Chavez vs Taylor I...25 Years Later it is Still a Classic

[Ambling Alp II]

I love ken but i think his record would fall short of benvenuti's in terms of longevity. In terms of their best victories i don't know enough about benvenuti's to comment, really, but again buchanan's roster looks a bit thin maybe? Tho the Laguna wins were strong and the narrowish one over Watt that was somewhat disparaged, i believe, at the time, obviously got better in retrospect.

Buchanan's resume is thin when compared to Benvenuti's.
His best win was over Laguna. Laguna was a good, but certainly not a great fighter. And he barely beat him.
Benvenuti beat Griffith twice. Griffith was one of the Top 50 fighters of all time. He was a much better fighter than Laguna.
Benvenuti won the junior middleweight title as well.

Benvenuti was a great fighter.
There is no real case to consider Buchanan one. Duran fans just want to prop him up.

[Counter-puncher]

Buchanan very clearly beat laguna the second time, mate.

[Counter-puncher]

Genuine question all, wasn't that quite an old Griffith that nino beat? And unless my memory fails me he also lost to him?

[Ambling Alp II]

Benvenuti won the first and third fights, Griffith won the 2nd. Griffith was 29 for the first two fights, and 30 for the 3rd.

[elmersalsa]

I love ken but i think his record would fall short of benvenuti's in terms of longevity. In terms of their best victories i don't know enough about benvenuti's to comment, really, but again buchanan's roster looks a bit thin maybe? Tho the Laguna wins were strong and the narrowish one over Watt that was somewhat disparaged, i believe, at the time, obviously got better in retrospect.

Buchanan's resume is thin when compared to Benvenuti's.
His best win was over Laguna. Laguna was a good, but certainly not a great fighter. And he barely beat him.
Benvenuti beat Griffith twice. Griffith was one of the Top 50 fighters of all time. He was a much better fighter than Laguna.
Benvenuti won the junior middleweight title as well.

Benvenuti was a great fighter.
There is no real case to consider Buchanan one. Duran fans just want to prop him up.

Nino Benvenutti was not a great fighter, either. He does not make my top 100 p4p alltime greats list. I agree that he was more accomplished than Ken Buchanan, but not by far like you think. Buchanan and Benvenutti make their respective weight classes top 20. None of the two are all time greats, but, they belong in the hall of fame.

[Counter-puncher]

Benvenuti won the first and third fights, Griffith won the 2nd. Griffith was 29 for the first two fights, and 30 for the 3rd.

gotcha, thanks.

[Seamus]

If not for the horrendous decision loss to Ki Soo Kim, Benvenuti would have started his career at 73-0 ! He also scored an amazing one punch knockout over alltime great Luis Manuel Rodriguez.

[Ambling Alp II]

Good points Seamus.
And he beat a very underrated fighter in Sandro Mazzinghi, twice. One by knockout, which was the only time he was ever stopped. Mazzinghi only had one other loss in a long career and he beat some good competition. He should be in the Hall of Fame himself.

Benvenuti was clearly a great fighter; easily in the Top 100.
Buchanan clearly was not. Not even close to being in the Top 100.

If someone are going to say Buchanan was close or even better than Benvenuti, they should come up with some evidence. So far there has been nothing. Where are the big wins for Buchanan?

[elmersalsa]

Good points Seamus.
And he beat a very underrated fighter in Sandro Mazzinghi, twice. One by knockout, which was the only time he was ever stopped. Mazzinghi only had one other loss in a long career and he beat some good competition. He should be in the Hall of Fame himself.

Benvenuti was clearly a great fighter; easily in the Top 100.
Buchanan clearly was not. Not even close to being in the Top 100.

If someone are going to say Buchanan was close or even better than Benvenuti, they should come up with some evidence. So far there has been nothing. Where are the big wins for Buchanan?

I have never said that Ken Buchanan was more accomplished than Nino Benvenutti. But, I got to say that Buchanan had better skills. At least, let's give him that. Benvenutti is not far away from Ken. None of the two makes the top 100 all time greats p4p if someone asks me.

But, I agree that both of them are HOF.
I agree that both of them make their top 20 in their respective weight classes.

I agree that both of them are top 20 best fighters that ever come out of Europe.

[Ambling Alp II]

You said that Benvenuti was probably a little better. someone else went further and said Buchanan was better. This is where I disagree. Buchanan was good, but Benvenuti was great and was clearly better. Not light years, but clearly better.
I disagree that Buchanan had better skills. I thought Benvenuti had better skills as well as more power.
Have posted a Top 100 List and had Benvenuti in there. Don't recall any disagreement from anyone.
I disagree that Buchanan was one of the Top 20 lightweights. I don't have him in the Top 30 and listed who I thought was better.


Some of us have show why we think Benvenuti was a great fighter and clearly superior.
For people saying Buchanan was as good they say, make your case. Still have seen no case for him. Nobody is saying why he was so good. Where are the big wins?

[elmersalsa]

You said that Benvenuti was probably a little better. someone else went further and said Buchanan was better. This is where I disagree. Buchanan was good, but Benvenuti was great and was clearly better. Not light years, but clearly better.
I disagree that Buchanan had better skills. I thought Benvenuti had better skills as well as more power.
Have posted a Top 100 List and had Benvenuti in there. Don't recall any disagreement from anyone.
I disagree that Buchanan was one of the Top 20 lightweights. I don't have him in the Top 30 and listed who I thought was better.


Some of us have show why we think Benvenuti was a great fighter and clearly superior.
For people saying Buchanan was as good they say, make your case. Still have seen no case for him. Nobody is saying why he was so good. Where are the big wins?

Benvenutti could NEVER BE A TOP 100 great all time fighter. There are plenty of fighters that belong in the top 100 ahead of him, and I do not consider them top 100 either. Examples: Harry Wills, Fidel LaBarba, Nicolino Locche, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, James Toney, Erik Morales, Jack Delaney, Young Corbett III, etc.


If we compare somebody like your boy Sugar Ray Leonard vs Benvenutti or Buchanan, then, then, that IS NOT CLOSE....THAT IS MILES AHEAD!

But to say that Benvenutti was WAY BETTER? That is an ABERRATION.

Ken Buchanan was an EXCELLENT BOXER. AN EXCELLENT FIGHTER. He was better suited technically than Benvenutti. Benvenutti all he had was that left hook in terms of skill. He cannot fight well in the inside and was FLATFOOTED. Buchanan had one of the best jabs I have ever seen in a boxer. Fast, accurate jab. He had movement and could glide around the ring like any master boxer. He could take a shot, something proven that he was only stopped once in more than 70 bouts. And that stoppage was controversial. Some say was a low blow, some say it was on the belt line. Whatever, he lost to the greatest fighter of the last 50 years in my book. NO SHAME IN THAT.

Buchanan got credentials, too. As I said before, TO ME, HE IS A TOP 20 LIGHTWEIGHT BY ANYONE STANDARDS. He was lightweight champion of Scotland, Great Britain, Europe and the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD!.... That is some accomplishments by any fighter. He went unbeaten in first 33 bouts, and by the time he fought the great Roberto Duran, he was 43-1...How about that?

He travelled to San Juan, Puerto Rico and took a complete hall of fame champion, the Panamanian Ismael Laguna, who also is a top 20 lightweight ever. He beat Laguna twice. I may say that probably Laguna won one of those two fights according to some folks. He also beat Carlos "Morocho" Hernandez, Jim Watt, Maurice Cullen, Antonio Puddu, Ruben Navarro, and a WASHED UP great Carlos Ortiz.

Buchanan was a great lightweight. Not an all time pound per pound great.
Benvenutti was a great middleweight and jr. middleweight. Not an all time pound per pound great, either.

[Ambling Alp II]

Absolute nonsense that Benvenuti could not fight on the inside. He could body punch, and he had a good left hook. He had good footspeed, and fast hands. Unlike Buchanan, he also had some power.

No Benvenuti was not as good as Leonard, but he was better than Buchanan.
Scottish champion? English champion? Wish you would stop bring up these mild titles. They mean nothing when comparing great fighters.
Buchanan's started out 33-0; 32 of the wins were against unranked opponents. Again, big friggin deal.

Benvenuti beat better competition. The best fighter he was was miles better than the best Buchanan beat. His 2nd best win was miles better than Buchanan's 2nd best win. He beat many more ranked contenders than Buchanan.

Perhaps you remember when I post my Top 100 Fighters of All Time List a little over a year ago. I named names. There were dozens of really good fighters that I had to keep out.
Of course everyone has their own opinions and many people put their two cents in.
I had 10 levels with 10 fighter in each level. I had Benvenuti in the 8th level; which means he was one of the Top 80 fighters of alltime. Not one person disagreed with it. That includes you elmer. You made other comments, but never said anything about Benvenuti.
You did say that I should have had Griffith higher; you said that he was borderline Top 20 fighter of alltime. Guess what, Benvenuti beat Griffith twice in title fights, in Griffith's home away from home in New York both times.

[Seamus]

Got a link to your Top 100 of alltime Alp ? Always like looking at those.

[Ambling Alp II]

Can't get the link to work. I will bump it. Look for it on BOTP.

[elmersalsa]

Absolute nonsense that Benvenuti could not fight on the inside. He could body punch, and he had a good left hook. He had good footspeed, and fast hands. Unlike Buchanan, he also had some power.

No Benvenuti was not as good as Leonard, but he was better than Buchanan.
Scottish champion? English champion? Wish you would stop bring up these mild titles. They mean nothing when comparing great fighters.
Buchanan's started out 33-0; 32 of the wins were against unranked opponents. Again, big friggin deal.

Benvenuti beat better competition. The best fighter he was was miles better than the best Buchanan beat. His 2nd best win was miles better than Buchanan's 2nd best win. He beat many more ranked contenders than Buchanan.

Perhaps you remember when I post my Top 100 Fighters of All Time List a little over a year ago. I named names. There were dozens of really good fighters that I had to keep out.
Of course everyone has their own opinions and many people put their two cents in.
I had 10 levels with 10 fighter in each level. I had Benvenuti in the 8th level; which means he was one of the Top 80 fighters of alltime. Not one person disagreed with it. That includes you elmer. You made other comments, but never said anything about Benvenuti.
You did say that I should have had Griffith higher; you said that he was borderline Top 20 fighter of alltime. Guess what, Benvenuti beat Griffith twice in title fights, in Griffith's home away from home in New York both times.

Nino Benvenutti does not belong in the top 100. Anybody that could see that he beat a welter champ for the middleweight crown. But when he fought natural good middleweights, like the great Dick Tiger and later the great Carlos Monzon, it tells me he was not that great.

Griffith was past his best, and still beat him in the second fight.

The facts are that neither Nino nor Ken Buchanan were top 100 material. Nino had to do more in order to be a true all time great p4p.

Winning titles in your country, the continent and the world shows that you was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION. Both of them did that. That is why they are the top 20 best in their respective weight classes. We got to put that into consideration.

[meahdem]

watched gomez v pintor today, what a fight not seen it for yonks round 3 and 12 WOW it's all i can say.

[Ambling Alp II]

Absolute nonsense that Benvenuti could not fight on the inside. He could body punch, and he had a good left hook. He had good footspeed, and fast hands. Unlike Buchanan, he also had some power.

No Benvenuti was not as good as Leonard, but he was better than Buchanan.
Scottish champion? English champion? Wish you would stop bring up these mild titles. They mean nothing when comparing great fighters.
Buchanan's started out 33-0; 32 of the wins were against unranked opponents. Again, big friggin deal.

Benvenuti beat better competition. The best fighter he was was miles better than the best Buchanan beat. His 2nd best win was miles better than Buchanan's 2nd best win. He beat many more ranked contenders than Buchanan.

Perhaps you remember when I post my Top 100 Fighters of All Time List a little over a year ago. I named names. There were dozens of really good fighters that I had to keep out.
Of course everyone has their own opinions and many people put their two cents in.
I had 10 levels with 10 fighter in each level. I had Benvenuti in the 8th level; which means he was one of the Top 80 fighters of alltime. Not one person disagreed with it. That includes you elmer. You made other comments, but never said anything about Benvenuti.
You did say that I should have had Griffith higher; you said that he was borderline Top 20 fighter of alltime. Guess what, Benvenuti beat Griffith twice in title fights, in Griffith's home away from home in New York both times.

Nino Benvenutti does not belong in the top 100. Anybody that could see that he beat a welter champ for the middleweight crown. But when he fought natural good middleweights, like the great Dick Tiger and later the great Carlos Monzon, it tells me he was not that great.

Griffith was past his best, and still beat him in the second fight.

The facts are that neither Nino nor Ken Buchanan were top 100 material. Nino had to do more in order to be a true all time great p4p.

Winning titles in your country, the continent and the world shows that you was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION. Both of them did that. That is why they are the top 20 best in their respective weight classes. We got to put that into consideration.

Buchanan was not one of the Top 20 lightweights. We already named more than 30 who were better. Winning the friggin Scottish title doesn't mean jack when you are comparing great fighters. Are you going to put everyone who was a Scottish champion in the Top 20? Of course not. As usual you randomly pick and choose random minor titles to boost your guy.

Griffith was a great middleweight. He beat Tiger twice. He almost beat Monzon.
Griffith was past it? Total BS. He was 29 in their first fight. He is two months older than Benvenuti. He had good performances after fighting Benvenuti.
Yes Benvenuti lost to Tiger, no shame in that. He didn't get blown out or anything.
If you want to talk about being past it, you certainly can argue that Benvenuti was past it when he fought Monzon.

[elmersalsa]

Absolute nonsense that Benvenuti could not fight on the inside. He could body punch, and he had a good left hook. He had good footspeed, and fast hands. Unlike Buchanan, he also had some power.

No Benvenuti was not as good as Leonard, but he was better than Buchanan.
Scottish champion? English champion? Wish you would stop bring up these mild titles. They mean nothing when comparing great fighters.
Buchanan's started out 33-0; 32 of the wins were against unranked opponents. Again, big friggin deal.

Benvenuti beat better competition. The best fighter he was was miles better than the best Buchanan beat. His 2nd best win was miles better than Buchanan's 2nd best win. He beat many more ranked contenders than Buchanan.

Perhaps you remember when I post my Top 100 Fighters of All Time List a little over a year ago. I named names. There were dozens of really good fighters that I had to keep out.
Of course everyone has their own opinions and many people put their two cents in.
I had 10 levels with 10 fighter in each level. I had Benvenuti in the 8th level; which means he was one of the Top 80 fighters of alltime. Not one person disagreed with it. That includes you elmer. You made other comments, but never said anything about Benvenuti.
You did say that I should have had Griffith higher; you said that he was borderline Top 20 fighter of alltime. Guess what, Benvenuti beat Griffith twice in title fights, in Griffith's home away from home in New York both times.

Nino Benvenutti does not belong in the top 100. Anybody that could see that he beat a welter champ for the middleweight crown. But when he fought natural good middleweights, like the great Dick Tiger and later the great Carlos Monzon, it tells me he was not that great.

Griffith was past his best, and still beat him in the second fight.

The facts are that neither Nino nor Ken Buchanan were top 100 material. Nino had to do more in order to be a true all time great p4p.

Winning titles in your country, the continent and the world shows that you was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION. Both of them did that. That is why they are the top 20 best in their respective weight classes. We got to put that into consideration.

Buchanan was not one of the Top 20 lightweights. We already named more than 30 who were better. Winning the friggin Scottish title doesn't mean jack when you are comparing great fighters. Are you going to put everyone who was a Scottish champion in the Top 20? Of course not. As usual you randomly pick and choose random minor titles to boost your guy.

Griffith was a great middleweight. He beat Tiger twice. He almost beat Monzon.
Griffith was past it? Total BS. He was 29 in their first fight. He is two months older than Benvenuti. He had good performances after fighting Benvenuti.
Yes Benvenuti lost to Tiger, no shame in that. He didn't get blown out or anything.
If you want to talk about being past it, you certainly can argue that Benvenuti was past it when he fought Monzon.

No, Benvenutti like Buchanan, were not up to par in fights that did not mattered. But when everything was on the line, they were at their very best. Benvenutti had to beat a past prime great welter like Emile Griffith to win the title. I wonder if the champion was Gene Fullmer or the great Dick Tiger, would he win the title? Maybe not.

Buchanan was a better fighter in terms of skill. He also could fight better than Benvenutti on the inside. What a fantastic fighter Ken Buchanan was. I am not boosting anybody. THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS.

The great Emile Griffith was a better welterweight than middleweight. He was not a natural middleweight. Buchanan beat a complete lightweight champion to win the title. That is a better win to me.

I recognized that Nino was the better fighter, but not by far.

[Ambling Alp II]

And again Griffith was not past his time. There is nothing to support this. And again he was not just a great welterweight, he was a great middleweight when he was fighting Bevenuti.

Griffith was still good enough to beat Tiger 3 years after the first Benvenuti fight. His first fight against Benvenuti was 6 years before the time years that he almost beat Monzon.

Doesn't matter if you don't think Griffith was a natural middleweight. What matters is that he was a great middleweight. Benvenuti beat a great middleweight twice. Get that through your head.

[elmersalsa]

And again Griffith was not past his time. There is nothing to support this. And again he was not just a great welterweight, he was a great middleweight when he was fighting Bevenuti.

Griffith was still good enough to beat Tiger 3 years after the first Benvenuti fight. His first fight against Benvenuti was 6 years before the time years that he almost beat Monzon.

Doesn't matter if you don't think Griffith was a natural middleweight. What matters is that he was a great middleweight. Benvenuti beat a great middleweight twice. Get that through your head.

The great Emile Griffith lost more fights at middleweight than at welterweight. And it is because he could not dominate the bigger guys like he did at welter. The body strength was not the same, plus, he was at the point of being out of prime by the age of 29. Many fighters by that age start to slip, and Griffith was not an exception.

Yes, he beat the great Dick Tiger twice. The first fight was controversial. The second one? Tiger was already past his prime and suffering from the disease that killed him a year later.

Griffith was a better welter than middleweight. The record shows. He also got knocked out cold by Ruben "Hurricane" Carter in one round, remember?

[Ambling Alp II]

Well of course he had more losses at middleweight. He fought regularly until he was 39. All of those fight when he was way past it were at middleweight. Many of his best wins and performances were at middleweight.
However, he was not way past it when he fought Benvenuti. Not by a long shot.

For once, focus on what is important.
How good of a middleweight was Griffith when he fought Benvenuti?
He was just 29; he was just two months older than Benvenuti. Benvenuti actually had more fights than Griffith m when they fought. You can just as easily argue that Benvenuti was past it when they fought.

Griffith had just beaten Tiger a year earlier. Call it controversial, it was close. Every close fight in boxing is called controversial by someone. It would take a great fighter to put up that kind of performance against Tiger.

Griffith was 35 when he almost beat Monzon. He had to be a great fighter to do that. He can't be past it at 29 and give Monzon that much trouble at 35.

Doesn't matter how good of welterweight you think Griffith was. Doesn't matter if you don't think Griffith was a natural welterweight. What matters is that Griffith proved he was at least for several years a great middleweight.

Benvenuti didn't just do it once, he did it twice. He did it when it mattered the most, in title fights. He did it in New York where Griffith was a fan favorite.

Again, focus on what is important. Use logic. Use commonsense.

[elmersalsa]

Well of course he had more losses at middleweight. He fought regularly until he was 39. All of those fight when he was way past it were at middleweight. Many of his best wins and performances were at middleweight.
However, he was not way past it when he fought Benvenuti. Not by a long shot.

For once, focus on what is important.
How good of a middleweight was Griffith when he fought Benvenuti?
He was just 29; he was just two months older than Benvenuti. Benvenuti actually had more fights than Griffith m when they fought. You can just as easily argue that Benvenuti was past it when they fought.

Griffith had just beaten Tiger a year earlier. Call it controversial, it was close. Every close fight in boxing is called controversial by someone. It would take a great fighter to put up that kind of performance against Tiger.

Griffith was 35 when he almost beat Monzon. He had to be a great fighter to do that. He can't be past it at 29 and give Monzon that much trouble at 35.

Doesn't matter how good of welterweight you think Griffith was. Doesn't matter if you don't think Griffith was a natural welterweight. What matters is that Griffith proved he was at least for several years a great middleweight.

Benvenuti didn't just do it once, he did it twice. He did it when it mattered the most, in title fights. He did it in New York where Griffith was a fan favorite.

Again, focus on what is important. Use logic. Use commonsense.

Griffith does not make the top 10 middleweights. He was a better welterweight than middleweight. He could not use his body strenght agaisnt the middleweights because he was too small for them. Even by 30 years of age, he had more middleweight losses than welter losses. At welter, he was stronger and could bully his opponents with his upper body. Something that it was difficult for him to do at middleweight.

That is the question. Would Nino Benvenutti won the middleweight title against a top notch NATURAL MIDDLEWEIGHT? He prove the other side, losing to the greats Dick Tiger and Carlos Monzon. I imagine if he could have done the trick against Gene Fullmer or Joey Giardello? I think not, because Nino was not that strong of a middleweight fighter.

Nino's win over Griffith was an important win for him. He reinvindicated his loss to Kim Ki Soo, a fight that he got upset.

Nino Benvenutti WAS NOT A GREAT FIGHTER. He was a superstar in Italy. He won the gold medal. He was very good, but not great.

[Ambling Alp II]

No, he wasn't top 10 middleweight; however he's not that far out of it. Anyone that can beat Tiger and almost beat Monzon would have a serious chance against any middleweight.
He was too small at middleweight? Well he beat Tiger. How could Tiger have lost to a guy who wasn't a natural middleweight? With your logic (or lack thereof) 2Tiger must not have been very good.
He almost beat Monzon at the age of 35. With your logic, Monzon must not have been very good. After all, he almost lost to an old welterweight.

Soo? Benvenuti gets that decision and he would have started his career 73-0. You are always going on about streaks. That would mean by your logic that Benvenuti was a great fighter.

Do I think he would have beaten Giardello or Fullmer? Maybe. Could go either way. Easy to say he would have lost to them when they never fought. Just as easy for me to say he would beat them.
Benvenuti beat other middleweight contenders.

Love how Grffith was old at 29. Yes you rip Benvenuti for losing to Monzon. Benvenuti was 33 for their 2nd fight.

If you don't understand this by now, you probably won't ever. I'm moving on. Happy Easter.

[elmersalsa]

No, he wasn't top 10 middleweight; however he's not that far out of it. Anyone that can beat Tiger and almost beat Monzon would have a serious chance against any middleweight.
He was too small at middleweight? Well he beat Tiger. How could Tiger have lost to a guy who wasn't a natural middleweight? With your logic (or lack thereof) 2Tiger must not have been very good.
He almost beat Monzon at the age of 35. With your logic, Monzon must not have been very good. After all, he almost lost to an old welterweight.

Soo? Benvenuti gets that decision and he would have started his career 73-0. You are always going on about streaks. That would mean by your logic that Benvenuti was a great fighter.

Do I think he would have beaten Giardello or Fullmer? Maybe. Could go either way. Easy to say he would have lost to them when they never fought. Just as easy for me to say he would beat them.
Benvenuti beat other middleweight contenders.

Love how Grffith was old at 29. Yes you rip Benvenuti for losing to Monzon. Benvenuti was 33 for their 2nd fight.

If you don't understand this by now, you probably won't ever. I'm moving on. Happy Easter.

First of all, I am a Hebrew Israelite. I do not celebrate Easter.

Second of all, we both agreed that Benvenutti nor Ken Buchanan were not great fighters. To be in the top 100 greats p4p, YOU GOT TO BE EXCEPTIONAL. Nino nor Ken were not in that level, although the
y were very good digress.

It is proven that Benvenutti, could not beat a real middleweight. The great Carlos Monzon and the great Dick Tiger proved it. He had to beat a small middleweight that was not a real middleweight, really. Name me a top notch middleweight that Nino beat? Don Fullmer? Please.

Let's leave it like these:
Ken Buchanan nor Nino Benvenutti do not make the top 100 greats p4p.
Both of them are top 20 in their respective weight classes. You could say that Benvenutti was top 20 at jr. middleweight, also.
Both lost to the best fighters ever in their respective weight classes. No shame in that.
Both of them are HOF.
Both of them were champions in all levels of competition: Country, continent and the whole entire world.
Both of them are top 20 of Europe.
Both of them are top 3 best of their countries.
Buchanan had more longevity. Benvenutti had more titles and accomplishments if you want to include the gold medal.
Buchanan had better boxing skills and better chin. He could fight better inside than Nino. Nino had a better left hook.

[davbai]

I always think when I watch the last round whether something was a bit fishy about such a late stoppage .if you watch it normal speed its seems a very fast stoppage but when they show it in slow motion it looks totally diferent. Richard Steele is very close up to Taylor and is clearly saying every number lo loudly and clearly with his fingers also showing the count right in front of taylors face .But taylor is looking to his right probably at a screaming Lou Duva totally distracting him because when Steele reaches 8 clearly says `you ok' and looks closely at Taylor.He says it again but just `OK' then shakes his head and waves it off.That immediately catches taylors attention as he turns his gaze to Steele and says `what'.Steele later says he wasn't going to let taylor take another punch.But I doubt Chavez would have got across from the neutral corner and got one off anyway. Anyway my friend and I were big JC fans and would never believe that any thing was dodgy about the finish but our mate always said it was a fix and steele must have seen the red light flashing behind taylors head.I became less biased later but my friend didn't.He even scored the Whitaker fight a draw.Ijust thought i'd like to give my point of view that the film watched normal speed and I think `hold up that looks dodgy 2sec onds on the clock' but when viewed in slow it seems different and you see everything and Steele is concentrating on taylor But I think Lou Duva has to take some of the blame because he clearly distracts taylors attention while Steele is counting.This will be argued about for years and I think that if it wasn't stopped and Taylor gets the points win .Chavez would have won a rematch by ko because he put some damage on taylor that he had never had before and I think it was the type of damage that is long term .Taylor would not have been the same in a rematch as the damage physically and especially mentally had already been done,Idon't know whether he could have done it again regardless of whether Taylor would have won on points or not. DAVE B.