Julio Cesar Chavez

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 14 Mar 2008, 18:35

I don't know. I tend to think of Trinidad as badly overrated, and Chavez is a little tougher than Campas or one of those fighters Tito met at Welterweight. But, like I said, I really wouldn't be surprised with either winning.

I agree that Oscar is also overrated, but I do think he's a great fighter and probably would put him in my top 100.

Evander · Post by **Evander** » 14 Mar 2008, 19:16

There are so many moments.
Chavez was great no question.
I know most people go on about the Taylor fight but the Edwin Rosario bout was also one of his best.
He was calculated and chopped Rosario down slowly,excellent body attack from start to finish.

I think Hector Camacho was scared out of his skin if you ask me.

Andy Holligan did ok for awhile even though he was stopped in 5.

I thought Julio fought quite well considering he was up against a good to go Oscar De La Hoya in the rematch,Chavez put up a decent showing in defeat.

Although they ripped of Frankie Randall in the rematch it shouldn't take too much away from what Julio Cesar Chavez was all about.
He is a made guy as I see it.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 15 Mar 2008, 15:02

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 16 Mar 2008, 05:17

Since you seem so sure of it Elmer, how about you name one-hundred fifty fighters better than De La Hoya? He has fought better competition than anyone of his era, & beaten nearly all such opposition (quite arguable he beat Mosley in the 2nd fight, & Trinidad, also).

I have said previously Trinidad was an overhyped fighter, but at Welter, he beats Chavez by decision. One area where he wasn't oversold was courage --- "Cheato" had bigger balls than just about all of his opponents (especially after he repeatedly smacked said opposition in the jatz crackers

), &, being a natural 147/154lber, his power, speed & size would do Chavez in.

It would be competitive, because Chavez is plainly the superior man. However, he is there for the bigger Trinidad to hit, & therein determines the result.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 17 Mar 2008, 00:17

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Since you seem so sure of it Elmer, how about you name one-hundred fifty fighters better than De La Hoya? He has fought better competition than anyone of his era, & beaten nearly all such opposition (quite arguable he beat Mosley in the 2nd fight, & Trinidad, also).

I have said previously Trinidad was an overhyped fighter, but at Welter, he beats Chavez by decision. One area where he wasn't oversold was courage --- "Cheato" had bigger balls than just about all of his opponents (especially after he repeatedly smacked said opposition in the jatz crackers ), &, being a natural 147/154lber, his power, speed & size would do Chavez in.

It would be competitive, because Chavez is plainly the superior man. However, he is there for the bigger Trinidad to hit, & therein determines the result.

Ufff, there are so many: NO to mention the real great ones. I got to get a list and copy it down.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 17 Mar 2008, 00:28

This is off topic, but don't you think Oscar's dominance below 147 is enough to make him top 100 elmer? And he was a legitimate champion in four weight classes. I'm not saying you don't have a point about Oscar being overrated, but saying that there's 150 fighters ahead of Oscar seems like a stretch.

I guess I've heard crazier things.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Mar 2008, 09:21

One thing that I always liked about Chavez was that he took on the best.

I rate Chavez higher than De La Hoya (though I think the gap is closer than some people think)

However, one thing that does bother me Chavez is that he quit against De La Hoya in the 2nd fight. Yes he was losing badly. However, we have all seen guys getting beat worse than that hang in there.

If it was De La Hoya instead who had quit like that in a fight, wouldn't this be brought up against him constantly?

Chava · Post by **Chava** » 17 Mar 2008, 14:37

Ambling Alp wrote:One thing that I always liked about Chavez was that he took on the best.

I rate Chavez higher than De La Hoya (though I think the gap is closer than some people think)

However, one thing that does bother me Chavez is that he quit against De La Hoya in the 2nd fight. Yes he was losing badly. However, we have all seen guys getting beat worse than that hang in there.

If it was De La Hoya instead who had quit like that in a fight, wouldn't this be brought up against him constantly?

Don't forget the second Randall fight; he punked out of that one, too.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Mar 2008, 17:55

Since he punked out late in his career people tend to give him a pass. At least I do. Its no worse than Duran quiting against Leonard close to his prime. I think the greatness in their careers far outweigh the negative, so why dwell on it too much when assessing their whole career?

Chava · Post by **Chava** » 17 Mar 2008, 21:49

theone wrote:Since he punked out late in his career people tend to give him a pass. At least I do. Its no worse than Duran quiting against Leonard close to his prime. I think the greatness in their careers far outweigh the negative, so why dwell on it too much when assessing their whole career?

Oh, I don't dwell on it. One of my posts in this thread acknowledged him as the best Mexico has ever produced. My own personal feelings about him aside, he was truly great. I'd never deny the man that.

I lost respect for him after the Whitaker fight. Not because he lost (to hell with what the paid-off judges said), but because of the way he acted afterward. It spoke reams about what kind of man he was, and I wasn't impressed in the least. He continued the petulant child schtick basically until the end of his career, and I just can't respect him as a man for that. Respect him as a fighter? Absolutely. That's a different matter entirely, but I could never call myself a fan because of the way he carried himself.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 17 Mar 2008, 23:08

Ambling Alp wrote:One thing that I always liked about Chavez was that he took on the best.

I rate Chavez higher than De La Hoya (though I think the gap is closer than some people think)

However, one thing that does bother me Chavez is that he quit against De La Hoya in the 2nd fight. Yes he was losing badly. However, we have all seen guys getting beat worse than that hang in there.

If it was De La Hoya instead who had quit like that in a fight, wouldn't this be brought up against him constantly?

I tend to judge that based on the entirety of a career. Like Duran, he quit against Leonard out of frustration, but I think he realized the mistake he made. He didn't quit when Benitez out boxed him, he didn't quit when Leonard out boxed him even worse in the rubber match. And he didn't quit in extremely tough fights, like against Hagler and Barkley. So, while he doesn't get a full pass, I'm at least willing to not judge Duran as badly as I would someone like Freitas. I think if Chavez had been younger he wouldn't have quit.

As for his whining, eh, I take it for granted that fighters are going to complain after they lose in any fight.

One thing about "the man whose name must never be mentioned" is that he never whined after a loss, and there was at least one occasion where he won a decision but said he thought he was the loser. But then people still attack his character, anyway. You can't win when you're under such a heavy spotlight.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Mar 2008, 23:25

I also think that you have to look at the big picture. One fight shouldn't mean everything. However it does have to one of many factors that should be factored in when rating a fighter.

Actually Chavez's quitting against De La Hoya wasn't even close to the worst to the worst quit job I have seen. In his defense, Chavez was past his best (though not shot) and was getting beat up pretty bad. It was just a little surprising that he didn't try to go the distance.

It is interesting that "tough guys" like Liston,Duran, and Chavez all quit against the "pretty boys". Often people seem to judge a book by it's cover.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 17 Mar 2008, 23:30

Yeah, and its interesting, it seemed to me that what really did it was the last punch of the fight; Oscar nailed him flush with a left hook and that seemed to be what caused him to quit. But I haven't seen the fight in a long time, so I could be wrong.

I agree it means something, I'm just saying its not as bad as quitting in your prime, and we do know that Chavez could stand up to adversity. And I agree with your last statement.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 18 Mar 2008, 00:50

I Feel Fine wrote:This is off topic, but don't you think Oscar's dominance below 147 is enough to make him top 100 elmer? And he was a legitimate champion in four weight classes. I'm not saying you don't have a point about Oscar being overrated, but saying that there's 150 fighters ahead of Oscar seems like a stretch.

I guess I've heard crazier things.

Well, tell me, of the 8 original weight classes, where is he considered an all-time top 10 great?

Second, what fight in his career should we put him, win or lose, in the top 100 greatest fighters?

Third, what weight class he dominated completely in his career?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 18 Mar 2008, 00:50

I Feel Fine wrote:This is off topic, but don't you think Oscar's dominance below 147 is enough to make him top 100 elmer? And he was a legitimate champion in four weight classes. I'm not saying you don't have a point about Oscar being overrated, but saying that there's 150 fighters ahead of Oscar seems like a stretch.

I guess I've heard crazier things.

Well, tell me, of the 8 original weight classes, where is he considered an all-time top 10 great?

Second, what fight in his career should we put him, win or lose, in the top 100 greatest fighters?

Third, what weight class he dominated completely in his career?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Mar 2008, 01:09

I wouldn't put him top 10 at any weight class, original eight or not, I'm not sure I understand your second question, but he certainly dominated 130, 135 and, for the short time he was there, 140.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 18 Mar 2008, 05:03

I Feel Fine wrote:I wouldn't put him top 10 at any weight class, original eight or not, I'm not sure I understand your second question, but he certainly dominated 130, 135 and, for the short time he was there, 140.

That is not dominion in no kind of way.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Mar 2008, 19:02

Well, again, not many guys are legitimate, linear four division champions. Not many guys have taken on Oscar's opposition. And he was dominant in his lower weight classes; how many fighters weight drain, dominate a weight class, and get a lot of credit for it? Look at Toney at Middleweight, and he wasn't as dominant there as Oscar was at 130-140.

I agree with you that Oscar is overrated, but I don't know that there are 100 fighters I would put ahead of him. I could see the argument, though. What I can't see is 150 fighters ahead of him.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 19 Mar 2008, 00:18

I Feel Fine wrote:Well, again, not many guys are legitimate, linear four division champions. Not many guys have taken on Oscar's opposition. And he was dominant in his lower weight classes; how many fighters weight drain, dominate a weight class, and get a lot of credit for it? Look at Toney at Middleweight, and he wasn't as dominant there as Oscar was at 130-140.

I agree with you that Oscar is overrated, but I don't know that there are 100 fighters I would put ahead of him. I could see the argument, though. What I can't see is 150 fighters ahead of him.

Looking at the record books of past champions and contenders, so far, so far, I got 137 fighters that CLEARLY were better than Oscar. I am looking for more.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 Mar 2008, 00:36

Well name some of the lower level ones who you would put ahead of Oscar P4P all time so we can get an idea of who you're thinking of.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 19 Mar 2008, 07:11

Elmer has no trouble finding an infinite list of fighters better than De La Hoya ever was.

Why? Because he hates De La Hoya (as he has admitted), & his every word on the man betrays any pretence of objectivity on the subject. Isn't that right, Elmer?

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 19 Mar 2008, 19:36

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Elmer has no trouble finding an infinite list of fighters better than De La Hoya ever was.

Why? Because he hates De La Hoya (as he has admitted), & his every word on the man betrays any pretence of objectivity on the subject. Isn't that right, Elmer?

Elmer fudd is the most bias man on this forum. He even goes as far as bringing someone else fantasies as fact. For example, he swears that Salvador Sanchez, Wilfredo Gomez, and Azuma Nelson were afraid of Eusebio Pedroza. They all ducked Eusebio Pedroza and to prove it he brings up a fantasy fight he found on the internet.

What a twat. Don’t be surprise if he ranks Andrew Golota ahead of DLH p4p. With this guy anything is possible, even if it is a fantasy.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 Mar 2008, 23:42

Anyway...

Was Chavez the best body puncher of all time?

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 20 Mar 2008, 01:00

I Feel Fine wrote:Anyway...

Was Chavez the best body puncher of all time?

I'm the type that finds it difficult to quantify "The Best" at anything with a completely definitive answer, usually I can figure out say a top 5, but naming one guys as "The One" is difficult. That said Chavez would definitely be one of those few in contention as the best body puncher ever. He could KO guys with shots to the chin but his toughest opponents folded from lengthy assaults to both the body and head.

nobudius · Post by **nobudius** » 20 Mar 2008, 01:16

Chavez had a vaunted body attack with the hook, but was it any better or worse than...say Duran or Arguello?

Olivares?