), Greb, the best of his (in a time when everyone was dirty, to some extent). Greb hits Hopkins in the balls, & Hopkins rams an elbow down his throat in kind. That fight would quickly degenerate. Hopkins is at his best counter-punching, but I'm not sure how he (anyone?) fights a counter-game against a guy with Greb's volume. Tunney, for mine, was bigger & better than Hopkins, & he fought a depleted Greb, at least losing once, possibly more. Eventually, that fight gets stopped on one of many fouls. A DQ --- I favour Greb, because when you get two teak-tough hombres with excessively dirty bents, I just suspect the one who fought for pennies all day long probably has an edge on some level against a modern man pursuing million-dollar purses. That's just a logic I see, & incorporate accordingly. Hopkins is as old-school as they come, he'd be plenty happy taking turns breaking the laws with Greb. It'd be interesting, but ugly. Not reaching for any kind of KO on Greb's part, to be clear.

Bert Sugar...not a fan. Hope I come across as more humble than that, even if it's one day out of the week. Sugar is well-intentioned but he outright falsifies, which is, at best, irresponsible.

I didn't mean you were an asshole, just extremely partial to old timers.

Ok, so you were just stretching it for effect. There was no mention of DQ's, just that Hopkins would never last the distance against Greb or Walker.

I would take Hopkins to batter Greb all over the ring. While Harry would certainly throw a ton of punches, Hopkins would connect at about 110% accuracy and Greb didn't have enough punch to hurt him.

el puas by ko....vasquez i think is just a notch below olivares...

True, but Chucho Castillo and Rafael Herrera could have beat Vasquez too, especially if they each would have had 3 shots at him. Rafael Herrera was one of the most underrated fighters of that era.

Never said they couldn't, just stating that as great as he was Olivares was still vulnerable to a big puncher like Izzy.

Olivares, close. It's about as violent a fight as you can imagine. I don't think any fight would end in a decision. Somebody's definitely getting knocked out.

That part is key. This being MM and assuming we're taking the best available version of both, I like Rockabye Ruben by some form of stoppage - knockout, battering, Vazquez running out of blood to spill, etc. - in an obvious Fight of the Year/Decade/Century/Millenium contender

The Olivares that sets up training camp in the nearest night club gets stretched in a one-sided rout.

don't know
who cares
they both had enough toughness and weaknesses to guarantee
a great fight for the fans

I like both
but both have come into the ring...
let's say flawed
and I guess it would have been a natural
for the Forum

I ordered the 2nd fight from someone a long time back, but he never sent it. It's hard to find.

Do you have the 2nd Herrera fight?

No, I don't have it but I have seen it. I am sure Lee Groves has it.