Opinons on Julio Cesar Chavez?

[Addie]

What's peoples perceptions of Julio Cesar Chavez? Best Mexican fighter of all time? How do you feel about him fighting so many no hopers? How about his controversial victories?

I view Julio Cesar Chavez as one of the most efficient and impressive offensive machines ever. His ability to shoot to head and body was absolutely seamless, and I feel many people underratedJulio Cesar Chavez on ESB.

Just to say, I used to think Chavez was overrated...and made his name off beating taxi drivers. Watching him take apart Haugen, Camacho, and Rosario...made me reevaluate my stance on him though.

Opinions?

[WhataRock]

One of the best offensive fighters Ive seen..One of the best mexican fighters ever, probably my number one but he would at that top tier with guys like Olivares, Salvidar and Sanchez.

Him fighting some bums is irrelevant, as so many greats have done similar..You cant expect to fight 100+ top shelf opponents in an era, it just doesnt happen.
Whats most important is the wins over his best opponents and he was clearly impressive in this regard...at the same time though people shouldnt be to deceived by pretty numbers his record shows. His resume is certainly no better if at all then someone like Whitaker who had less then half the fights he did.

Like Pac he has a lot of parochial supporters who are to blinded by their man love to critique the man's record and abilities. Thats why you will sometimes see a little bit of a backlash from people who see it a bit differently.
Its not underrating or underappreciating him at all IMO, its just getting a little perspective on him so as not to belittle or forget blokes who were just as good but dont get the attention.

He is the quintessential Mexican warrior/boxer-puncher..He is the man 90% of Mexican fighters since have based their styles on, who they idolize, who they revere. It will be a long time until we see another Chavez, not just from Mexico but from anywhere.

[BENNY BLANCO]

What's peoples perceptions of Julio Cesar Chavez? Best Mexican fighter of all time? How do you feel about him fighting so many no hopers? How about his controversial victories?

I view Julio Cesar Chavez as one of the most efficient and impressive offensive machines ever. His ability to shoot to head and body was absolutely seamless, and I feel many people underratedJulio Cesar Chavez on ESB.

Just to say, I used to think Chavez was overrated...and made his name off beating taxi drivers. Watching him take apart Haugen, Camacho, and Rosario...made me reevaluate my stance on him though.

Opinions? Everybody is underrated by their haters and overrated by their fans. Chavez was a fantastic fighter who gave birth to at least two generations of top level Mexican fighters. Though him being rated as the #18 greatest fighter from Ring magazine is a bit ridiculous.

[Addie]

One of the best offensive fighters Ive seen..One of the best mexican fighters ever, probably my number one but he would at that top tier with guys like Olivares, Salvidar and Sanchez.

Him fighting some bums is irrelevant, as so many greats have done similar..You cant expect to fight 100+ top shelf opponents in an era, it just doesnt happen.
Whats most important is the wins over his best opponents and he was clearly impressive in this regard...at the same time though people shouldnt be to deceived by pretty numbers his record shows. His resume is certainly no better if at all then someone like Whitaker who had less then half the fights he did.

Like Pac he has a lot of parochial supporters who are to blinded by their man love to critique the man's record and abilities. Thats why you will sometimes see a little bit of a backlash from people who see it a bit differently.
Its not underrating or underappreciating him at all IMO, its just getting a little perspective on him so as not to belittle or forget blokes who were just as good but dont get the attention.

He is the quintessential Mexican warrior/boxer-puncher..He is the man 90% of Mexican fighters since have based their styles on, who they idolize, who they revere. It will be a long time until we see another Chavez, not just from Mexico but from anywhere.

Good post.

You look on the General Forum, and it's abundantly clear that a lot of posters haven't seen Julio Cesar Chavez fight. They dismiss him as a one-dimensional, flat footed plodder, who just throws winging shots. Simply not true. I'm as impressed watching Julio Cesar Chavez work in his prime as I am watching any other fighter, including the likes of Leonard, Whitaker, Jones, and Robinson. Too me, he was the very best combination puncher of all time. There were faster combination punchers, and harder hitters, but his placement was out of this world, and his fluidity and variety was second to none. The very best at that in my opinion, yet to see someone put punches together in clusters more impressively than Julio.

[Addie]

Everybody is underrated by their haters and overrated by their fans. Chavez was a fantastic fighter who gave birth to at least two generations of top level Mexican fighters. Though him being rated as the #18 greatest fighter from Ring magazine is a bit ridiculous.

I agree that Julio shouldn't be a top 20 level fighter, but he's certainly among the top 40 in my judgment. Granted, I don't have an official list but he'd be around that mark if I did I think.

[WhataRock]

Maybe Gomez Addie...I think he is just about the best offensive fighter Ive seen. Bit quicker, more fluid overall.

[Addie]

Maybe Gomez Addie...I think he is just about the best offensive fighter Ive seen. Bit quicker, more fluid overall.

If you could produce a video demonstrating this superior offense I'd be greatly appreciative.

[WhataRock]

This is a pretty good one.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Let me see of I can find some specific sequences from his others fights on the tube.

[BENNY BLANCO]

I agree that Julio shouldn't be a top 20 level fighter, but he's certainly among the top 40 in my judgment. Granted, I don't have an official list but he'd be around that mark if I did I think. I don't have a personal list either but he would be around #40 if I did have one.

[WhataRock]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

From about 1:50-3:00 is pretty damn brutal.

[Addie]

This is a pretty good one.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Let me see of I can find some specific sequences from his others fights on the tube.

3.51 - Wow. Beautiful.

[IntentionalButt]

Underrated defensively. You're right, it's largely due to underexposure. I dare anyone to watch the Rosario performance, for instance, and not come away awed at the complete package (not just the offensive components).

[BazookaJab]

Delete.

[Addie]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

From about 1:50-3:00 is pretty damn brutal.

Very impressed... He would hit guys with what looked like soft shots, and they'd go down as if they were shot. With combination punching like that coupled with that sort of power and technique, it's hard to comprehend how the guy was ever defeated.

[divac]

I only rate fighters from my era of watching boxing, 1980 to present.....I dont have a list because there are just to many great fighters during that span, but I will say without hesitation that JC Chavez is the most complete fighter I've ever been privaleged to witness.

Offensively, defensively, chin, stamina, and boxing IQ were just superb.

In my 30 years of watching boxing, Julio Cesar Chavez imo is simply the best!

[anarci]

I think Chavez is even underrated by the posts on this thread and you guys like chavez. Id put Chavez more or less around 10. He didnt have an amatuer background,so i see nothing wrong with him fighting no names coming up. Besides some of those so called "taxi drivers" werent all that bad. I find it funny how many fans dismiss these guys as bums,mexico is pretty deep in talent around the weightclass that Chavez started at. There are some American prospects that would not have that glossy record had they fought in Mexico. He has the record in career title defenses 27 so any talk about the level of opposition he faced is not valid. To put him 30 or 40 is absurd!!! I can only think of maybe 10 fighters that should be ahead of him.

[MrMarvel]

He's top ten all time for me, too. Imagine the man back in the days of the 15 rounder. Good God would a lot of terrific fighters be in a lot of trouble.

[AlFrancis]

I agree, I think he's underrated on here. I've been watching boxing for the last 35 years and for me he's one of the best, just a natural. Looking back and watching his career in real time. He's right up there IMO.

[GPater11093]

I think he is brillaint

One of the best offensive boxers i have seen and definitly the best combination puncher i have seen. The way he mixed shots to the head and body seamlessly and hardly missed a shot was great to watch.

Also very underrated defencivly with a solid defence and good movement.

Chavez at LW and below was a beast.

[Popkins]

I'll say one thing: Chavez defeats Floyd Mayweather easily 130-140. There's no way Floyd would cope with Chavez cutting the ring off and making him fight with his back on the ropes. Pot-shotting would do no good whatsoever against someone with a chin and defence like prime JCC. He would win almost every round en route to a UD, and would mark Floyd up bad, punish him. He would hit Floyd cleanly more than I can envisage almost anyone else doing. From watching their fights and considering their styles, I have a strong conviction on this.

[Russell]

He's top ten all time for me, too. Imagine the man back in the days of the 15 rounder. Good God would a lot of terrific fighters be in a lot of trouble.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[TIGEREDGE]

cannot arguie against him being a top 10 atg though i dont think he makes my list. his quality of opposition was top notch. he destroyed fighters who really had the potential to be ATG (taylor, martinez and rosario) and a host of very good fighters s

if taylor had not met jcc, we would probably be talking about him as one of the greats today

he really was a career destroyer like few before or after him. who was ever the same after fighting him at his peak

[Addie]

I think he is brillaint

One of the best offensive boxers i have seen and definitly the best combination puncher i have seen. The way he mixed shots to the head and body seamlessly and hardly missed a shot was great to watch.

Also very underrated defencivly with a solid defence and good movement.

Chavez at LW and below was a beast.

:deal You and my signature agree on that. His ability to put punches together blows my mind. Who needs the hand speed of Ray Leonard when you're that accurate and consistent.

[GPater11093]

:deal You and my signature agree on that. His ability to put punches together blows my mind. Who needs the hand speed of Ray Leonard when you're that accurate and consistent.


yeh he had great timing to make up for that lack of speed. Even though he was no slouch

[My2Sense]

Chavez was a definite great, but I never thought he was quite on the level of the top tier of ATGs - fighters like Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Charles, Langford, or even Duran, Whitaker, or Arguello. He was ballsy as hell and fought whoever were the top guys in any weight class he was in, and his competition was consistently solid; but I never thought he beat a truly great fighter, and possibly the only true greats he ever fought were Whitaker and DeLaHoya. I think the Taylor win was sort of the pinnacle of how high a level of competition he was capable of being successful against.

[Addie]

Chavez was a definite great, but I never thought he was quite on the level of the top tier of ATGs - fighters like Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Charles, Langford, or even Duran, Whitaker, or Arguello. He was ballsy as hell and fought whoever were the top guys in any weight class he was in, and his competition was consistently solid; but I never thought he beat a truly great fighter, and possibly the only true greats he ever fought were Whitaker and DeLaHoya. I think the Taylor win was sort of the pinnacle of how high a level of competition he was capable of being successful against.

That's one way of looking at it. I prefer to see it this way. Chavez beat the best in the divisions he campaigned in at the time. It wasn't his fault that there was no Roberto Duran's or Alexis' Arguello's around at the time of his peak days. That said, the way he dealt with the likes of Rosario and Camacho remain awe-inspiring - he shown he was a cut above that level of fighter. Taylor he legitimately stopped in a much closer fight than history likes to remember, and as for Whitaker? Nobody looks good against Whitaker, bad style match-up, and De La Hoya came around after Chavez was past it.

Chavez doesn't get rated so highly because he beat Rosario and Camacho, it's the manner in which he did it, coupled with his impressive skill set and level of consistency. I think Chavez beats Arguello at 130lbs and 135lbs.

[BENNY BLANCO]

I'll say one thing: Chavez defeats Floyd Mayweather easily 130-140. There's no way Floyd would cope with Chavez cutting the ring off and making him fight with his back on the ropes. Pot-shotting would do no good whatsoever against someone with a chin and defence like prime JCC. He would win almost every round en route to a UD, and would mark Floyd up bad, punish him. He would hit Floyd cleanly more than I can envisage almost anyone else doing. From watching their fights and considering their styles, I have a strong conviction on this. No fighter from 130-140 would defeat Mayweather easily, if you want to believe that some would beat him then that's cool but doing it easily?....Sorry that aint happening.

[The Wanderer]

Chavez is one of my favorite fighters, one of the guys I grew up watching, and just a marvel for doing a lot of things right, both big and small. Nothing flashy, (except when he really lets the combinations go or suddenly shocks everyone with his accuracy) but almost as perfect a distillation of an intelligent pressure fighter as you can get.

Despite all this he had his flaws, inside the ring and out. He had his weaknesses, (although both his technical skills and defense almost always get underrated) and although for a very long time he beat every top in every division he fought in, the fact that he never really beat an ATG weighs him down somewhat. I don't care about beating the no-hopers, because almost every champion does a fair amount of that, especially one with no amateur career. (I do find it funny that, whether they know it or not, people who say that he always beat nobodies are echoing the trash talk of multiple fighters that Chavez completely pounded. And every single one of those fighters always said that they would be the one to show the world the truth about Julio.)

[anarci]

That's one way of looking at it. I prefer to see it this way. Chavez beat the best in the divisions he campaigned in at the time. It wasn't his fault that there was no Roberto Duran's or Alexis' Arguello's around at the time of his peak days. That said, the way he dealt with the likes of Rosario and Camacho remain awe-inspiring - he shown he was a cut above that level of fighter. Taylor he legitimately stopped in a much closer fight than history likes to remember, and as for Whitaker? Nobody looks good against Whitaker, bad style match-up, and De La Hoya came around after Chavez was past it.

Chavez doesn't get rated so highly because he beat Rosario and Camacho, it's the manner in which he did it, coupled with his impressive skill set and level of consistency. I think Chavez beats Arguello at 130lbs and 135lbs. :deal:thumbsup Good post, i was gonna respond to him too,but you just said it,he beats Arguello at 140 also. As for 130 im not sure Chavez was already great put I think he was better at 135.

[duranimal]

Outstanding Champion, one of the ATG pressure fighters, nothing flash just all bizness & one of the best straight right hands i've ever seen, he made that right hand delivery his own, brutal power in both hands a 5* ring general, no escape, only one of the SuperBeasts like Duran could have nullified a 135/prime 140 Chavez.

I've always been of the mind that Chavez being a Don King fighter was proberbly one of the reasons that he had more detractors than he should have had, the politics of the day were poisonous.

[Seamus]

I agree that Julio shouldn't be a top 20 level fighter, but he's certainly among the top 40 in my judgment. Granted, I don't have an official list but he'd be around that mark if I did I think.

I don't think top 20 is out of the question though he certainly arrives right on the cusp. The biggest problem with Julio's image in the US is that many are willfully unaware of his pre-Taylor work. And of course, there are the "controversies" which I think are vastly overplayed. The way I see it, he damn near kills Meldrick Taylor and the fanboys are arguing over seconds on a clock. And he fights an absolute stinker with another ATG, Whitaker, (that fight sucked, even being there live), gets a disputed draw, and it's thrust into the collective consciousness as his defining moment. Sure, his act became hard to swallow as he was enveloped in the King Cocoon while his skills deteriorated, but those prime years were something extremely special.

[natonic]

I think Chavez is one of the top 30-35 fighters of all time. I think his win over Rosario is one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. His boxing and defense were underrated. Damn near complete fighter. I think speed gives him some trouble as we saw against Taylor and Whitaker. This fights weren't at his prime weight though. I just think that once you get to the very elite, say top 20 of all time, you're splitting hairs trying to seperate fighters. Speed and mobillity troubles Chavez and Arguello. Does it trouble Duran? Not so much, if at all. There's some seperation for me. Does Duran have a weakness Chavez or Arguello don't have? I'd have a hard time finding that. Chaves is a great, greater fighter but not as complete as a Duran or a Robinson. No way top ten and I can name 20-25 fighters I think were better. No shame in that.

[ripcity]

One of the best ever at 130, very good/exlent at 135 and overratted at 140. He was past his best at 147.

[Mantequilla]

Agree with that.

as far as combinations go i actually slightly prefer Saldivar.

[PowerPuncher]

Great fighter but not 1 of the greatest ever. He gets vastly overrated because of his padded record, and some people masterbate over him fighting 40-50 cab drivers more than most champions

Mexican legend but rates below Sanchez at no2 of all time Mexicans for me, what a fight that would be at 130lbs (but Sanchez wins :D )

[anarci]

One of the best ever at 130, very good/exlent at 135 and overratted at 140. He was past his best at 147.
Id say 135 was his best then 140 then 130. At 130 he was a great fighter one of the best 130lb guys ever top3,however i dont think he hit his peak until 135 when he fought Rosario, I disagree that he was Overrated at 140 I think hes the greatest JW of all time,at 147 he was no longer an elite fighter but still a very good one. I find it hard to believe that some of you guys can name 30 fighters better than him:-( He was around 10 ish.

[anarci]

Great fighter but not 1 of the greatest ever. He gets vastly overrated because of his padded record, and some people masterbate over him fighting 40-50 cab drivers more than most champions

Mexican legend but rates below Sanchez at no2 of all time Mexicans for me, what a fight that would be at 130lbs (but Sanchez wins :D )
Whats up with people saying his record is so padded,I stated earlier in a posts that Mexico has some tough fighters in the weights he started at and not all those guys were bums,but Ok say you still disagree. Well in his 40th fight he beat his 1st contender then in his 44 th beat the favored Mario martinez (a pretty goodfighter)to win the title he then followed that up by beating 19 former or current champion(at the time) Mayweather 2x,Lockridge,Laporte,Rosario,Limon,Ramirez,Fuentes,Taylor 2x,Smith,Camacho,Haugen,Randall 2-1,Lopez,Parisi,Gamache,and Draws with 2 Gonzalez and Whittaker(yey I know). Along with many wins over other top contenders he ended up with 115 fights. So even if you say the first 40 were bums. What about the othe 65 guys he beat? There is only a handful of atg that have a resume like Chavez did.

[Robbi]

Chavez was brilliant. He's much higher than Barrera when it comes to greatness but I can't help saying that Barrera was the more complete fighter. He was certainly better laterally and on the backfoot. He probably wasn't as good at pressuring though.

[Addie]

Chavez was brilliant. He's much higher than Barrera when it comes to greatness but I can't help saying that Barrera was the more complete fighter. He was certainly better laterally and on the backfoot. He probably wasn't as good at pressuring though.

I can't think of many things Barrera couldn't do. He could fight going backwards, off the ropes, worked really well behind a powerful left jab, and when he had too, he could slug it out with the best of them. Not as great as Chavez, though.

[Addie]

:deal:thumbsup Good post, i was gonna respond to him too,but you just said it,he beats Arguello at 140 also. As for 130 im not sure Chavez was already great put I think he was better at 135.

Just a bad style match up for Arguello, the last thing you want to do against Chavez is stand in the pocket. He'll be banged to body, head, arms, and although Alexis will find a home for his right hand, Chavez was one of the toughest motherfuckers ever when it came to taking a shot. Just don't see a way Arguello can win that one.

[Robbi]

I can't think of many things Barrera couldn't do. He could fight going backwards, off the ropes, worked really well behind a powerful left jab, and when he had too, he could slug it out with the best of them. Not as great as Chavez, though.

My fav three Mexicans of all-time. Marquez, Sanchez and Barrera.

[lefthook31]

I was a big fan of Chavez. He was a warrior. I didnt expect him to beat Whitaker, I knew the style matchup was bad for him. Losing to Whitaker was no big deal anyway, regardless of the official decision.
Then one night this black dude came into the ring with a surgeons mask on and proceded to box his ears off. His demeanor after the fight, was such a turnoff, I never liked him again. I was happy for Randall, he was a good guy. He kind of reminded me of Buster Douglas going into that fight only he followed up with some decent fights after that.

[PowerPuncher]

Whats up with people saying his record is so padded,I stated earlier in a posts that Mexico has some tough fighters in the weights he started at and not all those guys were bums,but Ok say you still disagree. Well in his 40th fight he beat his 1st contender then in his 44 th beat the favored Mario martinez (a pretty goodfighter)to win the title he then followed that up by beating 19 former or current champion(at the time) Mayweather 2x,Lockridge,Laporte,Rosario,Limon,Ramirez,Fuentes,Taylor 2x,Smith,Camacho,Haugen,Randall 2-1,Lopez,Parisi,Gamache,and Draws with 2 Gonzalez and Whittaker(yey I know). Along with many wins over other top contenders he ended up with 115 fights. So even if you say the first 40 were bums. What about the othe 65 guys he beat? There is only a handful of atg that have a resume like Chavez did.

It took him 40 fights to fight a contender :lol: And guess what Arreola wasnt anywhere near a top contender. Then he fought bums until at 44 fights he fought Martinez for a vacant belt who was a decent contender.

Now dont pretend from 44-116 fights he fought nothing but contenders, he didnt, he managed to fight 1-14-0 types and journeymen and gatekeeper types despite being a champion

Sure he had his quality wins and gets due credit for that but lets take the quality over the quantity

[sues2nd]

I agree that Julio shouldn't be a top 20 level fighter, but he's certainly among the top 40 in my judgment. Granted, I don't have an official list but he'd be around that mark if I did I think.

I agree 100% with this.

He is not top 20...but definately within the top 40 ever.

And though I feel this way, I still feel he is sickly overrated by too many all too often. There are some on this very site that swear to god he beat Pernell and was robbed...which is bad enough when you consider that even arguing the draw as valid is tough to do, let alone a win.

His positives IMO...

His chin was granite...no arguing that. He was relentless and efficient on offense. Put punches together very well and was a great, great body puncher. Also, he had very good inside footwork, which aided his offense.

His negatives...

Many of his wins, even after establishing himself as a top line great, often came against guys who barely deserved to be his sparring partners. Also, his defense WAS his great chin...

Many times on this site, I come off like I am not appreciative of what he has accomplished, mainly because I am on the other side of his fans in the "robbery" debate on his fight with Pernell Whitaker. But I do think he was a joy to watch and was integral in giving birth to a whole new generation of Mexican greats. And I think he gets too much flack for what happened to him "after" his prime.

(also, I think Salvador Sanchez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all time...I have him in my top 20)

That said, Pernell won 9-3...clearly.

[anarci]

It took him 40 fights to fight a contender :lol: And guess what Arreola wasnt anywhere near a top contender. Then he fought bums until at 44 fights he fought Martinez for a vacant belt who was a decent contender.

Now dont pretend from 44-116 fights he fought nothing but contenders, he didnt, he managed to fight 1-14-0 types and journeymen and gatekeeper types despite being a champion

Sure he had his quality wins and gets due credit for that but lets take the quality over the quantity :nonoArreola was a contender! I should know we fought out of the same gym (Hollenback in East LA,)he was ranked after he knocked out Lupe Pintor who was still a good fighter at the time,he was a known talent in the LA are (although underachiever) when he fought Chavez he was a top prospect. Ok Chavez fought an occasional bum after 44 fights but the majority were contenders,good journeyman or Former Champs. Regardless of some of the so called bums you said he fought he still had 29 total title defenses(most in history)so theres your quality. How some of you can say hes around 40 is absurd,name 40 that had his resume? In fact youd be hard pressed to find 10 if that!

[anarci]

Sues2nd said his defense was his great chin:patsch His Defense was underrated he used to slip punches very well. I get the feeling that you started watching Chavez when he was on the downslide. Youve probably watched his fights with Randall,Whittaker, Delahoya,and Tszyu more than his Prime fights. In his prime only a guy with possibly the fastest hands of all time Meldrick Taylor was able to hit him with Regularity.

[divac]

I was a big fan of Chavez. He was a warrior. I didnt expect him to beat Whitaker, I knew the style matchup was bad for him. Losing to Whitaker was no big deal anyway, regardless of the official decision.
Then one night this black dude came into the ring with a surgeons mask on and proceded to box his ears off. His demeanor after the fight, was such a turnoff, I never liked him again. I was happy for Randall, he was a good guy. He kind of reminded me of Buster Douglas going into that fight only he followed up with some decent fights after that.


Do you know the story behind why Chavez was angry after his loss to Randall???

Chavez never complained about losing a decision to Randall.....so he was'nt mad with the scorecards announced.

.....but you know so much about Chavez, who was he angry at and why???

[divac]

Sues2nd said his defense was his great chin:patsch His Defense was underrated he used to slip punches very well. I get the feeling that you started watching Chavez when he was on the downslide. Youve probably watched his fights with Randall,Whittaker, Delahoya,and Tszyu more than his Prime fights. In his prime only a guy with possibly the fastest hands of all time Meldrick Taylor was able to hit him with Regularity.

Chavez' defense was top notch even against Taylor and Whitaker.......you dont think so????
......next time you watch any of those fights, do so paying only attention to Chavez' defense....
......watch even the Pernell Whitaker fight, you'll be shocked at just how many punches Pernell was missing.
.....considering that Chavez was aggressively coming foward, thats great head movement by Chavez to slip many of Whitaker's shots......but since Chavez is'nt your stereotypical defensive fighter that fights on the side of caution, people dont really pay attention to his great head and waist movements.


Chavez' offense=Awesome
Chavez' defense=Great


Sues2nd, you severely underrate Chavez' defense. Calling his granite chin his best defensive asset is insulting to anyone that ever followed Chavez' career.

The man fought well over 100 fights, and if his best defense was his chin, believe me he'd be in a sad mental state right about now.

Chavez' mental faculties are intact. He does'nt stutter and he does'nt slurr.....which is alot more than I can say for both Pernell Whitaker and Meldrick Taylor.

[sues2nd]

Once again, my point is proven that while Chavez was unbelievably talented and undoubtably great, he, on ESB is very overrated (especially by Divac, who if you were to say you didnt like his haircut, will make a 10,000 word essay on how every hair was in place...).

Obviously I was overblowing the point about his chin being his defense, but to call Chavez defense great is hilarious in my opinion. Yes he had over 100 fights, but many were against fighters who shouldnt hold his spit bucket, even as he became a name...in those fight, no his defense did not probably appear to be bad, but as he started to fight GREATS it became just that.

To point that he doesnt slurr or stutter as the proof of his great defense is moronic. Whitaker does slurr, so does that mean that he has better defense than Pernell? Much of Pernell's speech has to do with his drug use as it does the amount of punches landed to his head. Taylor has brain damage, which, can happen with one ill placed punch. Learn something about head injuries before you say something so disrespectful and dumb.

And to say that his defense was top notch against Whitaker and Taylor? That is all the proof I need that you clearly overrate him Divac...but you and I have been over this...mostly over the fact that you believe the draw was justified, when clearly you cant find more than 4 rounds, being generous, to give to JCC.

I stand by what I said about the man...very great in many ways, defense was not one of them. And I have seen a TON of Chavez fights running the gammut of his career.

[red cobra]

Salvador Sanchez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, and ironically did not typify the stereotypical Mexican style or the type of Mexican fighter that the Mexicans themselves most adore.

[divac]

Once again, my point is proven that while Chavez was unbelievably talented and undoubtably great, he, on ESB is very overrated (especially by Divac, who if you were to say you didnt like his haircut, will make a 10,000 word essay on how every hair was in place...).

Obviously I was overblowing the point about his chin being his defense, but to call Chavez defense great is hilarious in my opinion. Yes he had over 100 fights, but many were against fighters who shouldnt hold his spit bucket, even as he became a name...in those fight, no his defense did not probably appear to be bad, but as he started to fight GREATS it became just that.

To point that he doesnt slurr or stutter as the proof of his great defense is moronic. Whitaker does slurr, so does that mean that he has better defense than Pernell? Much of Pernell's speech has to do with his drug use as it does the amount of punches landed to his head. Taylor has brain damage, which, can happen with one ill placed punch. Learn something about head injuries before you say something so disrespectful and dumb.

And to say that his defense was top notch against Whitaker and Taylor? That is all the proof I need that you clearly overrate him Divac...but you and I have been over this...mostly over the fact that you believe the draw was justified, when clearly you cant find more than 4 rounds, being generous, to give to JCC.

I stand by what I said about the man...very great in many ways, defense was not one of them. And I have seen a TON of Chavez fights running the gammut of his career.

Well over 100 fights Sues, and if Chavez defense was what you depicted, he'd be a walking vegetable.

The man was a fighting machine. A rarity in the sport that with his parrying type defense was able to apply extreme pressure while picking off incoming with his gloves.
A fighter that could mount an effective offense off of his defense, parrying shots and instantmatically countering with an offensive move.

Are you jealous that unlike Pernell Whitaker, Chavez while playing defense, (head movement, waist movement, parrying shots) could mount a "SUSTAINED AND EFFECTIVE....RELENTLESS REALLY" offense....
......while your Pernell had to air in the side of caution, playing defense, on the move retreating, and putting minimal effort into his punching leverage????......hmmmm, I wonder why he was on the short end on some of these so called controversial decisions?:think

Sorry bud, but thats just the way it is!:deal:yep

[Robbi]

Salvador Sanchez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, and ironically did not typify the stereotypical Mexican style or the type of Mexican fighter that the Mexicans themselves most adore.

Sanchez accomplished so much in his career up until he died at only 23 years of age. He had 9 defenses of the featherweight title against some real good fighters. Not many fighters in the history of the sport will achieve what he did in such a short space of time.

[sues2nd]

Well over 100 fights Sues, and if Chavez defense was what you depicted, he'd be a walking vegetable.

The man was a fighting machine. A rarity in the sport that with his parrying type defense was able to apply extreme pressure while picking off incoming with his gloves.
A fighter that could mount an effective offense off of his defense, parrying shots and instantmatically countering with an offensive move.

Are you jealous that unlike Pernell Whitaker, Chavez while playing defense, (head movement, waist movement, parrying shots) could mount a "SUSTAINED AND EFFECTIVE....RELENTLESS REALLY" offense....
......while your Pernell had to air in the side of caution, playing defense, on the move retreating, and putting minimal effort into his punching leverage????......hmmmm, I wonder why he was on the short end on some of these so called controversial decisions?:think

Sorry bud, but thats just the way it is!:deal:yep

And THAT my friends is how you clearly admit to only watching one Pernell Whitaker fight in your entire life!!!

:good

[martin0792]

The Mexican Legand, he was the ultimate blood and guts warrior, he wasn't the type of fighter that studied opponents or viewed their faults, he was a fighter who would simply corner you on the ropes then land his trade mark left hooks and body shots.

[divac]

And THAT my friends is how you clearly admit to only watching one Pernell Whitaker fight in your entire life!!!

:good

You're suggesting I only watched the Chavez-Whitaker fight, yet you did nothing to rebutt my premise of Whitaker siding on caution.......in other words you're saying, "yeah, he fought like that vs Chavez, but clearly you've only seen that one Whitaker fight!"
.....nice to know you agreed with my premise!:yep:hi:



Funny how the truth really comes out of how these Pernell fanatics really feel when only the Chavez fight is mentioned........yet they feel they have to defend that Pernell did'nt fight that way all the time.

.....I know Sues, Pernell did'nt fight that way all the time....only against fighters it was'nt a given he'd beat!:lol:.......against fighters clearly not at the top level, he was much more open to apply something called leverage....something that was a rarity against the elites of the game.

[GPater11093]

Agree with that.

as far as combinations go i actually slightly prefer Saldivar.

good shout Saldivar had brillaint combinations from that southpaw stance


Just a bad style match up for Arguello, the last thing you want to do against Chavez is stand in the pocket. He'll be banged to body, head, arms, and although Alexis will find a home for his right hand, Chavez was one of the toughest motherfuckers ever when it came to taking a shot. Just don't see a way Arguello can win that one.

I see how Arguello can do it, he has the firepower to keep Chavez off of him as well as the counter punching ability to land on Chavez. He also comes on strong late like Chavez so he wont fade and Arguello has that body attack that is lethal and Chavez can be hit to the body.

Salvador Sanchez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, and ironically did not typify the stereotypical Mexican style or the type of Mexican fighter that the Mexicans themselves most adore.

Chavez is revered in exico as he is there typical fighter. I read an article where Barrera says that Canto isnt respected or even rated among Mexican fans as he dditn fight. :shock:

[divac]

good shout Saldivar had brillaint combinations from that southpaw stance



I see how Arguello can do it, he has the firepower to keep Chavez off of him as well as the counter punching ability to land on Chavez. He also comes on strong late like Chavez so he wont fade and Arguello has that body attack that is lethal and Chavez can be hit to the body.



Chavez is revered in exico as he is there typical fighter. I read an article where Barrera says that Canto isnt respected or even rated among Mexican fans as he dditn fight. :shock:

Agreed on your Arguello assesment GP. Arguello was a complete fighter. Great boxing skill, and with power in either hand.
He would have had a sizeable reach advantage on Chavez as well.

People are hard headed and really dont put their mind to work when drawing an analysis. Because Meldrick Taylor had some sucess against Chavez it is assumed that anyone with speed could trouble Chavez....:lol::lol::lol:
...far from the truth. Chavez had great sucess against speedsters. Hector Camacho and "Lightning" Lonnie Smith just to name two very fast fighters that Chavez easily bloodgeoned.

Great skill in combination with other attributes is what troubles any fighter.....its not just a one thing deal that does the trick.
I've heard posters say, "Zab Judah over Chavez because Chavez had trouble with speedsters.":rofl:rofl:rofl


Arguello was'nt a speedster, but by God he had other physical attributes that certainly could trouble a great like Chavez.

My opinion, but any fight between either Chavez, Arguello, and Duran is a tossup imo.
All three have special attributes that can possibly lead to victory over the others.
It would just depend on who was on their A game that night.

I will say this......If there was any fighter in the history of the sport with a realistic chance to stop a prime JC Chavez, it would have been the Great Alexis Arguello.
......great boxing skill, stamina, and KO power in either hand.
Christ, I've got goosebumps just thinking about it.
I cant say this about many matchups, but I'm 100% certain this matchup would not dissapoint.
What a fight it would be!:yep:bbb

[GPater11093]

Agreed on your Arguello assesment GP. Arguello was a complete fighter. Great boxing skill, and with power in either hand.
He would have had a sizeable reach advantage on Chavez as well.

People are hard headed and really dont put their mind to work when drawing an analysis. Because Meldrick Taylor had some sucess against Chavez it is assumed that anyone with speed could trouble Chavez....:lol::lol::lol:
...far from the truth. Chavez had great sucess against speedsters. Hector Camacho and "Lightning" Lonnie Smith just to name two very fast fighters that Chavez easily bloodgeoned.

Great skill in combination with other attributes is what troubles any fighter.....its not just a one thing deal that does the trick.
I've heard posters say, "Zab Judah over Chavez because Chavez had trouble with speedsters.":rofl:rofl:rofl


Arguello was'nt a speedster, but by God he had other physical attributes that certainly could trouble a great like Chavez.

My opinion, but any fight between either Chavez, Arguello, and Duran is a tossup imo.
All three have special attributes that can possibly lead to victory over the others.
It would just depend on who was on their A game that night.

I will say this......If there was any fighter in the history of the sport with a realistic chance to stop a prime JC Chavez, it would have been the Great Alexis Arguello.
......great boxing skill, stamina, and KO power in either hand.
Christ, I've got goosebumps just thinking about it.
I cant say this about many matchups, but I'm 100% certain this matchup would not dissapoint.
What a fight it would be!:yep:bbb

Chavez vs Arguello at 130-135lbs is my all time favrouite match up

i dont think Arguello would stop Chavez but he would beat him IMO

[divac]

Salvador Sanchez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, and ironically did not typify the stereotypical Mexican style or the type of Mexican fighter that the Mexicans themselves most adore.

Bottom line is that Sanchez was a Warrior with a capital W........
.....all the Mexican boxing fans want is to see their fighter fight, and not to stink up the joint by airing on the side of caution.

Sanchez was a great boxer, but he meets the typical Mexican criteria....he was a Warrior, and he had Killer instincts.:deal

[Robbi]

Chavez was great at what he did. He wasn't quite one dimensional but he fought the same way mostly every fight as he played to his strengths. If someone stood in front of him, he'd feast, if they moved laterally and on the retreat, he'd go looking for them.

He's certainly a fighter I admire. But he wasn't a complete fighter, so thats why he doesn't score high enough regarding my rulebook and taste in fighters. I prefer a varied defense, brilliant point scoring jab, combinations, counter-punching and the ability to not rely on full steam ahead.

Chavez did have a decent defense, a fair jab, and good combinations and the ability to counter-punch. But not quite enough to impress me I'm afraid. That would be like me saying Whitaker was a complete fighter because he KO'd opponents like Tyson on a few ocassions.

Chavez was a come forward, aggressive, gradually break your spirit and heart kinda fighter. Not my style. I also don't really like Foreman, Frazier, Tyson, Tszyu, Trinidad, Hatton, etc.

Give me Whitaker, Hopkins, Hearns, Hagler, Marquez, Holmes, Sanchez, Toney, Pep, Duran, etc, any day of the week.

[sues2nd]

You're suggesting I only watched the Chavez-Whitaker fight, yet you did nothing to rebutt my premise of Whitaker siding on caution.......in other words you're saying, "yeah, he fought like that vs Chavez, but clearly you've only seen that one Whitaker fight!"
.....nice to know you agreed with my premise!:yep:hi:



Funny how the truth really comes out of how these Pernell fanatics really feel when only the Chavez fight is mentioned........yet they feel they have to defend that Pernell did'nt fight that way all the time.

.....I know Sues, Pernell did'nt fight that way all the time....only against fighters it was'nt a given he'd beat!:lol:.......against fighters clearly not at the top level, he was much more open to apply something called leverage....something that was a rarity against the elites of the game.

Do you know what controlling the distance is? Do you know what working your offense through your jab is? Do you understand ring intellect?

Chavez was stronger than Pernell. Chavez was a harder hitter than Pernell. Chavez was a better inside fighter than Pernell. It didnt make sense to fight Chavez in the same way you would fight someone who didn't hold these advantages.

What you are saying is, because he didnt fight on the inside, this somehow means he put minimal effort into his punching? Or that he couldnt maintain a sustained attack? No, what that is called is switching your style to fit your opponent...and your laughable generalization and overexaggeration of his style again proves that you are clearly biased on the subject.

And if we again are talking about the fight...one that Pernell CLEARLY won...lets get back again to what I have been asking you to do for, what, 4 years now?

I posted the videos for each round. I posted my round by round breakdown. I gave you the exact reasons to why there was no possible way in hell that Chavez deserved even 5 rounds...and 4 is with me being extremely generous. I asked you to do the same...and you came back with "I just value Chavez's body work more". Never giving the rounds you gave to JCC. Never giving breakdowns.

I understand that it must be a tough fight to watch...seeing your favorite fighter get outboxed so badly round in and round out. But really...put up for shut up about it. Dont give me a score...dont give me a generalized breakdown of the fight...round by round.

You wont of course because you cannot.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I have proven on this site to be about as unbiased as one can be (honestly, we are all biased to a point...its just some of us are fans of the sport first, fighters second...others are the opposite)...the older regulars can attest. You on the other hand have proven to be the exact opposite. Which is sad, because honestly, when you are posting on something that you have a outside/unbiased look on, you are a damn good poster...one I actually respect alot more than it comes off as. But once it makes it to Chavez, the 25 smilies come out...the vague generalizations...the constant overrating and underrating of anything against it. Its a waste of a good boxing mind IMO.

:hi:

(and again, people wonder why I say Chavez, who is an obvious high ranking ATG, is so overrated on here)

[sweet_scientist]

Do you know the story behind why Chavez was angry after his loss to Randall???

Chavez never complained about losing a decision to Randall.....so he was'nt mad with the scorecards announced.

.....but you know so much about Chavez, who was he angry at and why???

"Richard Steele....fuck you!" :lol:

My, my what a short memory he had.

The measure of his delusion was clear when they replayed him hitting Randall in the balls right in front of him and he denied that it was a low blow. :patsch

Not rare for a proud champion to not be able to face the facts though.

[divac]

Sues, to discuss Chavez-Whitaker in a round by round basis the way you'd like for it to be discussed would take days........I simply dont have that kind of time as I'd would have to rewatch the whole fight over again and take notes, aside from the fact I'd have to continually respond to your posts.

I've already done what you're asking for years ago with Scientist......our discussion on Chavez-Whitaker went on for days.......
.....quite frankly I loved the experience of disecting the fight with Scientist in a well mannered form without the name calling.

Loved it Scientist!:good

.....but quite frankly to do it again would be to time consuming, and futile against someone like yourself that clings to Pea's balls.

As I told Scientist way back then......Whitaker clearly had the two best rounds of the fight. He punished Chavez in those two rounds........but you stil have to score 10 other rounds........and it Whitaker is just playing defense and not even attempting in the round to mount any type of substantial offense....he's not going to get the round on my scorecard.

I scored the DLH-Whitaker fight with the same criteria and had DLH winning going away.

.....dont give me this crap about me not valueing defense (a scoring criteria)......but when you put value into defense, one must also value what the fighter did to make the other pay after a defensive manuever.
.....all to often Whtitaker did jack shit as far as "effective scoring, particularly in the Chavez and DLH fights.


Yeah, we can waist our time discussing Chavez-Whitaker on a round by round basis......the bottom line is we'd be going around in circles because I use and interpret the scoring criteria differently than you do.

"OOOhhhh, did you see how he made him miss?"
"Did you see how he ducked right under those shots?"

Let me tell you something, I'm not so impressed unless there is some effective punching coming right after and between those misses.


Let me let you in on a little secret, there a reason why certain so called defensive specialist dont get hit as frequently......and most of the time its because they're offense is lacking, the leverage on their shots minimal.

......thats my take on the matter and certainly a round by round debating of the Chavez-Whitaker fight is not about to change either of our minds.

6-6 was a fair score imo, and you would think Whitaker would have learned his lesson off the Chavez fight, and attempted to apply "an effective offense" against DLH, but instead he sided even more to the side of caution.

Outright......Whitaker was'nt willing to apply the adjustments needed to get the judges to see it his way.
He did'nt study the Chavez fight and really said to himself, "what could I have done to make them see it my way?"
.......he never learned, as he applied the same plan vs DLH that he did vs Chavez, this time losing miserably on the cards.


......thats it bro.....no need to get into a round by round on any Whitaker fight........he believes boxing is purely about defense and he has it all wrong.
As I've said to Scientist many times, Whitaker loses to every ATG fighter his size, mainly because he's too reliant on the defensive side of the game and ignores the main scoring criteria that evolves around the offensive game.
Just that simple!:deal

[divac]

"Richard Steele....fuck you!" :lol:

My, my what a short memory he had.

The measure of his delusion was clear when they replayed him hitting Randall in the balls right in front of him and he denied that it was a low blow. :patsch

Not rare for a proud champion to not be able to face the facts though.

:lol:
You should know my friend........

"They did it to me again Larry!":lol::lol::lol:

[sweet_scientist]

:lol:
You should know my friend........

"They did it to me again Larry!":lol::lol::lol:

:lol: Fair call. Whitaker must have been smoking some good crack around the time of the Tito fight, both figuratively and literally speaking.

In fairness to Pete, 5 years after the fight he did manage to admit that the fight could have gone either way.

Give it another decade and he'll probably admit he was edged out :yep

[anarci]

I put JC 8th on my atg list. Can someone give me a reason why thats such a bad Rankng? Hey i got alot of respect for these old timers,but get real:patsch Any unbiased boxing mind knows that the boxers came post 30s got a little better in the 40s and 50s ,ane today are more ??????????, I Know what i wanna say butl,ill save that for another thread.

[lefthook31]

Do you know the story behind why Chavez was angry after his loss to Randall???

Chavez never complained about losing a decision to Randall.....so he was'nt mad with the scorecards announced.

.....but you know so much about Chavez, who was he angry at and why???
I dont know who he was angry at. He handled himself the same way in future fights. He basically took the cut that was caused by a punch in the rematch and had the fight stopped. It wasnt just that fight. The next fight was the icing on the cake. He also handled himself pretty poorly in the ODLH fight as well.

[PowerPuncher]

Divac isnt a fan hes a MExican cheerleader, his points are invalid, I have no idea why anyone would waste their time reading his posts let alone replying to them

[divac]

I dont know who he was angry at. He handled himself the same way in future fights. He basically took the cut that was caused by a punch in the rematch and had the fight stopped. It wasnt just that fight. The next fight was the icing on the cake. He also handled himself pretty poorly in the ODLH fight as well.

Chavez was angry at both Richard Steele and Don King.

At Steele because he took two points away from Chavez for low blows......one of those point deductions came from a shot that was actually on the beltline (not a low blow)
......but his anger was directed more toward Don King, who had him fighting just about every month.

Chavez did'nt want to fight in January because it was so soon after the Holidays, and he did'nt want to be in training camp during the Christmas and newyear span.

Don King had other ideas $$$$$$
King in order to get Chavez to fight in January, convinced Chavez that Randall was a pushover (an easy defense)
Chavez knew very little about Randall, and he took King's word for it that Randall was'nt a fighter that he'd have to train full throttle for.

That was mainly what Chavez was furious for......he was actually calling for Don King when the decision was announced in favor of Randall, because it was he who had told him Randall was a pushover.
.....we all know during that time frame that Randall was certainly nobodies pushover.

I never heard Chavez once say that he thought he had won the first Randall fight, though a case can be made that it was at least a draw.




.......and whats your beef with Chavez' comportment after the first DLH fight?

Chavez calmly and intelligently fielded questions and his exact quote right after was "its not the kid's fault of course, but I dont feel like I was beat tonight. I suffered a cut during training camp a few weeks ago, and it reoponed a couple of nights ago when my kid accidentaly butted me in the same spot.

.....Chavez was'nt furious or even mad about the situation. He was just telling it like it was.
His kid actually butting him was caught on camera.
Chavez had done an interview in a spanish TV talkshow a couple of nights before the fight, and he carried his kid with him on his lap.....the kid swung his head backwards and caught Chavez right where the cut had been in training camp.
On video, Chavez was even shown with a napkin towel swiping at the cut which had been barely opened enough to cause slight leakage.

People criticized Chavez for his pre-existing cut excuse, but everything he said was backed up by video evidence.

The only person who made a real fuss after that Chavez-DLH fight was DLH......
DLH made a major stink and was furious because he wanted to hear from Chavez' mouth that he had been beaten fair and square.

"He's not man enough to admit defeat," were DLH's words.......
" I wont give him a rematch unless he admits he was beaten fair and square.":lol::lol::lol::lol:......of course, true to DLH form, he gave Chavez a rematch over two years later and a weight class heavier, when it was evident Chavez was done as an elite.:nut

There was only one person who made a stink about what transpired in the first Chavez-DLH fight, and that was DLH.


I dont see where all the hate for Chavez is because he makes excuses when he loses........99% of fighters do that.......and in the DLH fight, as I said...actual video evidence suggest everthing Chavez talked about in referring to a pre-existing cut, was legit.


Btw LH, everyone that was around back then and wants to know the truth on matter, found out that Chavez walked into his fight with DLH already cut.
Yeah, the first jab DLH threw had blood gushing from Chavez' cut.......the first jab landed for God's sake!:patsch

[Addie]

Chavez was angry at both Richard Steele and Don King.

At Steele because he took two points away from Chavez for low blows......one of those point deductions came from a shot that was actually on the beltline (not a low blow)
......but his anger was directed more toward Don King, who had him fighting just about every month.

Chavez did'nt want to fight in January because it was so soon after the Holidays, and he did'nt want to be in training camp during the Christmas and newyear span.

Don King had other ideas $$$$$$
King in order to get Chavez to fight in January, convinced Chavez that Randall was a pushover (an easy defense)
Chavez knew very little about Randall, and he took King's word for it that Randall was'nt a fighter that he'd have to train full throttle for.

That was mainly what Chavez was furious for......he was actually calling for Don King when the decision was announced in favor of Randall, because it was he who had told him Randall was a pushover.
.....we all know during that time frame that Randall was certainly nobodies pushover.

I never heard Chavez once say that he thought he had won the first Randall fight, though a case can be made that it was at least a draw.




.......and whats your beef with Chavez' comportment after the first DLH fight?

Chavez calmly and intelligently fielded questions and his exact quote right after was "its not the kid's fault of course, but I dont feel like I was beat tonight. I suffered a cut during training camp a few weeks ago, and it reoponed a couple of nights ago when my kid accidentaly butted me in the same spot.

.....Chavez was'nt furious or even mad about the situation. He was just telling it like it was.
His kid actually butting him was caught on camera.
Chavez had done an interview in a spanish TV talkshow a couple of nights before the fight, and he carried his kid with him on his lap.....the kid swung his head backwards and caught Chavez right where the cut had been in training camp.
On video, Chavez was even shown with a napkin towel swiping at the cut which had been barely opened enough to cause slight leakage.

People criticized Chavez for his pre-existing cut excuse, but everything he said was backed up by video evidence.

The only person who made a real fuss after that Chavez-DLH fight was DLH......
DLH made a major stink and was furious because he wanted to hear from Chavez' mouth that he had been beaten fair and square.

"He's not man enough to admit defeat," were DLH's words.......
" I wont give him a rematch unless he admits he was beaten fair and square.":lol::lol::lol::lol:......of course, true to DLH form, he gave Chavez a rematch over two years later and a weight class heavier, when it was evident Chavez was done as an elite.:nut

There was only one person who made a stink about what transpired in the first Chavez-DLH fight, and that was DLH.


I dont see where all the hate for Chavez is because he makes excuses when he loses........99% of fighters do that.......and in the DLH fight, as I said...actual video evidence suggest everthing Chavez talked about in referring to a pre-existing cut, was legit.

Ever since you called Barrera a one-handed fighter, and no...you're never living that down, I've always considered you somewhat of a fag who knows fuck all about Boxing. That said, kudos on the last point, somewhat ironic that Chavez is given a lot of hassle for making excuses, whereas the Classic's favorite, Duran, practically made it an art form. Here's the inside scoop, all great fighters have trouble admitting defeat, and much like the occasional outburst of unsportsmanship on the part of Marco Barrera, this kind of stuff does not define a fighters career or tarnish their legacy.

[divac]

:lol: Fair call. Whitaker must have been smoking some good crack around the time of the Tito fight, both figuratively and literally speaking.

In fairness to Pete, 5 years after the fight he did manage to admit that the fight could have gone either way.

Give it another decade and he'll probably admit he was edged out :yep

Is that true Scientist?
Are you serious?

If thats true, I find it absolutely hillarious!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[divac]

Ever since you called Barrera a one-handed fighter, and no...you're never living that down, I've always considered you somewhat of a fag who knows fuck all about Boxing. That said, kudos on the last point, somewhat ironic that Chavez is given a lot of hassle for making excuses, whereas the Classic's favorite, Duran, practically made it an art form. Here's the inside scoop, all great fighters have trouble admitting defeat, and much like the occasional outburst of unsportsmanship on the part of Marco Barrera, this kind of stuff does not define a fighters career or tarnish their legacy.


Give the MAB point a rest bro.....I referred to MAB's right hand lacking being one of the keys to him getting beaten so handily by Pacquiao.

In comparison to the right hands delivered by both JMM and Morales, MAB's lacks bigtime.
.......this is a boxing forum where opinions both logical and illogical are thrown all the time......dont have a hissy fit over something you dont agree with.
....you're obviously bothered by it, and are letting it effect debates on other subjects.

.....Its too bad if you just cant let it go.....at the end of the day they're just opinions.

[Addie]

Give the MAB point a rest bro.....I referred to MAB's right hand lacking being one of the keys to him getting beaten so handily by Pacquiao.

In comparison to the right hands delivered by both JMM and Morales, MAB's lacks bigtime.
.......this is a boxing forum where opinions both logical and illogical are thrown all the time......dont have a hissy fit over something you dont agree with.
....you're obviously bothered by it, and are letting it effect debates on other subjects.

.....Its too bad if you just cant let it go.....at the end of the day they're just opinions.

Here's the problem, Divac.

Every time you mention Marco Antonio Barrera on this site, you have to throw in some kind of slight. Whether it be you ridiculing him for occasionally showing outbursts of unsportsmanship, or whether it's coming up with the crazy idea that Marco lacked a good right hand. You always deliver. Even in threads that are designed to speak positively about the guy, say we're discussing his beautiful performance against Naseem Hamed, a better win than anything on Marquez's resume, you still find a way.

There is no argument on my part that both Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez possessed superior right hands. No issue at all. You once quoted, and I'm not paraphrasing, that Marco Antonio Barrera was a one handed fighter. Given how much you have to bash Marco all of the time, persistently without a break, I'm going to have to push this issue every bit as relentlessly. Marco has a good right hand, it came on leaps and bounds, and whereas Erik and Juan have better ones, Barrera has a far superior left hand than both of them. It evens itself out. Marco was a lefty, afterall.

Your argument that Barrera lacked a right hand is refuted by video evidence. I have 61 fights of Marco on DVD, and he knocked many fighters out with his right hand, including knocking down Juan Manuel Marquez with it. We can kill this issue as long as you stop churning out the same negative bullshit about the man every single time you mention him, otherwise, I'm going to play the equalizer in the whole situation. I'll balance it out. If a thread is discussing the hissy fits of Marco, by all means, say your piece. But don't bring it up in discussions where it's completely irrelevant...every...single...time.

We all stick up for our favorite fighter when we feel they've been treated unfairly, this isn't anything uncommon. I won't ever be saying Marquez lacked a left hand, only that Marco had a better one. I like both of them, I like Morales too, and they all have their strengths. Barrera had a fantastic left hand to the body, Marquez has a beautiful right uppercut, Morales has a fantastic straight right. We'll leave it at that.

P.S And I just remembered. You once called the man a fuckin' front runner? Zab Judah is a front runner, a fighter who knocks out Mckinney in the 12th, and goes 36 rounds with Erik Morales ain't no front runner.

[divac]

Here's the problem, Divac.

Every time you mention Marco Antonio Barrera on this site, you have to throw in some kind of slight. Whether it be you ridiculing him for occasionally showing outbursts of unsportsmanship, or whether it's coming up with the crazy idea that Marco lacked a good right hand. You always deliver. Even in threads that are designed to speak positively about the guy, say we're discussing his beautiful performance against Naseem Hamed, a better win than anything on Marquez's resume, you still find a way.

There is no argument on my part that both Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez possessed superior right hands. No issue at all. You once quoted, and I'm not paraphrasing, that Marco Antonio Barrera was a one handed fighter. Given how much you have to bash Marco all of the time, persistently without a break, I'm going to have to push this issue every bit as relentlessly. Marco has a good right hand, it came on leaps and bounds, and whereas Erik and Juan have better ones, Barrera has a far superior left hand than both of them. It evens itself out. Marco was a lefty, afterall.

Your argument that Barrera lacked a right hand is refuted by video evidence. I have 61 fights of Marco on DVD, and he knocked many fighters out with his right hand, including knocking down Juan Manuel Marquez with it. We can kill this issue as long as you stop churning out the same negative bullshit about the man every single time you mention him, otherwise, I'm going to play the equalizer in the whole situation. I'll balance it out. If a thread is discussing the hissy fits of Marco, by all means, say your piece. But don't bring it up in discussions where it's completely irrelevant...every...single...time.

We all stick up for our favorite fighter when we feel they've been treated unfairly, this isn't anything uncommon. I won't ever be saying Marquez lacked a left hand, only that Marco had a better one. I like both of them, I like Morales too, and they all have their strengths. Barrera had a fantastic left hand to the body, Marquez has a beautiful right uppercut, Morales has a fantastic straight right. We'll leave it at that.

P.S And I just remembered. You once called the man a fuckin' front runner? Zab Judah is a front runner, a fighter who knocks out Mckinney in the 12th, and goes 36 rounds with Erik Morales ain't no front runner.




Get over it Addie!
Seriously, not everyone is going to have the same opinion of MAB that you do.

When I give opinions, they're honest ones. I say what I feel, and let others do the same.

I'm certainly not going to go trolling around and hounding a poster I dont agree with, each and everytime not letting an issue from a different subject on another thread go......

You did'nt agree with me on my say of MAB, thats fine and dandy.......but you're wrong that I go out of my way to degrade him.......it must feel that way to you because you think so highly of him.

Bottom line is that I rarely even mention MAB in my posts......whenever I do, you're just right there because you want in on any thread related to MAB.:D

Tell you what. Next time I degrade MAB out of the blue on a thread unrelated to MAB, call me out and let me know that I'm hating again.

I doubt you'll be calling me out very often!;)

If I'm hard on MAB, you're probably to lenient to defend alot of his nastiness and outright dirty fighthing and unsportmanship when things are'nt going as planned for him.

The truth on MAB likely lies somewhere between our opinons of him.

I'm hard on him, and you're too lenient.......I'm certainly not going to hold it against you.

Chill out and lets keep on contributing to this forum and keep talking boxing without the grudges.

I dig your interest on Julio Cesar Chavez.....hey, we can agree on that!:good

[lefthook31]

Chavez was angry at both Richard Steele and Don King.

At Steele because he took two points away from Chavez for low blows......one of those point deductions came from a shot that was actually on the beltline (not a low blow)
......but his anger was directed more toward Don King, who had him fighting just about every month.

Chavez did'nt want to fight in January because it was so soon after the Holidays, and he did'nt want to be in training camp during the Christmas and newyear span.

Don King had other ideas $$$$$$
King in order to get Chavez to fight in January, convinced Chavez that Randall was a pushover (an easy defense)
Chavez knew very little about Randall, and he took King's word for it that Randall was'nt a fighter that he'd have to train full throttle for.

That was mainly what Chavez was furious for......he was actually calling for Don King when the decision was announced in favor of Randall, because it was he who had told him Randall was a pushover.
.....we all know during that time frame that Randall was certainly nobodies pushover.

I never heard Chavez once say that he thought he had won the first Randall fight, though a case can be made that it was at least a draw.




.......and whats your beef with Chavez' comportment after the first DLH fight?

Chavez calmly and intelligently fielded questions and his exact quote right after was "its not the kid's fault of course, but I dont feel like I was beat tonight. I suffered a cut during training camp a few weeks ago, and it reoponed a couple of nights ago when my kid accidentaly butted me in the same spot.

.....Chavez was'nt furious or even mad about the situation. He was just telling it like it was.
His kid actually butting him was caught on camera.
Chavez had done an interview in a spanish TV talkshow a couple of nights before the fight, and he carried his kid with him on his lap.....the kid swung his head backwards and caught Chavez right where the cut had been in training camp.
On video, Chavez was even shown with a napkin towel swiping at the cut which had been barely opened enough to cause slight leakage.

People criticized Chavez for his pre-existing cut excuse, but everything he said was backed up by video evidence.

The only person who made a real fuss after that Chavez-DLH fight was DLH......
DLH made a major stink and was furious because he wanted to hear from Chavez' mouth that he had been beaten fair and square.

"He's not man enough to admit defeat," were DLH's words.......
" I wont give him a rematch unless he admits he was beaten fair and square.":lol::lol::lol::lol:......of course, true to DLH form, he gave Chavez a rematch over two years later and a weight class heavier, when it was evident Chavez was done as an elite.:nut

There was only one person who made a stink about what transpired in the first Chavez-DLH fight, and that was DLH.


I dont see where all the hate for Chavez is because he makes excuses when he loses........99% of fighters do that.......and in the DLH fight, as I said...actual video evidence suggest everthing Chavez talked about in referring to a pre-existing cut, was legit.


Btw LH, everyone that was around back then and wants to know the truth on matter, found out that Chavez walked into his fight with DLH already cut.
Yeah, the first jab DLH threw had blood gushing from Chavez' cut.......the first jab landed for God's sake!:patsch
Your kind of making the same arguement that Chavez made. Youre right it was clear to see that cut was prexisting, but it was also really the easy way out to use it as an excuse. Cut or no cut, Chavez was too far done to handle DLH's speed at that time.
Would it really have made a difference if Chavez studied Randall? Randall hadnt really shown he was much of a danger in his previous fights, and Chavez was always a very busy fighter. Hell he took a fight a month before he fought Camacho, who would have been a known tougher fight than Randall was at the time.
Draw in the first fight is a bit stretching it really. Randall sealed the deal with that knockdown, and I still felt the scores were way to close to actually what happened in the fight. I had Randall comfortably ahead.
Chavez had a ton of fights, it was inevitable he would start slipping especially as he moved up in weight. It was clear in the second fight Randall just had his number. Had they fought earlier in Chavez's career, Randall probably wouldnt have had a chance, although he showed some really nice boxing skills. He was kind of an old timer himself at the time of those fights but still looked pretty fresh.

[anarci]

I remember everyone dismissing Randall. But i had seen him years before that before his stint in prison,when he fought a prime Rosario and lost a razor close decision. I remember me and my Dad who were both big Chavez fans,saying that Julio better not take him lightly, we were both telling people this before the fight started and everyone wasnt taking what we were saying seriously. Until the around the mid rounds when all the other Chavez fans started getting worried.

[Thread Stealer]

Chavez was a great fighter. Heavy-handed, very fluid and accurate combination puncher, good at cutting off the ring rather than simply following an opponent. His chin was excellent (abormally sized cranium) but he also slipped and rolled with shots effectively as well. People often make too much of it when a fighter has a fancy looking defense or dances and moves a lot, but one of the things about having a good defense is not sacrificing too much offense for it. Chavez was effective at not sacrificing too much of his offense to avoid shots. He'd come forward and hit his oponnent, slip the counter shots, and then attack some more.

[Thread Stealer]

cannot arguie against him being a top 10 atg though i dont think he makes my list. his quality of opposition was top notch. he destroyed fighters who really had the potential to be ATG (taylor, martinez and rosario) and a host of very good fighters s

if taylor had not met jcc, we would probably be talking about him as one of the greats today

he really was a career destroyer like few before or after him. who was ever the same after fighting him at his peak

How would Taylor's career have been that much different if he didn't fight Chavez?

Taylor still had weight problems at 140 with his stocky frame (he cited this for the reason to move up), too much of a tendency to trade, and the talent pool at 147 was deep around this time, with big strong guys who could hit. He only went back to 140 years later because he was pretty desperate for a big fight, he wasn't gonna get any elsewhere other than a rematch with JCC.

Let's say Chavez never existed. Taylor still goes to WW, wins a title against Davis. Espana is still a very difficult stylistic matchup for Taylor. Trinidad is on the rise, and so is Quartey. Heavy-handed, rangier, bigger-framed guys (especially Trinidad). Then you've also got stablemate Whitaker about to go up there to 147. They may have been friends, but money talks, and so does ego.

It's not that Taylor wasn't a terrific fighter at his best, but he'd be surrounded by others at the weight class with whom stylistically he doesn't match up well with. He'd most likely have to have been protected to stay on top as champ. And given the fact that his team put him in there with Chavez after 23 or so fights, and then to fight Norris @ 150, I'd say they were far from a "protective" team.

As often as it's said, I really don't see this "future ATG that was ruined" in Taylor, given the circumstances and guys that were around his division at that time.

[My2Sense]

Chavez doesn't get rated so highly because he beat Rosario and Camacho, it's the manner in which he did it, coupled with his impressive skill set and level of consistency.

But I'd say most genuine greats in and around that weight would've probably disposed of those two in a similar manner. Rosario's game was somewhat weak outside of his power (as his fights with Ramirez and Davis had already exposed) and Camacho was considered past his peak by that time, and would be outclassed in similar fashion against other elite fighters he faced in his career.

[My2Sense]

Obviously I was overblowing the point about his chin being his defense, but to call Chavez defense great is hilarious in my opinion. Yes he had over 100 fights, but many were against fighters who shouldnt hold his spit bucket, even as he became a name...in those fight, no his defense did not probably appear to be bad, but as he started to fight GREATS it became just that.


His defense looked very good in some fights, such as against Martinez and Rosario. However, other fights showed that a fighter bold enough to step into him could find a way to land solidly and consistently on him - ie: Castillo, Mayweather, Taylor, Whitaker, Randall. I'd say his defense was good, but somewhat vulnerable at the same time.

[leverage]

I don't like him, but I consider him to be the best mexican fighter of all-times.

[ricardinho]

What's peoples perceptions of Julio Cesar Chavez? Best Mexican fighter of all time? How do you feel about him fighting so many no hopers? How about his controversial victories?

I view Julio Cesar Chavez as one of the most efficient and impressive offensive machines ever. His ability to shoot to head and body was absolutely seamless, and I feel many people underratedJulio Cesar Chavez on ESB.

Just to say, I used to think Chavez was overrated...and made his name off beating taxi drivers. Watching him take apart Haugen, Camacho, and Rosario...made me reevaluate my stance on him though.

Opinions?

Chavez when he was coming up was not thought of as any good. He was brought in to Los Angeles to lose to then highly heralded Azabache Martinez. It was not until this fight that he was thought of as a good fighter by the world. One thing I will say is that he destroyed Roger Mayweather twice, Melderick Taylor, Edwin Rosario, Haughen, Terrance Ali and David Kamau. If you ever watch him fight you see him outwork fighters destroying them with excelelnt body head combos. I think its funny that most people who try to say he was hype are young and have no knowledge of boxing in the 80's and early 90's

[anarci]

:bbb

[Swarmer]

I like him, a lot, but his record hurts him enough to the point where I wouldn't put him in anything particularly high p4p- i really think people putting him in top ten and such is ridiculous, to be honest.

H2H he brings the ruckus though, especially LW.

[salsanchezfan]

The best fighter Mexico has ever produced, but an intemperate child whom I cannot respect as a man.

And frankly (at least to me) that means more, so fuck him.

[anarci]

I like him, a lot, but his record hurts him enough to the point where I wouldn't put him in anything particularly high p4p- i really think people putting him in top ten and such is ridiculous, to be honest.

H2H he brings the ruckus though, especially LW. Where would you have him on your all time list? Who do you rate above him in the last 40 Years? Id only put Duran,Ali,Leonard and maybe Whittaker.

[Swarmer]

Where would you have him on your all time list? Who do you rate above him in the last 40 Years? Id only put Duran,Ali,Leonard and maybe Whittaker.
honestly? somewhere near the 30's-40's. I wrote my list down on paper somewhere and I can't find the damned thing.

EDIT: Sorry, you said last 40 years. In that case, quite a few. Duran, Ali, Leonard, Tyson, Holmes, Jones Jr, Oscar De La Hoya, Pacquiao, Arguello, Hopkins, Whitaker off the top of my head.

[anarci]

honestly? somewhere near the 30's-40's. I wrote my list down on paper somewhere and I can't find the damned thing.

EDIT: Sorry, you said last 40 years. In that case, quite a few. Duran, Ali, Leonard, Tyson, Holmes, Jones Jr, Oscar De La Hoya, Pacquiao, Arguello, Hopkins, Whitaker off the top of my head. Im a huge fan of Tyson but i cant see you making a case for him.

DUran top 5
Leonard around 7
Ali around 5
Whittaker top 10:think
Pac top 15 will go higher if he beats May
Jones top 20
ODLH top 30
Arguello top 30-35
Holmes top 30
Hopkins top 30
Tyson maybe top 50.

Id put Chavez around 10 no lower than 15.