BoxRec

Quite amusing that you assume anyone in here is a Pac fanatic. I hate to break it to you, I just don't think Chavez was good enough. And I wouldn't be using Meldrick Taylor for any examples unless you're picking Chavez by robbery. No problems with taylor's speed? And you have the nerve to call someone else a fanboy?

You can make 80 posts in a row and sling insults all you want. You can even pick Chavez to smash Manny, JMM, Morales & MAB on the same night. The fact remains that he never beat a fighter of that caliber and Manny has.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:BTW, I love how some of you act as though Chavez has never been hit by big dynamic punchers before. He had no problems with Meldrick Taylor's speed, which like Pacquiao's is almost entirely offensive, he had no problem battering the slick Roger Mayweather, he had no problem walking through the bombs of a harder puncher in Edwin Rosario, he had no problem walking around and joyfully beating the poop out of the slicker and quicker Camacho, but apparently this all means nothing, because Pacquiao's the soup du jour and like Mike Tyson is unbeatable by anyone from the past now apparently simply because he's beating guys who aren't nearly good enough to be giving him the props that he's getting for defeating them.

Also, Chavez would've killed the emotional Morales in a fire-fight worse than Barrera did. MAB got Morales into a brawl and came out on top, and Barrera has always been a smaller, weaker Chavez-type. Marquez would've been hammered out too, just as he too nearly was against Barrera before Jay Nady made the eff-up of the year and the judges handed the belt to JMM.

Wow!!! You must be in Love with Chavez.

You claim Chavez did not have any problems with Taylor’s speed? That statement alone assures me that you either did not see that fight or you are completely bias with no regard to the truth. Taylor was winning that fight in my book by quite a large margin. Taylor was robbed plain and simple.

Second, how can you compare Roger Mayweather to Pac.? They are in completely two different leagues.

Third, yes he did not have any problems walking through the bombs of Rosario and that is why nobody is picking Pac by KO. Most people including me don’t see Chavez out-boxing Pac. The most likely scenario is Pac by decision. And don’t forget Pac is way quicker than Rosario with plenty of power to boot. Not only is he quicker but more accurate and way better defense. Rosario only knew how to come forward. On the other hand, Pac gives you plenty of angles and move way better than Rosario.

Fourth, Marquez, Morales, and Barrera were all better boxers than Chavez and that is a fact.

BTW, I’m not a Pac fan at all. However, I give him his due respect.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Quite amusing that you assume anyone in here is a Pac fanatic. I hate to break it to you, I just don't think Chavez was good enough. And I wouldn't be using Meldrick Taylor for any examples unless you're picking Chavez by robbery. No problems with taylor's speed? And you have the nerve to call someone else a fanboy?

You can make 80 posts in a row and sling insults all you want. You can even pick Chavez to smash Manny, JMM, Morales & MAB on the same night. The fact remains that he never beat a fighter of that caliber and Manny has.

When I said no problems I meant no problems getting the victory. And to say Chavez never beat anyone as good as the Mexican trio is laughable. I guess Taylor, Rosario, Camacho, Ramirez, etc. are just a bunch of bums.

The guys that Chavez beat included a number of highly-regarded opponents who went on to still win world titles afterwards, proving their worth. Pacquiao didn't beat Morales til he started fading, beat an old Barrera less impressively than he had done with the younger unprepared version, and despite being "new and improved as a boxer with secret punches like Manila Ice" still couldn't manage much more than a stalemate against a further aging Marquez.

This isn't meant to totally denigrate those wins, Manny is a great fighter, but if you want to overlook a fighter like Chavez' accomplishments and make them seem like no big deal I can do the same with Arum's "boy" Pacquiao.

Idisagree wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:BTW, I love how some of you act as though Chavez has never been hit by big dynamic punchers before. He had no problems with Meldrick Taylor's speed, which like Pacquiao's is almost entirely offensive, he had no problem battering the slick Roger Mayweather, he had no problem walking through the bombs of a harder puncher in Edwin Rosario, he had no problem walking around and joyfully beating the poop out of the slicker and quicker Camacho, but apparently this all means nothing, because Pacquiao's the soup du jour and like Mike Tyson is unbeatable by anyone from the past now apparently simply because he's beating guys who aren't nearly good enough to be giving him the props that he's getting for defeating them.

Also, Chavez would've killed the emotional Morales in a fire-fight worse than Barrera did. MAB got Morales into a brawl and came out on top, and Barrera has always been a smaller, weaker Chavez-type. Marquez would've been hammered out too, just as he too nearly was against Barrera before Jay Nady made the eff-up of the year and the judges handed the belt to JMM.

Wow!!! You must be in Love with Chavez.

You claim Chavez did not have any problems with Taylor’s speed? That statement alone assures me that you either did not see that fight or you are completely bias with no regard to the truth. Taylor was winning that fight in my book by quite a large margin. Taylor was robbed plain and simple.

Second, how can you compare Roger Mayweather to Pac.? They are in completely two different leagues.

Third, yes he did not have any problems walking through the bombs of Rosario and that is why nobody is picking Pac by KO. Most people including me don’t see Chavez out-boxing Pac. The most likely scenario is Pac by decision. And don’t forget Pac is way quicker than Rosario with plenty of power to boot. Not only is he quicker but more accurate and way better defense. Rosario only knew how to come forward. On the other hand, Pac gives you plenty of angles and move way better than Rosario.

Fourth, Marquez, Morales, and Barrera were all better boxers than Chavez and that is a fact.

BTW, I’m not a Pac fan at all. However, I give him his due respect.

I wasn't comparing Mayweather to Pacquiao in entirety you dolt, I was talking about defensive ability, which yes, Roger was as good as Pacquiao in that regard. But if you'd rather, forget about Mayweather, just look at Camacho, who was absolutely better defensively than Pacquiao.

You act as though I'm not giving Pacquiao any respect but I am, I just believe him to be criminally overrated right now, and I highly doubtyou guys would similarly favor Mayweather over Whitaker in the same respects as Pacquiao over Chavez.

Pacquiao would give Chavez some problems early on with his speed yes, but Pacquiao is a headstrong fighter just as much as Taylor was (Meldrick was a supremely skilled boxer who simply couldn't help but brawl with guys who hit him hard). As soon as Chavez lands hard on him, Pacquiao would go nuts and try to brawl with Chavez, a fight in which he'd find himself outgunned (just as he was against the weaker Morales in the first fight). Pacquiao would then revert to trying to box Chavez more but much like Cotto, Pacquiao is awkward when he tries to box and he's really not all that evasive, considering how easily not only Marquez, but both Cotto and Clottey landed on him at times.

I simply believe Chavez beats Pacquiao, I'm not acting like he'd run him over like a bum for Christ's sake, it would be a close and exciting war, so why is it some kind of sin for anyone to beat Pacquiao? Just because I think Chavez would more likely stop Pacquiao than decision him (because Pacquiao imo would wind up going out in a blaze rather than run and survive in the last couple rounds when I see him weakened).


Also, since you guys insist on comparing Morales, Barrera, and Marquez with Chavez now, how would you guys pick a fight going between Chavez and Junior Jones, Chris John, and Freddie Norwood? How about Juan Diaz? Diaz had Marquez reeling all over the damn place and he's supposed to be better than Chavez?

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote: Pacquiao will start trying to box JCC, only problem is Pacquiao really isn't the great mover some make him out to be, otherwise Marquez would've been wiped out when he tried to box Pacquiao in the second fight. .

That statement makes no sense. Marquez is a slick counter hitting boxer-puncher. It's a lot easier to box and use movement vs a guy like David Diaz (which Manny did) or JCC, than a great counter-puncher like JMM.

I don't get it when people bring up Manny's two close fights with Marquez as some sort of knock on Pacquao. Hell, I think Marquez could've beaten Chavez as well.

Comparing Chavez to David Diaz is absolutely ridiculous, have fun gurgling on Pacquiao's cum you fuckin fanboy.

If you can read Englush, I was saying Diaz and Chavez both were come-forward stalkers . .styles make fights. Chavez was no fancy dan, it would be easier to box around a slow stalking guy coming right at you then a guy waiting for you to fire so he can counter. That's called boxing dumbass.

You've already been caught by your plain stupid statement that Chavez "had no problems with Taylor's speed" . . .yeah no problems except getting shut out for 10 rounds and then needing one of the most controversial stoppages in boxing history to secure the W.

And Manny is much stronger, more durable, and notably a MUCH harder puncher than Meldrick ever was.

And yes Morales, Barrera, and Marquez were all better than Rosario, Ramirez and Camacho (and the Hector Chavez beat was long into his track shoe era).


You obviously have some sort of chip on your shoulder regarding Pac. Maybe therapy will help. Until then you can keep jumping on the bandwagons of the amateruish plodding HWs like Whitaker, Peter and now Arreola and then when they get embarassed try to backtrack all the crap you said months prior. Going by your track record of judging talent I'd be a little more humble in your predictions.

Chavez can use angles too, he's not a one-dimensional plodder who follows guys around like Margarito or Diaz, he can actually cut off the ring, and in his prime was light enough on his feet to dodge some shots and roll with many others.

Emmanuel Stewart like to state every chance he gets how impressed he was with Julio Cesar Chavez' movement, speed and general boxing skills. Chavez just chose to walk in trading hooks and uppercuts because he confided in his own punch and chin.

I pick the Chavez that walked through everything that Edwin Rosario and Roger Mayweather had and used subtle upper body movement to get inside and breakdown his opponent like he did against Meldrick Taylor and many others to beat Pacquiao. Manny Pacquiao has shown a recurring pattern of cutting very easily and swelling in the face by much lesser punchers than Chavez.

Pacquiao might have his moments, but Chavez would wear him down, bust up Pacquiao's facial tissue and win exciting brawl.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Quite amusing that you assume anyone in here is a Pac fanatic. I hate to break it to you, I just don't think Chavez was good enough. And I wouldn't be using Meldrick Taylor for any examples unless you're picking Chavez by robbery. No problems with taylor's speed? And you have the nerve to call someone else a fanboy?

You can make 80 posts in a row and sling insults all you want. You can even pick Chavez to smash Manny, JMM, Morales & MAB on the same night. The fact remains that he never beat a fighter of that caliber and Manny has.

[b}When I said no problems I meant no problems getting the victory.[/b] And to say Chavez never beat anyone as good as the Mexican trio is laughable. I guess Taylor, Rosario, Camacho, Ramirez, etc. are just a bunch of bums.

The guys that Chavez beat included a number of highly-regarded opponents who went on to still win world titles afterwards, proving their worth. Pacquiao didn't beat Morales til he started fading, beat an old Barrera less impressively than he had done with the younger unprepared version, and despite being "new and improved as a boxer with secret punches like Manila Ice" still couldn't manage much more than a stalemate against a further aging Marquez.

This isn't meant to totally denigrate those wins, Manny is a great fighter, but if you want to overlook a fighter like Chavez' accomplishments and make them seem like no big deal I can do the same with Arum's "boy" Pacquiao.

That's every bit as funny and wrong as your initial post. he got bailed out by a referee with two seconds left in a fight he was going to lose. No problem indeed.

I'm not overlooking Chavez accomplishments at all. You're just getting far too emotional. MAB, Morales & JMM are > than Taylor, Camacho, Rosario & Ramirez. That is nothing less than a fact.

Chavez greatness lies in consistency over a long period and a stockpile of wins over very good fighters. I would consider Taylor great at the time of their fight, but I don't think Chavez won either. It's disregarded by most fans, but you have to beat another great fighter before you get near a top 10 or 20 for me. And Pac > Chavez, there is no question about it. Manny is also obviously juicing. I'm just picking him because of the style matchup. It's hard to mention two fighters I hate more.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote: Pacquiao will start trying to box JCC, only problem is Pacquiao really isn't the great mover some make him out to be, otherwise Marquez would've been wiped out when he tried to box Pacquiao in the second fight. .

That statement makes no sense. Marquez is a slick counter hitting boxer-puncher. It's a lot easier to box and use movement vs a guy like David Diaz (which Manny did) or JCC, than a great counter-puncher like JMM.

I don't get it when people bring up Manny's two close fights with Marquez as some sort of knock on Pacquao. Hell, I think Marquez could've beaten Chavez as well.

Agreed, Morales too.

JMM beating JCC is a surprisingly decent call, IMO, at 130 and possibly 135 too. I say surprisingly in that it's a call I wouldn't have envisaged myself agreeing with, but do.

personally i think JCC beats Morales but I'm far from Morales' biggest fan. Saad, i think I'd have him over Morales et al on a head-to-head on account of his having had success at higher weights/basically being bigger and stronger, though JCC's performances at 130 give reason for doubt, and maybe he'd only really beat Morales/MAB at a weight above 130. whatever. its certainly true that all of them beat greater fighters than JCC did.

on JCC vs Pac, it's difficult for even the most biased, pro-Chavez poster (I'd probably be among these echelons), to deny that JCC struggled somewhat with elite-level speed, which is of course what Pac would be bringing.

I think most factors would mean I couldn't pick Chavez over Pac even though I wanted to.

I always feel JCC gets just a *little* too harsh a view re the Taylor fight. i mean if he was being so dominated/shut out for 10 rounds, as some are saying, how did he manage to make Taylor's face look like he'd been at it with a hammer?

I was just speaking of 130, Chavez was a bit raw there and not nearly as strong.

You can definitely pick Chavez over Pac. I don't see it happening but I've been wrong many times over watching this sport.

Edit: i liked Camacho's chances against Julio.

I was basically agreeing with you i think, its just I was thinking out loud and equivocating myself while doing it.

so, the state of Taylor's face after the Chavez fight..... if thats the result of a 'total shutout' I'd better hope I never shut anyone out like Taylor did, there.

Counter-puncher wrote:I was basically agreeing with you i think, its just I was thinking out loud and equivocating myself while doing it.

so, the state of Taylor's face after the Chavez fight..... if thats the result of a 'total shutout' I'd better hope I never shut anyone out like Taylor did, there.

I had it 9-2, that doesn't mean Chavez wasn't getting his licks in. He obviously was, but the guy with the busted grill deserved to have his hands raised that night. It showed Chavez resolve mounting that rally. But it's kind of like mouthgate with Corrales/Castillo for me. Just leaves too foul a taste when the wrong man "won".

and you can add some very, very accurate punching to 'resolve', there. He was kinda Duran-esque in the last 30secs.

Yeah he was

I’m going to weigh in with a bit of a defence here.

Taylor was clearly ahead on points in the contest, that’s for sure, but Chavez was clearly winning the fight. I don’t think it’s a simple black and white moral issue as some have it.

Taylor was not going to take any more punishment and some may argue that he should have been allowed to hear the bell. But there’s surely an argument that Chavez had rendered Taylor unfit to continue and no matter how much time was, or wasn’t, left that he’d fulfilled all his obligations to win a technical knockout.

You’re free to decide for yourself but I don’t see it as an open and shut case as some do.

Probably worked slightly too hard to make the weight at 130 and never seemed as good at 140. He also had a style that was supposed to see him burn out early.

He was the best fighter in the world for a while. It’s also hard to find someone with a better record than Chavez since he retired. Pacquaio and Hopkins…but beyond that… there are few definitely 100% ahead of him. His defeats came against men who started at higher weight divisions and are all towards the end of his career.

Posters criticising Chavez make good points and are people I respect. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind here. Just think I should offer a different take…

Good post Ezzard.