BoxRec

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Taylor won no fewer than nine rounds from Chavez, WEAPON, and Taylor is a heavily-mythologised fighter. The ONLY attributes he shared with Pacquiao were handspeed and grit.

Taylor was unable to hurt Chavez, but kept him at bay for the wide majority of the fight. That weighs heavily with me. Pacquiao could hurt him and would not find him as difficult to hit as youre making out.

If you can find and drop Marquez four times, youre going to land a lot of punches against Chavez...and not Taylors shoe-shiners either. Chavez would have to contend with being hurt early and fairly significantly in any fight between 130-140. I think hed recover to win rounds, but not the bout.

It's not about him being difficult to hit, Taylor had faster hands than Pacquiao and he hardly hurt him, buzzed him a bit yes but Chavez would be able to see Pac's punches at least as well as he saw Taylor's which takes something off them, he certainly wouldn't be standing straight up with his head on a pedestal like Manny's most recent opponents.

Marquez is a straight-up fighter who's been dropped by Katsidis and stunned by Juan Diaz, Pacquiao dropping him repeatedly isn't as special as you make out, even Barrera did it. Marquez' defensive ability is predicated more on timing than Chavez' and Julio had a better beard than Marquez.

Chavez was pounding Taylor's organs into dust that whole fight, he just wasn't getting as much credit as Taylor from the judges and commentators because his shots weren't immediately pretty and dazzling, they just crushed Meldrick from the inside-out.

I respect your opinion on this matter because you at least see it as competitive, I simply disagree with you on the outcome.

Aftermath wrote:The Chavez that fought Edwin Rosario would deal with Pacquiao’s speed and power, take him apart and come out victorious. The Pacquiao that drew with Marquez and lost to Morales would lose a 15 round decision to Pedroza.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Way more consistent? Dont be absurd. You cant get, "way more consistent," than losing one fight between 1999 & 2011.

Since when were fights decided purely by rounds won? Even as a Marquez fan, Ive come to resent the, "Marquez won more collective rounds," point, because its such a limited view of events.

Every weakness Chavez had runs directly into a Pacquiao strength.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Way more consistent? Dont be absurd. You cant get, "way more consistent," than losing one fight between 1999 & 2011.

Since when were fights decided purely by rounds won? Even as a Marquez fan, Ive come to resent the, "Marquez won more collective rounds," point, because its such a limited view of events.

Every weakness Chavez had runs directly into a Pacquiao strength.

Aftermath wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Way more consistent? Dont be absurd. You cant get, "way more consistent," than losing one fight between 1999 & 2011.

Since when were fights decided purely by rounds won? Even as a Marquez fan, Ive come to resent the, "Marquez won more collective rounds," point, because its such a limited view of events.

Every weakness Chavez had runs directly into a Pacquiao strength.

You don’t be absurd.

If a washed up Morales could beat Pacquiao, so would Chavez. If Marquez could take more rounds from Pacquiao, Chavez would have greater success over the full 12 rounds. Chavez was a more complete fighter then Marquez. In his prime, Chavez took apart every style he was presented with.

Pacquiao’s weaknesses exposed against a washed up Morales and the way his face gets bloodied and bruised by lesser fighters would play expertly into Chavez’ strengths.

Aftermath wrote:Now I’m even more certain that Chavez would beat Pacquiao.

Aftermath wrote:Now I’m even more certain that Chavez would beat Pacquiao.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: What Marquez has done to him...history will elevate him above contemporary countrymen Morales & Barrera, IMO.