Julio Caesar Chavez vs Roberto Duran

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 07 Dec 2006, 14:02

DoubleM wrote:
Seamus wrote:I think it's a toss up. Duran has quicker hands, better defense. Chavez has the better chin, and a little more heart, though I'm not implying anything about Duran's in that sense.Bodypunching,pretty close, but I think Julio made better use of it throughout his career, so I give him a slight advantage. Power, they're about even. To win a decision, Duran would have to concentrate on outboxing Chavez, which he could do. If they go to war toe to toe, I have to go with Chavez by close decision, because (I know I'll offend a few people) I think he's just a little tougher.
No good just weighing up statistics. You need to look deeper - think about Duran's feinting. He tied many opponents in knots with that stuff. Carlos Palomino for example; a strong, tough bodypuncher. Duran feinted him silly, speared him with quick one-twos and uppercutted the life out of his body. Duran neutralized him on the inside, ducked most punches that got through and used the uppercuts brilliantly on the inside. The difference between Chavez and Duran is that Duran was more varied, faster, more relaxed, and that's why he'd win. His versatility and range of punching combined with that loose, relaxed style. I really don't think Duran would be discouraged by anything Chavez threw at him... He dealt with harder punchers throughout his career, in the days when he couldn't dodge blows as effectively (like against Barkley, who really worked Duran's body). It's not worth mentioning Duran's own strength, power and stamina because we know he possessed all three attributes in excess. Palomino was not Chavez, but he was infact bigger than Chavez, and Duran outclassed him - Palomino didn't realistically win one round. I could see a vaguely similar fight occuring (in regards to the pattern/strategies) between Duran and Chavez with a surprisingly one sided decision going Duran's way, about 11-4.

I'm in agreement with much of DoubleM's take on this......

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 07 Dec 2006, 14:56

BoxBuzz wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
Seamus wrote:I think it's a toss up. Duran has quicker hands, better defense. Chavez has the better chin, and a little more heart, though I'm not implying anything about Duran's in that sense.Bodypunching,pretty close, but I think Julio made better use of it throughout his career, so I give him a slight advantage. Power, they're about even. To win a decision, Duran would have to concentrate on outboxing Chavez, which he could do. If they go to war toe to toe, I have to go with Chavez by close decision, because (I know I'll offend a few people) I think he's just a little tougher.
No good just weighing up statistics. You need to look deeper - think about Duran's feinting. He tied many opponents in knots with that stuff. Carlos Palomino for example; a strong, tough bodypuncher. Duran feinted him silly, speared him with quick one-twos and uppercutted the life out of his body. Duran neutralized him on the inside, ducked most punches that got through and used the uppercuts brilliantly on the inside. The difference between Chavez and Duran is that Duran was more varied, faster, more relaxed, and that's why he'd win. His versatility and range of punching combined with that loose, relaxed style. I really don't think Duran would be discouraged by anything Chavez threw at him... He dealt with harder punchers throughout his career, in the days when he couldn't dodge blows as effectively (like against Barkley, who really worked Duran's body). It's not worth mentioning Duran's own strength, power and stamina because we know he possessed all three attributes in excess. Palomino was not Chavez, but he was infact bigger than Chavez, and Duran outclassed him - Palomino didn't realistically win one round. I could see a vaguely similar fight occuring (in regards to the pattern/strategies) between Duran and Chavez with a surprisingly one sided decision going Duran's way, about 11-4.
I'm in agreement with much of DoubleM's take on this......

That's a tough one, I'd still say it's more competitive than most believe. Chavez's body attack was slightly different than Palomino's, probably more effective. I still believe Duran would have let his bravado get the best of him, making the fight more competitive than it should be. However, if Duran boxed Chavez, I can definetely see him dominating Chavez. I think Chavez is being slightly underrated as a brawler, it's true he wasn't the best boxer out there, but he was a hell of a fighter, one of the best of all-time. Chavez would have probably pulled Duran (like he did with most fighters) into a slugfest. Now, most fighters can not hang with someone like Duran in a slugfest, but I do think Chavez is one of the few that could make it competitive. But I just see it difficult for Duran to lose against Chavez anyway, he was just a tad bit better at everything Chavez did except for maybe one thing, body attack.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 07 Dec 2006, 15:11

Seamus wrote:I agree with that scenario Vagamundo, and that's why I'd slightly favor Chavez. I think Duran would go to war with him, and as I said before, I think Julio was just a little tougher. And before anyone says I'm just biased against Duran, I'll remind them that's it's not like I said Hilmer Kenty or Joey Gamache could possibly beat a peak Duran, but I don't think it's the least bit outrageous to suggest that a guy who started his career at 88-0 could.

First Chavez was more consistent than Duran. Now you add he was tougher also????? Tougher than Duran?

Come on, admt it, you are more than a little biased.

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 07 Dec 2006, 15:17

Collins2000 wrote:
Seamus wrote:I agree with that scenario Vagamundo, and that's why I'd slightly favor Chavez. I think Duran would go to war with him, and as I said before, I think Julio was just a little tougher. And before anyone says I'm just biased against Duran, I'll remind them that's it's not like I said Hilmer Kenty or Joey Gamache could possibly beat a peak Duran, but I don't think it's the least bit outrageous to suggest that a guy who started his career at 88-0 could.

First Chavez was more consistent than Duran. Now you add he was tougher also????? Tougher than Duran?

Come on, admt it, you are more than a little biased.

Honestly, I don't see bias there, I see an opinion. Probably different than yours. Nobody is 100% right, and I can see why we'd think it was farfetched to say Chavez was tougher than Duran, but I think it is also true to say that because we've seen Chavez take some beatings in his last fights against good fighters up until Wiley, we're slightly underrating him. In his prime, he was as tough as they come, but so was Duran.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 07 Dec 2006, 18:15

Yes, I'd say Chavez is just a little tougher than Duran. Esteban DeJesus was a very good fighter, but I don't see him putting a prime Julio on the canvas twice. JCC had a tremendous will to win, a titanium chin, and was a relentlessly savage bodypuncher. Chavez stopped plenty of top class fighters, so to claim his 88-0 start is just about numbers only is just nonsense. So again, I'll add that I didn't say some one time belt holder could beat Duran, I said one of boxings all time greats could.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 07 Dec 2006, 18:22

Chavez never reached the same level that Duran did. Duran's win over Leonard was just about the pinnacle of boxing - very few fighters, if any, have a win so great. Not Armstrong, not Robinson, not Charles, not Pep, Greb, Langford, Benny...

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 07 Dec 2006, 21:15

I have to go with Duran on this one. First Duran was much faster and quicker than Chavez and he would not let Chavez rough him up he would punch and move and Chavez would not have an answer for that. Duran defense and offense was better than Chavez. Chavez to be effective he has to come forward and Duran would just make him pay. Duran was the best at deceiving you with his speed and boxing ability. I have to pick Duran by a clear UD.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Dec 2006, 02:25

DoubleM wrote:Chavez never reached the same level that Duran did. Duran's win over Leonard was just about the pinnacle of boxing - very few fighters, if any, have a win so great. Not Armstrong, not Robinson, not Charles, not Pep, Greb, Langford, Benny...

Well I rate Duran highly and beating leonard was a great result but I do believe that these guys had wins that were at the same level and then some.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Dec 2006, 10:44

Ezzard wrote:
DoubleM wrote:Chavez never reached the same level that Duran did. Duran's win over Leonard was just about the pinnacle of boxing - very few fighters, if any, have a win so great. Not Armstrong, not Robinson, not Charles, not Pep, Greb, Langford, Benny...
Well I rate Duran highly and beating leonard was a great result but I do believe that these guys had wins that were at the same level and then some.

Could you give some examples? Going by my own lists, Duran is my #1 lightweight who stepped up after a whole career's worth of fights to beat my #2 welterweight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Dec 2006, 12:33

Duran’s win is one of my favourite moments in sport. He had no right to beat a man bigger and more powerful who many rate so highly, but he did.

Anyway, as much as I respect your ratings we can’t go by yours alone otherwise we might as well discuss your favourite colour (if you get what I mean). Here are some wins that rate alongside Duran’s win. Some will be a little less than Roberto’s, some a little more…

Armstong – Ross
Canzoneri – Berg
Canzoneri – Petrolle
Canzoneri – Chocolate
Spinks – Holmes
Burley – Moore
Napoles – Griffith
Chavez – Taylor

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Dec 2006, 13:00

They are all great wins, but I can't see any of them matching Duran's over Leonard, who was in his prime. The closest ones for me are perhaps Greb's over Tunney and Charles' over Moore.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Dec 2006, 13:07

DoubleM wrote:They are all great wins, but I can't see any of them matching Duran's over Leonard, who was in his prime. The closest ones for me are perhaps Greb's over Tunney and Charles' over Moore.

Greb had a number of them, sorry to have missed him off. I didn't list Charles as halfway through I thought maybe you wnated someone moving out of their best weight class. Come on though, there's nothing in it between them...

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Dec 2006, 13:10

Honestly, I think Duran's win is the greatest. Leonard was in his prime, my own #2 welterweight, and Duran already had a lightweight career behind him. Ross was past his best when Armstrong beat him (although he had a weight advantage, he was better as a lightweight anyway), same with Griffith against Napoles, Holmes against Spinks etc... The first Duran-Leonard fight contained the highest level of boxing ability I've ever seen.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Dec 2006, 13:21

DoubleM wrote:Honestly, I think Duran's win is the greatest. Leonard was in his prime, my own #2 welterweight, and Duran already had a lightweight career behind him. Ross was past his best when Armstrong beat him (although he had a weight advantage, he was better as a lightweight anyway), same with Griffith against Napoles, Holmes against Spinks etc... The first Duran-Leonard fight contained the highest level of boxing ability I've ever seen.

I'm already a convert. It's possibly my all-time favourite fight. I guess my point is that I don't think Leonard is necessarily the #2 WW (though many would agree that he is) and I can't say for sure that it beats them all as a performance. It's certainly a prime candidate though.

BTW, isn't Hagler your #1 MW?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Dec 2006, 13:29

Well, regarding Leonard, I can only go by my own ratings. Hagler is my #2 middleweight, but he was well past his best when Leonard (much fresher than most think) got to him.

JC · Post by JC » 08 Dec 2006, 13:33

DoubleM wrote:Well, regarding Leonard, I can only go by my own ratings. Hagler is my #2 middleweight, but he was well past his best when Leonard (much fresher than most think) got to him.

That's true, if you read Leonard's interviews he admits that before the fight was thought about he and Hagler were at some dinner event together. Marvin mentioned in passing that he felt he was slipping and only had a few fights left. Leonard admits that was when he started considering challenging Hagler.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Dec 2006, 13:39

DoubleM wrote:Well, regarding Leonard, I can only go by my own ratings. Hagler is my #2 middleweight, but he was well past his best when Leonard (much fresher than most think) got to him.

I agree on that though I still think it took a lot for Leonard to win (or even go the 12).

I asked because I have a theory that 80s fighters are beginning to be a little overrated these days. It was a great era (for me) but 1980s fighters are now over represented in the top 3 of all-time lists for the divisions, IMO.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Dec 2006, 14:02

I can agree with that. I would put the '80s behind the '40s, '70s and '60s at least.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 08 Dec 2006, 16:41

Circumstances combined to give Duran a huge mental advantage in the first fight in Montreal. His pride really got hurt, by what he was offered, not to mention the media's far greater interest in Leonard. Coming in, those around him, said Leonard was talking like a man who doubted his own abilities, and in the weeks after the fight, Ray almost sounded like he was going to retire, with sad statements like "I gotta take some time and do alot of thinking, and see where I go from here". A month later though, he thoroughly got Montreal out of his system and started to train like never before. For me, what happened in the Superdome was similar to England's hammering Germany, the team they couldn't beat, in Munich 5-1. To Leonard, it laid Montreal to rest.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Dec 2006, 18:38

Seamus wrote:Circumstances combined to give Duran a huge mental advantage in the first fight in Montreal. His pride really got hurt, by what he was offered, not to mention the media's far greater interest in Leonard. Coming in, those around him, said Leonard was talking like a man who doubted his own abilities, and in the weeks after the fight, Ray almost sounded like he was going to retire, with sad statements like "I gotta take some time and do alot of thinking, and see where I go from here". A month later though, he thoroughly got Montreal out of his system and started to train like never before. For me, what happened in the Superdome was similar to England's hammering Germany, the team they couldn't beat, in Munich 5-1. To Leonard, it laid Montreal to rest.

You're being very, very picky. I could do the same to make practically every fight sound unbalanced.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 10 Dec 2006, 15:12

DoubleM wrote:
Seamus wrote:Circumstances combined to give Duran a huge mental advantage in the first fight in Montreal. His pride really got hurt, by what he was offered, not to mention the media's far greater interest in Leonard. Coming in, those around him, said Leonard was talking like a man who doubted his own abilities, and in the weeks after the fight, Ray almost sounded like he was going to retire, with sad statements like "I gotta take some time and do alot of thinking, and see where I go from here". A month later though, he thoroughly got Montreal out of his system and started to train like never before. For me, what happened in the Superdome was similar to England's hammering Germany, the team they couldn't beat, in Munich 5-1. To Leonard, it laid Montreal to rest.
You're being very, very picky. I could do the same to make practically every fight sound unbalanced.

????? what ?????

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 10 Dec 2006, 19:30

Sweet Scientist wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
Seamus wrote:Circumstances combined to give Duran a huge mental advantage in the first fight in Montreal. His pride really got hurt, by what he was offered, not to mention the media's far greater interest in Leonard. Coming in, those around him, said Leonard was talking like a man who doubted his own abilities, and in the weeks after the fight, Ray almost sounded like he was going to retire, with sad statements like "I gotta take some time and do alot of thinking, and see where I go from here". A month later though, he thoroughly got Montreal out of his system and started to train like never before. For me, what happened in the Superdome was similar to England's hammering Germany, the team they couldn't beat, in Munich 5-1. To Leonard, it laid Montreal to rest.
You're being very, very picky. I could do the same to make practically every fight sound unbalanced.
????? what ?????

Seamus is making it sound like Leonard was at a disadvantage, trying to take away from Duran's win. I could do the same with Muhammad Ali, for instance - Liston was past his best, Frazier was past his best, Foreman was taken by the heat, blah blah.

Bob Mauritz · Post by **Bob Mauritz** » 10 Dec 2006, 21:29

Duran would win because : A) "HANDS OF STONE" B) chin of stone C) quicker hands

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 10 Dec 2006, 21:39

Duran in my opinion is a better fighter than Leonard. Personally, i've always felt Leonard is slightly overrated because of his "win" against Hagler. I'll leave it at that because it can be in a thread of it's own. Duran beat Leonard fair and square, and call me a conspiracy theorist but I believe the stories about Duran during the his second fight with Leonard. I don't recall Duran ever saying No Mas. I think that was just really really blown out of proportion simply because a fighter as great as Duran chose not to continue. It must have been for a reason.. Duran was as stubborn and macho as they come. That being said, I still favor Duran, I just don't see him dominating Chavez even though he had more than enough skills to do that, I think he'd let his bravado get the best of him and fight a fight which Chavez would do well in making the fight competitive. Chavez beating Duran isn't too farfetched either, as I mentioned I think Chavez is being underrated based on his last performances. A prime Chavez was a monster, but a prime Duran was an even bigger monster. This got me wondering slightly on one of those what if match ups, De La Hoya vs Duran...

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 11 Dec 2006, 01:31

Come'on guys...we are talking about Roberto Duran here. He beats Chavez 9 out of 10 times.....and he loses only if he does a "No Mas".