how good was.....

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:14

the version of JCC that De La Hoya beat in their first fight?
was he way past it, or still elite level?
how old was he?

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:18

From what I remember of this fight, is that he looked so out classed.

I suppose for Latino fight fans this was like watching Comancho best Leonard.

Kym

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:37

After Chavez was given a draw against Whitaker,his career went downhill fast. When Chavez fought Oscar,Oscar was undefeated and very sharp. Oscar lost a lot of his confidence(and his machismo)after the Trinidad fight.

To match both these boys in their prime,I'd go with Oscar. Oscar knew what the importance was of fighting another Mexican fighter(even though in Mexico they consider Oscar an American). I don't think he'd stop Chavez,but he'd work his jab and follow up with combinations. It would be a fantastic fight. I know a lot of Mexicans who really wanted Oscar to lose all his fights after beating Chavez.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:37

They fought twice, the first time in 1996. Chavez was thirty-four at this stage & had been around the block many times. With over fifteen years & nearly a hundred fights under his belt, Chavez was plainly past his prime, but if the question is simply, "How good was he?" then IMO he was a pretty damn solid win for De La Hoya. Only two years earlier he stopped Meldrick Taylor in eight convincing rounds. A year prior to that, he was involved in one of the biggest fights of the decade against Pernell Whitaker. No one was saying he was shot then (though Whitaker made him look a fool). While that huge number of fights took it's toll on Chavez, the effect was nowhere near as bad as you may think. After all, he fought the war of the decade against Taylor in 1990, at a time when he had nearly twice as many fights behind him as his opponent did --- & not only did he win, but he was the fighter to go on while Taylor had his heart taken, so Chavez was not particularly prone to conventional, "wear & tear" though it did eventually tell on him.

Put it this way --- if you had a fighter who was young, & the equivalent of a 1996 Chavez in what he could do in the ring, this would be looked at as a very good win for De La Hoya.

It's a B+ victory rightly tarnished by Chavez's age, but not worth discarding altogether. De La Hoya did win without breaking a sweat, after all.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 27 Dec 2007, 08:35

Goodnight, Irene wrote:They fought twice, the first time in 1996. Chavez was thirty-four at this stage & had been around the block many times. With over fifteen years & nearly a hundred fights under his belt, Chavez was plainly past his prime, but if the question is simply, "How good was he?" then IMO he was a pretty damn solid win for De La Hoya. Only two years earlier he stopped Meldrick Taylor in eight convincing rounds. A year prior to that, he was involved in one of the biggest fights of the decade against Pernell Whitaker. No one was saying he was shot then (though Whitaker made him look a fool). While that huge number of fights took it's toll on Chavez, the effect was nowhere near as bad as you may think. After all, he fought the war of the decade against Taylor in 1990, at a time when he had nearly twice as many fights behind him as his opponent did --- & not only did he win, but he was the fighter to go on while Taylor had his heart taken, so Chavez was not particularly prone to conventional, "wear & tear" though it did eventually tell on him.

Put it this way --- if you had a fighter who was young, & the equivalent of a 1996 Chavez in what he could do in the ring, this would be looked at as a very good win for De La Hoya.

It's a B+ victory rightly tarnished by Chavez's age, but not worth discarding altogether. De La Hoya did win without breaking a sweat, after all.

And Chavez was much more competitive in the rematch, proving he was still world class, if not elite class anymore.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 27 Dec 2007, 09:54

IMO Chavez peaked in the late 80s when he was the best fighter in the world. I think he'd have taken the younger Whittaker around then.

By the time he fought DLH he was too far above his weight class and was too worn out to be able to beat Oscar.

It's still a good win for DLH but Chavez was more solid contender by then than P4P great.

banjo · Post by **banjo** » 27 Dec 2007, 11:37

his peak was definitely in the mid to late 80's. he was on his way down in the first taylor fight, however i think whitaker would have beaten chavez at anytime in his career

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 27 Dec 2007, 16:47

He was still better than the version of Gatti that Floyd fought.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 27 Dec 2007, 20:30

banjo wrote:his peak was definitely in the mid to late 80's. he was on his way down in the first taylor fight, however i think whitaker would have beaten chavez at anytime in his career

Agreed. Whitaker just had his number. Whitaker had everyone's number. To my mind, the best Lightweight of all-time.