BoxRec

We were discussing Pound for Pound All time greats on another thread and Chavez and Mayweather’s names come up. I thought it would be interesting take a took at their best opponents that they beat at the time that they fought them. So this is taking into consideration how close to the prime an opponent is.

Chavez had: Mayweather had:
1. Meldrick Taylor 1. Oscar De la Hoya
2. Rocky Lockridge 2. Juan Manuel Marquez
3. Hector Camacho 3. Jose Luis Castillo
4. Edwin Rosario 4. Saul Alvarez
5. Roger Mayweather 5. Ricky Hatton

Chavez also had nice wins over Greg Haugen, Terrence Alli, Tony Lopez, and Jose Luis Ramirez
Mayweather also beat Miguel Cotto and Jesus Chavez

By doing this we can then fairly can compare them not only to each other, but to other great fighters.

Mayweather is higher historically, than Chavez. Floyd was a better boxer, his resume was also better.

People talk about Mayweather fighting his opponents past their best. Well, that happened sometimes. His best scalps are De La Hoya and Pacquiao. Both were past prime, but still credible. And Floyd is actually even a bit older, than Pacquiao, so those accusations claiming, that he was waiting Pac to get older and decline, sound ridiculous.

Chavez is great, of course, but his record included less elite level opponents, despite being much bigger. It should be admitted, that Chavez had been given some aid to score a great record. Not to forget Whitaker decision in addition to everything.

And don't forget, some feel that Julio lost to Juan back in 1986.

The Laporte fight close, but Chavez probably did enough to deserve the decision. Same with the Lockridge fight.
Of course Mayweather certainly did not deserve the decision in the first Castillo fight.

De La Hoya was a bit past his best, but is the best win for Mayweather. Pacquaio was way past it; that fight means nothing at all.

If you compare the resumes, I would give the edge to Chavez. His biggest win was more impressive than Mayweather's, his second was bigger than Mayweather's 2nd, and so on through the top 5.

Overall, I would say that Chavez has a better case for being ranked in the Top 20.

Mayweather's greatness is measured by his skill and the depth of his resume. A lot of quantity. There's isn't anything that's a truly great win though IMO. He didn't beat a great opponent in their prime nor do I believe he stopped anyone from being great. I don't think Chavez beat a great prime guy either but I think he was instrumental in Taylor and Rosario not living out their potential/becoming great. Chavez also had a lot of depth and fought so often. Camacho was already a few years past it in 1992 so not sure that would make his top 5 wins. Ramirez, though the performance wasn't great (he may have been tame due to their friendship) may have been better than most of Mayweather's wins perhaps too was the wins over uncle Roger. Mayweather would absolutely school fighters, whereas Chavez would ravage them including competent and always competitors like Ruben Castillo for example.

Chavez had very, very close wins vs. LaPorte and Lockrdige. Close enough to go the other way, not really argued they went his way (I had him by 1 point due to deduction vs. LaPorte and even with Lockridge) whereas I felt Mayweather had one like that (vs. Maidana) and one he absolutely lost (Castillo I).

It's really, really difficult separating the two. I'd maybe lean towards Chavez because I favor him head to head and I think he had more of a take on all comers mentality whereas Floyd seemed more deliberate with his matchmaking. It's harder when you fight 3-4-5 times a year than just once a year.

jesus chavez being among the honorable mentons for floyd.?.i mean... was jesus a better fighter or bigger win then. ...say. his punch perfect mastery of 33-0 (28) champ corrales? corralles was basically an even odds fight at the time whereas chavez was a big dog. thats how they were viewed at the time

Corrales should be 4th, maybe even 3rd.

So Mayweather's Top 5 would be something like:
1. De la Hoya
2. Marquez
3. Castillo
4. Corrales
5. Alvarez

Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

How much left Camacho had is a gray area. He certainly was not the the fighter he had been, but was still pretty good. He could be lowered a bit.

If you want say the Camacho fight should not be quite as big of a win for Chavez, and counting the Corrales win for Mayweather, does makes it closer, Still say you could make a better argument for Chavez being Top 20 than Mayweather.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 13:57 Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

Pac wasn't shot, he was past-prime, which didn't mean, that he had nothing left. Manny having more wars sounds like an excuse. That is all about style and Mayweather was able to save himself from wearing down, while Pac wasn't.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 13:57 Corrales should be 4th, maybe even 3rd.

So Mayweather's Top 5 would be something like:
1. De la Hoya
2. Marquez
3. Castillo
4. Corrales
5. Alvarez

Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

How much left Camacho had is a gray area. He certainly was not the the fighter he had been, but was still pretty good. He could be lowered a bit.

If you want say the Camacho fight should not be quite as big of a win for Chavez, and counting the Corrales win for Mayweather, does makes it closer, Still say you could make a better argument for Chavez being Top 20 than Mayweather.

Marquez wasn't a good win for Mayweather. Marquez had barely just gotten to 135 (where he was undersized) after having only a handful of fights at 130. For perspective when De La Hoya fought Mayweather 1t 154, Marquez had never campaigned higher than 126 and was at at 130 a year before the Mayweather fight.

It's pathetic that fight even happened. He's the best fighter on Mayweather's resume but that version of Marquez? Not so much.

DrDuke wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 14:38

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 13:57 Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

Pac wasn't shot, he was past-prime, which didn't mean, that he had nothing left. Manny having more wars sounds like an excuse. That is all about style and Mayweather was able to save himself from wearing down, while Pac wasn't.

Really had little to do with style. Watch the film, not just of their fight, but of Pacquiao's last several fights before he fought Mayweather. his isn't the same guy of the late 2000s.
Pacquiao had not stopped anybody in the previous six years.

Manny having more ring wars is a fact. He four brutal fights with Marquez 4 times by then. He had also had a couple of very tough fights with Morales. Mayweather simply didn't do that. You want to say that Mayweather at 80-90% was good enough to beat Pacquiao at 50-60% fine. So what.
Literally every fighter listed on this thread ( in their prime) on this would have beat Pacquiao at this stage.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 14:45

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 13:57 Corrales should be 4th, maybe even 3rd.

So Mayweather's Top 5 would be something like:
1. De la Hoya
2. Marquez
3. Castillo
4. Corrales
5. Alvarez

Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

How much left Camacho had is a gray area. He certainly was not the the fighter he had been, but was still pretty good. He could be lowered a bit.

If you want say the Camacho fight should not be quite as big of a win for Chavez, and counting the Corrales win for Mayweather, does makes it closer, Still say you could make a better argument for Chavez being Top 20 than Mayweather.

Marquez wasn't a good win for Mayweather. Marquez had barely just gotten to 135 (where he was undersized) after having only a handful of fights at 130. For perspective when De La Hoya fought Mayweather 1t 154, Marquez had never campaigned higher than 126 and was at at 130 a year before the Mayweather fight.

It's pathetic that fight even happened. He's the best fighter on Mayweather's resume but that version of Marquez? Not so much.

Marquez was certainly nowhere near his best at 147. He had not even fought at Junior welter before. Still, it's probably the 2nd best win for Mayweather.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:00

DrDuke wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 14:38

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 13:57 Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

Pac wasn't shot, he was past-prime, which didn't mean, that he had nothing left. Manny having more wars sounds like an excuse. That is all about style and Mayweather was able to save himself from wearing down, while Pac wasn't.

Really had little to do with style. Watch the film, not just of their fight, but of Pacquiao's last several fights before he fought Mayweather. his isn't the same guy of the late 2000s.
Pacquiao had not stopped anybody in the previous six years.

Manny having more ring wars is a fact. He four brutal fights with Marquez 4 times by then. He had also had a couple of very tough fights with Morales. Mayweather simply didn't do that. You want to say that Mayweather at 80-90% was good enough to beat Pacquiao at 50-60% fine. So what.
Literally every fighter listed on this thread ( in their prime) on this would have beat Pacquiao at this stage.

Pac stopped knocking guys out at some point, but that was not without an influence of fighting in a higher cathegory, don't you think so? He actually didn't look significantly declined until the aftermath of Marquez 4. Except Marquez 3, but that was Marquez, Pac wasn't looking excellent against him even in the times you consider to be his prime. Bradley 1 was a pure robbery. Actually after Marquez 4 Pac objectively won every fight, except Mayweather bout. All those wins, including Horn paper loss, were convincing. Convincing was the loss to Mayweather. Pac had 50-60%of him left then? Hardly. After Bradley 3 those numbers look more sound.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:02

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 14:45

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 13:57 Corrales should be 4th, maybe even 3rd.

So Mayweather's Top 5 would be something like:
1. De la Hoya
2. Marquez
3. Castillo
4. Corrales
5. Alvarez

Pac was younger than Mayweather, but he had much, much more wear and tear on him than Mayweather did. He had several major ring wars by then. Had Mayweather beat him several years earlier, that would be a different story. As is, that fights means nothing. Pacquiao was shot by then.

How much left Camacho had is a gray area. He certainly was not the the fighter he had been, but was still pretty good. He could be lowered a bit.

If you want say the Camacho fight should not be quite as big of a win for Chavez, and counting the Corrales win for Mayweather, does makes it closer, Still say you could make a better argument for Chavez being Top 20 than Mayweather.

Marquez wasn't a good win for Mayweather. Marquez had barely just gotten to 135 (where he was undersized) after having only a handful of fights at 130. For perspective when De La Hoya fought Mayweather 1t 154, Marquez had never campaigned higher than 126 and was at at 130 a year before the Mayweather fight.

It's pathetic that fight even happened. He's the best fighter on Mayweather's resume but that version of Marquez? Not so much.

Marquez was certainly nowhere near his best at 147. He had not even fought at Junior welter before. Still, it's probably the 2nd best win for Mayweather.

I'm not sure. I actually don't think Mayweather has any truly special win or single achievement. He has a lot of quantity and names but it was manipulated more than any fighter I can remember. He was an incredible boxer so when I think of rating him historically it's more points gained on style points than resume.

If I was to have a go at his best five wins I'd go : -

1. Diego Corrales (It was an excellent performance in what was perceived as basically even money)

2. Jose Luis Castillo II (not a great performance & a closer fight than what people remember but I felt he lost the first clearly and the version of JLC that he fought may have been the best guy he ever fought)

3. Genaro Hernandez (Chichanito was a little old but still it was a big step up at that time)

4. Miguel Cotto (Cotto wasn't in his prime and had too many miles but he showed to be still fairly good in this one)

5. Manny Pacquaio (awful fight, not a great performance but that Pacquaio is still better than the versions of Mosley, De La Hoya, Marquez and very green Canelo at an uncomfortable catch-weight)

I think the top of Mayweather's resume is what will keep him out of the all-time discussions. The unbeaten record helps to a degree but more and more fighters are retiring unbeaten. The depth of his resume and names of some of the opponents is what's balancing out from the lack of genuine, prime quality at the top.

DrDuke wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:23

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:00

DrDuke wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 14:38

Pac wasn't shot, he was past-prime, which didn't mean, that he had nothing left. Manny having more wars sounds like an excuse. That is all about style and Mayweather was able to save himself from wearing down, while Pac wasn't.

Really had little to do with style. Watch the film, not just of their fight, but of Pacquiao's last several fights before he fought Mayweather. his isn't the same guy of the late 2000s.
Pacquiao had not stopped anybody in the previous six years.

Manny having more ring wars is a fact. He four brutal fights with Marquez 4 times by then. He had also had a couple of very tough fights with Morales. Mayweather simply didn't do that. You want to say that Mayweather at 80-90% was good enough to beat Pacquiao at 50-60% fine. So what.
Literally every fighter listed on this thread ( in their prime) on this would have beat Pacquiao at this stage.

Pac stopped knocking guys out at some point, but that was not without an influence of fighting in a higher cathegory, don't you think so? He actually didn't look significantly declined until the aftermath of Marquez 4. Except Marquez 3, but that was Marquez, Pac wasn't looking excellent against him even in the times you consider to be his prime. Bradley 1 was a pure robbery. Actually after Marquez 4 Pac objectively won every fight, except Mayweather bout. All those wins, including Horn paper loss, were convincing. Convincing was the loss to Mayweather. Pac had 50-60%of him left then? Hardly. After Bradley 3 those numbers look more sound.

I don't think the higher weight was much of a factor at all. He fought de la Hoya and Cotto at that weight and stopped them.
He was not stopping people because he wasn't as active and he was getting slower. with both hand speed and his foot movement.
Sure he should have got the decision against Bradley in the first fight. But that isn't the point. He didn't look good in. didn't look good in any of the Bradley fights. He didn't look good against greats like Algeri or Rios either.
Everybody could tell that he was slowing down.

Watch the fights against De la hoya or Cotto, or fights before that. He doesn't even look the same fighter at all as he did by 2012 or so.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:32

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:02

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 14:45
Marquez wasn't a good win for Mayweather. Marquez had barely just gotten to 135 (where he was undersized) after having only a handful of fights at 130. For perspective when De La Hoya fought Mayweather 1t 154, Marquez had never campaigned higher than 126 and was at at 130 a year before the Mayweather fight.

It's pathetic that fight even happened. He's the best fighter on Mayweather's resume but that version of Marquez? Not so much.

Marquez was certainly nowhere near his best at 147. He had not even fought at Junior welter before. Still, it's probably the 2nd best win for Mayweather.

I'm not sure. I actually don't think Mayweather has any truly special win or single achievement. He has a lot of quantity and names but it was manipulated more than any fighter I can remember. He was an incredible boxer so when I think of rating him historically it's more points gained on style points than resume.

If I was to have a go at his best five wins I'd go : -

1. Diego Corrales (It was an excellent performance in what was perceived as basically even money)

2. Jose Luis Castillo II (not a great performance & a closer fight than what people remember but I felt he lost the first clearly and the version of JLC that he fought may have been the best guy he ever fought)

3. Genaro Hernandez (Chichanito was a little old but still it was a big step up at that time)

4. Miguel Cotto (Cotto wasn't in his prime and had too many miles but he showed to be still fairly good in this one)

5. Manny Pacquaio (awful fight, not a great performance but that Pacquaio is still better than the versions of Mosley, De La Hoya, Marquez and very green Canelo at an uncomfortable catch-weight)

I think the top of Mayweather's resume is what will keep him out of the all-time discussions. The unbeaten record helps to a degree but more and more fighters are retiring unbeaten. The depth of his resume and names of some of the opponents is what's balancing out from the lack of genuine, prime quality at the top.

I guess we can quibble which wins were the best. I think De La Hoya, though clearly past it, still was a better opponent than anyone else.
Most importantly, his resume at the top should keep him out of alltime discussion. However you see people try to spin it and say things like he beat Pacquiao, De la Hoya, Mosely, Marquez,. He has to be one of the best. or something along those lines.
However, I agree if we actually go through his record one by one, he does lack major wins at the time that he fought his opponent.
I think Chavez does too. However, Chavez does IMO have better wins and I would rate him slightly higher. Certainly you can make a legitimate argument for Mayweather. But clearly, neither belongs right at the top when you compare them to the absolute very best.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 10:57

DrDuke wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:23

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Aug 2018, 16:00

Really had little to do with style. Watch the film, not just of their fight, but of Pacquiao's last several fights before he fought Mayweather. his isn't the same guy of the late 2000s.
Pacquiao had not stopped anybody in the previous six years.

Manny having more ring wars is a fact. He four brutal fights with Marquez 4 times by then. He had also had a couple of very tough fights with Morales. Mayweather simply didn't do that. You want to say that Mayweather at 80-90% was good enough to beat Pacquiao at 50-60% fine. So what.
Literally every fighter listed on this thread ( in their prime) on this would have beat Pacquiao at this stage.

Pac stopped knocking guys out at some point, but that was not without an influence of fighting in a higher cathegory, don't you think so? He actually didn't look significantly declined until the aftermath of Marquez 4. Except Marquez 3, but that was Marquez, Pac wasn't looking excellent against him even in the times you consider to be his prime. Bradley 1 was a pure robbery. Actually after Marquez 4 Pac objectively won every fight, except Mayweather bout. All those wins, including Horn paper loss, were convincing. Convincing was the loss to Mayweather. Pac had 50-60%of him left then? Hardly. After Bradley 3 those numbers look more sound.

I don't think the higher weight was much of a factor at all. He fought de la Hoya and Cotto at that weight and stopped them.
He was not stopping people because he wasn't as active and he was getting slower. with both hand speed and his foot movement.
Sure he should have got the decision against Bradley in the first fight. But that isn't the point. He didn't look good in. didn't look good in any of the Bradley fights. He didn't look good against greats like Algeri or Rios either.
Everybody could tell that he was slowing down.

Watch the fights against De la hoya or Cotto, or fights before that. He doesn't even look the same fighter at all as he did by 2012 or so.

De La Hoya was shot. And he was shot indeed. Pac himself had much more of him left against Floyd, than Oscar had against Pac. And Oscar was far more declined, than in Mayweather fight. Anyway Oscar even quitted, so Cotto is a kinda only actually stopped victim. And I don't know, why you say, that Pac wasn't good against Brandley and the others. He won all that stuff fair and square. Furthermore Bradley seemed to be more talented boxer, than Cotto, for example.

De La Hoya hadn't fought in 12 months and that was his only fight in three years. He was rusty, living a life of coke and drag and let's face it; he had one big fight win in the last eight years and that was the shell of Fernando Vargas back in 2002. De La Hoya didn't bring in good form and even though he had size advantage that's about it.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 11:54 De La Hoya hadn't fought in 12 months and that was his only fight in three years. He was rusty, living a life of coke and drag and let's face it; he had one big fight win in the last eight years and that was the shell of Fernando Vargas back in 2002. De La Hoya didn't bring in good form and even though he had size advantage that's about it.

If he was shot against Pacquiao, then he was shot against Floyd also. Only a 1/ 1/2 had past and he only had one fight between them.

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 12:06

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 11:54 De La Hoya hadn't fought in 12 months and that was his only fight in three years. He was rusty, living a life of coke and drag and let's face it; he had one big fight win in the last eight years and that was the shell of Fernando Vargas back in 2002. De La Hoya didn't bring in good form and even though he had size advantage that's about it.

If he was shot against Pacquiao, then he was shot against Floyd also. Only a 1/ 1/2 had past and he only had one fight between them.

No, against Floyd he was well-prepared and still had it. He probably was outfought mentally though, Mayweather got under his skin.

DrDuke wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:19

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 12:06

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 11:54 De La Hoya hadn't fought in 12 months and that was his only fight in three years. He was rusty, living a life of coke and drag and let's face it; he had one big fight win in the last eight years and that was the shell of Fernando Vargas back in 2002. De La Hoya didn't bring in good form and even though he had size advantage that's about it.

If he was shot against Pacquiao, then he was shot against Floyd also. Only a 1/ 1/2 had past and he only had one fight between them.

No, against Floyd he was well-prepared and still had it. He probably was outfought mentally though, Mayweather got under his skin.

No, both of his shoulders were bad by that point and he was fighting once a year. He came off a shorter layoff vs Pacquiao (6mos) than he did Mayweather. (1 year)

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:27

DrDuke wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:19

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 12:06

If he was shot against Pacquiao, then he was shot against Floyd also. Only a 1/ 1/2 had past and he only had one fight between them.

No, against Floyd he was well-prepared and still had it. He probably was outfought mentally though, Mayweather got under his skin.

No, both of his shoulders were bad by that point and he was fighting once a year. He came off a shorter layoff vs Pacquiao (6mos) than he did Mayweather. (1 year)

But before Pac he had troublesome weight-cut issues.

People can only fight the fighters available in their own eras and aside from not fighting Pacquiao earlier Mayweather did a reasonably good job of facing the best opposition available. I don't think this criticism of his opposition is warrant.

DrDuke wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:29

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:27

DrDuke wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:19

No, against Floyd he was well-prepared and still had it. He probably was outfought mentally though, Mayweather got under his skin.

No, both of his shoulders were bad by that point and he was fighting once a year. He came off a shorter layoff vs Pacquiao (6mos) than he did Mayweather. (1 year)

But before Pac he had troublesome weight-cut issues.

Weight issues don't = shot. If that's the case, Corrales was distracted and had trouble making that 130 for Floyd.

Weight issues are the "dog ate my home work" excuses of the boxing world. Anybody can always say that. The Corrales fight counts.

Mayweather's legacy would have been greater have he fought and beat Pacquiao several years earlier. That is a big one. He should get ripped for the first Castillo fight which he slept walked his way through and got saves by the judges. To a lesser extent you can rip for not beating De La Hoya easier.
Take out those things and he would certainly be ahead of Chavez. But you can't do that if you are interested in accurately rating him.

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 15:37

DrDuke wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:29

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 14:27

No, both of his shoulders were bad by that point and he was fighting once a year. He came off a shorter layoff vs Pacquiao (6mos) than he did Mayweather. (1 year)

But before Pac he had troublesome weight-cut issues.

Weight issues don't = shot. If that's the case, Corrales was distracted and had trouble making that 130 for Floyd.

Anyway that's a one of the factors to cause inability to regain a solid shape. In Pac fight Oscar's shape was obviously much worse, than in Mayweather bout. Moreover in then age of Oscar a decline can occur in a geometric progression.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 16:04 Weight issues are the "dog ate my home work" excuses of the boxing world. Anybody can always say that. The Corrales fight counts.

Generally yes, but in this case we can't close eyes on De La Hoya moving back in that age.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Aug 2018, 16:04 Mayweather's legacy would have been greater have he fought and beat Pacquiao several years earlier. That is a big one. He should get ripped for the first Castillo fight which he slept walked his way through and got saves by the judges. To a lesser extent you can rip for not beating De La Hoya easier.
Take out those things and he would certainly be ahead of Chavez. But you can't do that if you are interested in accurately rating him.

Accurate rating is even worse for Chavez.