Chavez-Whitaker

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Sep 2005, 01:22

do u think chavez was in his prime when he fought whitaker???

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Sep 2005, 05:43

I think he was a little past his prime. He was early 30s and the lighter weight fighters tend to peak earlier than the bigger guys.

Was the fight Welter or Jr Welter? can't remember. I think Chavez was better at Super feather and Lightweight. he lost some power in the move to Jr Welter IMO.

Whittaker did a great job on him that night. Chavez would have had a better chance over 15 but he was beaten by Whittaker on that night.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:21

I think Chavez would always have had trouble with Whitaker but he would maybe have been too strong for Pernall at 135 where he was sharper. Chavez was at his best at 130 and 135 and started getting a little sluggish as he moved higher.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:30

Overall career wise, Chavez had seen better days, but in all honesty the guy who lost to Whitaker that night in my opinion would still have destroyed Randall, DeLaHoya, Tszyu or Gonzalez. Julio Cesar Chavez was probably more motivated for that fight than any other of his career, just watch the way he goes after Whitaker in the early rounds. That's what makes Whitaker's performance so incredible. Coming into that fight I said that Whitaker had one possible way he could beat Chavez, and that was if he was perfect for 12 rounds. Whitaker was perfect for 12 rounds ! In fact in my opinion, the Pernell Whitaker that showed up in the Alamodome that night would have beaten DeLaHoya, Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Trinidad, Napoles and any other Welterweight in history.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:30

The fight was a Welter and to be honest, both guy's were past it and both were fighting 'above their weight. They were not even close to true Welters. As for the fight, I honestly thought it was closer than most. Whitaker certainly deserved to keep his title, but he definitely didn't whip Chavez, Pernell was on the backfoot most of he fight and Julio was the guy pressing the fight.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Sep 2005, 07:49

When the fight was over i was certain Whitaker won the fight. But when i tallied up my card i was surprised to see that i had scored the fight a draw.
I watched the fight several times after that and kept getting the same score.It seems that Whitaker won the fight becasue he won his six rounds m ore impressively than chavez won his. And since neither had a 10-8 round it turned out to be a draw.
Also, the fight was at welterweight but Chavez weighed in at 142lbs., only two pounds over the jrwelter limit.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 20 Sep 2005, 08:06

Seamus wrote:Overall career wise, Chavez had seen better days, but in all honesty the guy who lost to Whitaker that night in my opinion would still have destroyed Randall, DeLaHoya, Tszyu or Gonzalez. Julio Cesar Chavez was probably more motivated for that fight than any other of his career, just watch the way he goes after Whitaker in the early rounds. That's what makes Whitaker's performance so incredible. Coming into that fight I said that Whitaker had one possible way he could beat Chavez, and that was if he was perfect for 12 rounds. Whitaker was perfect for 12 rounds ! In fact in my opinion, the Pernell Whitaker that showed up in the Alamodome that night would have beaten DeLaHoya, Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Trinidad, Napoles and any other Welterweight in history.

I completely AGREE!!!

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 20 Sep 2005, 08:10

When I scored the fight, I had Whitaker winning the fight 9 rounds to 2 with 1 even. It was a complete MASTERY!!! The best perfomance that I have ever seen in my 27 years of watching boxing due to the circumstances.

Whitaker was extricly world class!!!

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 20 Sep 2005, 08:43

I scored the bout 118-111 for Whitaker, and what amazed me more than anything else in that fight was NOT that Whitaker gave Chavez a beating, but rather that I can't ever remember a fight where one guy just plain killed his opponents arms. Whitaker made Chavez miss punches until his arms went dead. You could really see it in the late rounds, when JCC was so arm weary he just couldn't mount an attack. Ring Magazine summed it up best when they quoted judge Mickey Vann who scored the bout 115-115 as saying in his own defense "Not everyone knows how to score a fight" to which the Ring's columnist added "And Mickey Vann is proof of that".

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 20 Sep 2005, 09:43

Most of the elite Welterweights like Napoles, Robinson etc would have given this version of Chavez a horrible beating.I expect he would be knocked out by most.

The man was simply not a Welterweight and neither was Whitaker.Neither man was great at this weight.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 20 Sep 2005, 10:39

Whitaker was a south paw and southpaws should never even be allowed to fight for titles. Queer ass backward punching freaks......they ruin the sport of boxing.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Sep 2005, 10:57

Whitaker was a lovely boxer, a real pleasure to watch... anyone who cannot appreciate his skills does not truly understand that boxing is a science and can be a sweet science when perfected.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 20 Sep 2005, 12:09

Ha!!, what a laugh Silkov.....

Then the worst fight in boxing is 2 southpaws facing each other. They don't know what to do with each other.....just boring no matter who they are.

Also a real fight fan would not use the word lovely in describing a fighter's style or talents.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Sep 2005, 12:17

ringsider wrote:Ha!!, what a laugh Silkov..... Then the worst fight in boxing is 2 southpaws facing each other. They don't know what to do with each other.....just boring no matter who they are.

Also a real fight fan would not use the word lovely in describing a fighter's style or talents.

L-O-V-E-L-Y!!!!!!!...... 8)

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 20 Sep 2005, 13:19

ringsider wrote:Whitaker was a south paw and southpaws should never even be allowed to fight for titles. Queer ass backward punching freaks......they ruin the sport of boxing.

Methinks this guy protesteth too much. Such as guys who beat up queers, then discover that they are too.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 20 Sep 2005, 14:19

wlvrne wrote

Methinks.....blah, blah, blah....

Judging from what you write, I don't think you can think at all.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 20 Sep 2005, 14:25

ringsider wrote:wlvrne wrote

Methinks.....blah, blah, blah....
Judging from what you write, I don't think you can think at all.

Let's compare post-for-post and thread-to-thread. Oh wait, I really don't want to fight with an intellectual inferior. How about I grant you some handi-cap points?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Sep 2005, 18:12

wlvrne wrote:
ringsider wrote:Whitaker was a south paw and southpaws should never even be allowed to fight for titles. Queer ass backward punching freaks......they ruin the sport of boxing.
Methinks this guy protesteth too much. Such as guys who beat up queers, then discover that they are too.

Perhaps his boy friend

ran off

with a southpaw!..

:x

..

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 20 Sep 2005, 18:53

The night of the fight, watching it on tv at my birthday drunk...er, party, I had Whitaker winning by 2 or 3 points. A couple days later I spoke to a friend from Texas and he was upset that Chavez got robbed and all he would say is that I should watch the fight w/o expecting Chavez to knoick him out.
Just for the heck of it, try watchjing that fight again and with no sound. I am not going to say it will change anybody's opinion but it is often interesting to look back. Myself, it was two years before I watched the tape, and I do so every six or eight months and my scoring has changed a bit.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Sep 2005, 19:05

tiredoldngrey wrote:The night of the fight, watching it on tv at my birthday drunk...er, party, I had Whitaker winning by 2 or 3 points. A couple days later I spoke to a friend from Texas and he was upset that Chavez got robbed and all he would say is that I should watch the fight w/o expecting Chavez to knoick him out.
Just for the heck of it, try watchjing that fight again and with no sound. I am not going to say it will change anybody's opinion but it is often interesting to look back. Myself, it was two years before I watched the tape, and I do so every six or eight months and my scoring has changed a bit.

I havent watched it for a while but remember thinking that Whitaker boxed Julios ears off really. Aggression is no good if all your hittling is air. Pernalls defensive moves and overall boxing were a thing to see that night.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 20 Sep 2005, 21:48

Chavez had many fights up to that point and endured a long career. He was also fighting way above his most effective wieght class. I think it's fair to say that Chavez was on the slide.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 21 Sep 2005, 02:17

Seamus, to try to say that the Whitaker that faced Chavez would have beat Ray Leonard is absolutely absurd. Pernell never was a real Welter, not close. Leonard would have bulled him in 3-4 rds, as would any true Welter in history...Whitaker is beautiful to watch, but let's be honest. Julio great as he was, he was easy to outbox and easy to hit. Once a fighter had speed, stamina and movement...Chavez had trouble

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 21 Sep 2005, 12:46

At 130 or 135 or 140 and 147 DLH would have outboxed Chavez in their respective primes.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 21 Sep 2005, 14:20

Well I see wlvrne has been smoking crack with vman.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 21 Sep 2005, 16:11

Yeah I have. Ya want some?
Ringsider thinks smoking crack is lighting his ass hairs on fire.

Chavez-Whitaker

Chavez-Whitaker

whitaker

posts

Re: whitaker

Chavez

dlh