Carmen Basilio's Record.....
Trainer: Angelo Dundee, Al Silvani
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=8997
W 56 (27 ko's) | L 16 | D 7 | Total 79
Julio Cesar Chavez' Record
Trainer: Rómulo Quirarte
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=8119
W 108 (87 ko's) | L 6 | D 2 | Total 116
*Both are as tough as granite.
*Who takes the first step back?
*Would 12 or 15 rounds make any difference in the outcome?
Julio Cesar Chavez VS Carmen Basilio
-
generic screen name
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 631
- Joined: 11 Feb 2006, 16:28
hey silkov, when I do some of these theoreticals I often use the boxrec "all time" ratings to try to "moderate" my thoughts on what the most effective fighting weights for some fighters is considered to be. I might agree with you on Chavez and yet that is where he ends up in the all time ratings listing. I assume perhaps errantly that if thats where they are rated then there might be concensus on the matter.
Leave it to you to point out the flaw in the system. And it did go against my gut feeling in terms of effective weights in this case, but I deferred to the system.
So....if you could pull Chavez from that division where do you think he should be. And remember Basilio moved up to middle to challenge Ray, so turnabout would be fair play for Chavez to attempt the overachieving dream as well.
Leave it to you to point out the flaw in the system. And it did go against my gut feeling in terms of effective weights in this case, but I deferred to the system.
So....if you could pull Chavez from that division where do you think he should be. And remember Basilio moved up to middle to challenge Ray, so turnabout would be fair play for Chavez to attempt the overachieving dream as well.
For me Chavez was at his best at 130-135.... he struggled a bit at 140 and was never convincing for me at 147... still tough yeh, but too slow and ineffective. Basilo was at his best at 147 though he was still very tough at 160... he is probably underrated at both weights imo...BoxBuzz wrote:hey silkov, when I do some of these theoreticals I often use the boxrec "all time" ratings to try to "moderate" my thoughts on what the most effective fighting weights for some fighters is considered to be. I might agree with you on Chavez and yet that is where he ends up in the all time ratings listing. I assume perhaps errantly that if thats where they are rated then there might be concensus on the matter.
Leave it to you to point out the flaw in the system. And it did go against my gut feeling in terms of effective weights in this case, but I deferred to the system.
So....if you could pull Chavez from that division where do you think he should be. And remember Basilio moved up to middle to challenge Ray, so turnabout would be fair play for Chavez to attempt the overachieving dream as well.
8) 
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15654
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
People like to picture Basilio as "a man that caught everything you threw at him, it will connect". THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE
When I saw his fights with Robinson, Saxton II and DeMarco II, I saw that he sometimes was hard to cleanly hit. He could bob and weave in a crouch, which was hard for a tall fighter like Robinson to reach him sometimes. He was very clever in there and he had the heart of a lion. Nothing scared him.
Basilio also, if you guys can see his fights, had a SNEAKY right hand. Well timed at the time he threw it.
At 147, I do not see many great fighters beating Basilio. Probably Leonard, Hearns or Griffith could beat him, but not many welterweights.
Basilio by decision in a war. Chavez was not good at this weight...TOO SLOW.
When I saw his fights with Robinson, Saxton II and DeMarco II, I saw that he sometimes was hard to cleanly hit. He could bob and weave in a crouch, which was hard for a tall fighter like Robinson to reach him sometimes. He was very clever in there and he had the heart of a lion. Nothing scared him.
Basilio also, if you guys can see his fights, had a SNEAKY right hand. Well timed at the time he threw it.
At 147, I do not see many great fighters beating Basilio. Probably Leonard, Hearns or Griffith could beat him, but not many welterweights.
Basilio by decision in a war. Chavez was not good at this weight...TOO SLOW.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Very true, Basilo was by no means a 'punch bag' ...he was a pretty cute slugger... much better boxer than is usually thought... he did also have one of the best chins I've seen. I actually think Basilo could have worn down Hearns... can't see Tommy last 15 with Carmen.... though his speed may have carried him through, it would have been a very close fight with Tommy ahead on points but Carmen coming very strong in the late rounds and probably winning on a late stoppage or ko...elmersalsa wrote:People like to picture Basilio as "a man that caught everything you threw at him, it will connect". THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE
When I saw his fights with Robinson, Saxton II and DeMarco II, I saw that he sometimes was hard to cleanly hit. He could bob and weave in a crouch, which was hard for a tall fighter like Robinson to reach him sometimes. He was very clever in there and he had the heart of a lion. Nothing scared him.
Basilio also, if you guys can see his fights, had a SNEAKY right hand. Well timed at the time he threw it.
At 147, I do not see many great fighters beating Basilio. Probably Leonard, Hearns or Griffith could beat him, but not many welterweights.
Basilio by decision in a war. Chavez was not good at this weight...TOO SLOW.
Basillio was a tough customer and a deserved hall of famer but has become somewhat overrated. Basillio was very capable of being outboxed and was several times. None of the fighters who managed to outbox him were as good technically as Hearns or punched anywhere near as hard.can't see Tommy last 15 with Carmen.... though his speed may have carried him through, it would have been a very close fight with Tommy ahead on points but Carmen coming very strong in the late rounds and probably winning on a late stoppage or ko...
Tommy would outbox Carmen and keep him honest with that devastating right hand all night. Hearns UD 15.
I have several Basilo fights and wouldnt say he was overrated at all... he gave both Gavilan and Robinson hell and I'd rate both of them over Hearns... Hearns would probably do better against Basilo at 147 but at 160 Basilo would be too strong and durable for Hearns for sure...theone wrote:Basillio was a tough customer and a deserved hall of famer but has become somewhat overrated. Basillio was very capable of being outboxed and was several times. None of the fighters who managed to outbox him were as good technically as Hearns or punched anywhere near as hard.can't see Tommy last 15 with Carmen.... though his speed may have carried him through, it would have been a very close fight with Tommy ahead on points but Carmen coming very strong in the late rounds and probably winning on a late stoppage or ko...
Tommy would outbox Carmen and keep him honest with that devastating right hand all night. Hearns UD 15.
Dont see your point since Hearns gave Leonard hell and destroyed Duran and both should be rated higher than Basillio.he gave both Gavilan and Robinson hell and I'd rate both of them over Hearns...
Gavilan would have been taylor made for Hearns. A straight forward slugger with modest power whose best punch was a wide uppercut/hook. Only Gavilans incredible conditioning and great chin would have probably kept him from getting ko'd.
I was matching them up as welterweights, which I thought you were doing as well. But even at middleweight, besides the Robinson fight Basillio didnt really have any big wins at middle. Fullmer who was definitly stronger than Hearns but did not hit nearly as hard as him or have half of his boxing skill stopped Basillio twice, so the man wasnt as indestructable as he's made out to be.Hearns would probably do better against Basilo at 147 but at 160 Basilo would be too strong and durable for Hearns for sure...
Basillo's success against Robinson was more a case of Robinson being faded than any thing else. You cant just ignore or explain away all the times Basillio was decisioned by lesser fighters than Hearns in his career.
Dont get me wrong I'm not trying to put the great Basillio down, I just dont think he would have overcome Hearns combination of boxing skill and punching power.
If you have a win over Robinson at middleweight it sort of speaks for itself. Not sure you need a lot of other "resume boosters". Robinson still had plenty left at that point.
At this point I suppose the topic could morph to.... did Chavez have what it would take to be the overachiever at welter that Basilio was at Middle. Basilio stepped it up pretty convincingly.
At this point I suppose the topic could morph to.... did Chavez have what it would take to be the overachiever at welter that Basilio was at Middle. Basilio stepped it up pretty convincingly.
If Gavilan gave a peak Robinson his hardest fights at 147 I don't see him being overmatched against Hearns... agains I think Gavilan would be far too relentless and durable for Hearns... to just dismiss Gavilan as a tough slugger makes me think you haven't seen him fight... he was much more than just a toughie with a good chin... as was Basilo. Basilo beats Hearns at both 147 and 160 imo but does it easier at 160... Hearns would be lucky to get past 10 rounds...theone wrote:Dont see your point since Hearns gave Leonard hell and destroyed Duran and both should be rated higher than Basillio.he gave both Gavilan and Robinson hell and I'd rate both of them over Hearns...
Gavilan would have been taylor made for Hearns. A straight forward slugger with modest power whose best punch was a wide uppercut/hook. Only Gavilans incredible conditioning and great chin would have probably kept him from getting ko'd.
I was matching them up as welterweights, which I thought you were doing as well. But even at middleweight, besides the Robinson fight Basillio didnt really have any big wins at middle. Fullmer who was definitly stronger than Hearns but did not hit nearly as hard as him or have half of his boxing skill stopped Basillio twice, so the man wasnt as indestructable as he's made out to be.Hearns would probably do better against Basilo at 147 but at 160 Basilo would be too strong and durable for Hearns for sure...
Basillo's success against Robinson was more a case of Robinson being faded than any thing else. You cant just ignore or explain away all the times Basillio was decisioned by lesser fighters than Hearns in his career.
Dont get me wrong I'm not trying to put the great Basillio down, I just dont think he would have overcome Hearns combination of boxing skill and punching power.
I love Hearns but he just didnt have the durability to beat either Basilo or Gavilan... who were amongst the most durable world champions ever.... they also threw plenty of leather... Gavilans speed amongst other things would have given Hearns lots of trouble... to dismiss Gavilan as a slugger with one punch is simply ludicrous... watch his fights!...
theone wrote:Dont see your point since Hearns gave Leonard hell and destroyed Duran and both should be rated higher than Basillio.he gave both Gavilan and Robinson hell and I'd rate both of them over Hearns...
Gavilan would have been taylor made for Hearns. A straight forward slugger with modest power whose best punch was a wide uppercut/hook. Only Gavilans incredible conditioning and great chin would have probably kept him from getting ko'd.
I was matching them up as welterweights, which I thought you were doing as well. But even at middleweight, besides the Robinson fight Basillio didnt really have any big wins at middle. Fullmer who was definitly stronger than Hearns but did not hit nearly as hard as him or have half of his boxing skill stopped Basillio twice, so the man wasnt as indestructable as he's made out to be.Hearns would probably do better against Basilo at 147 but at 160 Basilo would be too strong and durable for Hearns for sure...
Basillo's success against Robinson was more a case of Robinson being faded than any thing else. You cant just ignore or explain away all the times Basillio was decisioned by lesser fighters than Hearns in his career.
Dont get me wrong I'm not trying to put the great Basillio down, I just dont think he would have overcome Hearns combination of boxing skill and punching power.
Fullmer stopped Basilo when Carmen was 30+ and coming to the end of his career... this was about a decade on from Carmens first world title fight and the first fight was very close till Carmen run out of gas. Fullmer would have beaten Hearns even quicker....
-
Roll With The Punches
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 20 Feb 2003, 12:50
At welterweight? Why wouldnt he? Alot lesser fighters than Hearns survived against those two and even beat them.I love Hearns but he just didnt have the durability to beat either Basilo or Gavilan..
I have watched a few Gavilan fights and in no way did I intend to diminsh him. I only pointed out aspects of his style that would be detrimental to him in a fight with Hearns.to dismiss Gavilan as a slugger with one punch is simply ludicrous... watch his fights!...
Basillio was 32 years old and fought as well as he ever could have against Fullmer. Robinson was the only good middleweight Basillio beat and he only did it because Ray was shot. If Hearns caught Fullmer with the type of combinations he landed on Hagler in that first round of their fight it would probably end up as a first round ko for Hearns. Hagler was stronger, faster, tougher,had a better chin and was all around better than Fullmer. I'm not saying Hearns would definitly beat Fullmer but Fullmer is far from a lock to win that fight.Fullmer stopped Basilo when Carmen was 30+ and coming to the end of his career... this was about a decade on from Carmens first world title fight and the first fight was very close till Carmen run out of gas. Fullmer would have beaten Hearns even quicker...