# Am I overrating Julio Cesar Chavez when I say that....



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

...he is one of the 10 best fighters ever*, p4p, in terms of skill/ability* ????

How do you feel about that ?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

If we're talking purely in terms of ability then I don't honestly think it's a stretch, Vic. He's one of the most complete fighters we have on film.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

I wouldn't necessarily agree, but i wouldn't laugh at or dismiss the idea either, at least for the 130\135 version.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

:rofl


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> If we're talking purely in terms of ability then I don't honestly think it's a stretch, Vic. He's one of the most complete fighters we have on film.





Bill Jincock said:


> I wouldn't necessarily agree, but i wouldn't laugh at or dismiss the idea either, at least for the 130\135 version.


Would you think that ARguello should be considered before Chavez in a skill/ability discussion ? Or it is so close that it´s doesn´t matter too much.....?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Vic said:


> Would you think that ARguello should be considered before Chavez in a skill/ability discussion ? Or it is so close that it´s doesn´t matter too much.....?


I'm always reluctant to say anything even remotely critical of Alexis Arguello, but JCC looked like the more complete operator on film to me. I also think Arguello would have come out second best if the two could have fought one another during their respective primes.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

No he rates high ability but imo he tends to get overrated a little.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> No he rates high ability but imo he tends to get overrated a little.


I hardly see (I think I never saw) someone comparing Chavez with the Sugar Rays or even Duran in terms of skills/ability......so, I don´t think I see people overrating him. Do you think is a stretch to compare him with someone like Jose Napoles ? I realyl don´t, even though they are hard to compare because of the essential differences regarding their styles, but you know what I mean..


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

I think he was badly inferior to Pea when they fought, and being handled like that not too far from his prime hurts him in this discussion. I don't have him as more complete than Arguello, who actually was very good also at mid- and close range. Haven't seen Chavez display a similar ability at long range as Arguello did at close.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> If we're talking purely in terms of ability then I don't honestly think it's a stretch, Vic. He's one of the most complete fighters we have on film.


:dealExactly.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Robinson
Whittaker
Jones
Armstrong
Duran
Leonard
Pep
Ali
Hagler
Jofre

Where does Chavez fit in the top ten? I'm not sure I consider him superior to Hearns tbh.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Not at all, Vic.

JCC is really one of the most skilled fighters of all time.

And i don't get the whole overrated talk, since i see _many_ posters on these forums trash Chavez.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Not a stretch at all. Perfect blend of skills.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Luf said:


> Robinson
> Whittaker
> Jones
> Armstrong
> ...


I do think he looks better than Armstrong and Alimore complete too you know ahad more weapons and maybe Hagler too, in terms of pure skills, ....and those weapons were all in a very high degree, one thing that I find Chavez underrated, I mean people don´t talk about his counter-punching skill, he could counter really well, IIRC the fight with Ramirez was a prime example of this.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vic said:


> I do think he looks better than Armstrong and Ali, in terms of pure skills, more complete too you know....had more weapons and those weapons were all in a very high degree, one thing that I find Chavez underrated, I mean people don´t talk about his counter-punching skill, he could counter really well, IIRC the fight with Ramirez was a prime example of this.


Agreed. Showed another string to his bow against Lockridge too.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> :rofl


Adults are talking, go to bed.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vic said:


> I do think he looks better than Armstrong and Alimore complete too you know ahad more weapons and maybe Hagler too, in terms of pure skills, ....and those weapons were all in a very high degree, one thing that I find Chavez underrated, I mean people don´t talk about his counter-punching skill, he could counter really well, IIRC the fight with Ramirez was a prime example of this.


I think Armstrong had superior power and defence, also seems a bit quicker though not as acute a counterpuncher.Armstrong better at head hunting, Chavez better to the body imo.

Hagler was immense. Could box and punch. One of the most skilled ever.

I'll watch more Chavez but for me he's in the next group with Sanchez, Napoles, Hearns and Locche.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Luf said:


> I think Armstrong had superior power and defence, also seems a bit quicker though not as acute a counterpuncher.Armstrong better at head hunting, Chavez better to the body imo.
> 
> Hagler was immense. Could box and punch. One of the most skilled ever.
> 
> I'll watch more Chavez but for me he's in the next group with Sanchez, Napoles, Hearns and Locche.


Armstrong was pretty good at doing his thing, but I don´t think he looks as skilled as Chavez when throwing his combinations for example, nor he seemed to set up his best punches as well as Chavez.
Both had good defense, it´s too close IMO, I don´t see how we can say one was clearly better than the other defensively. Hagler and Chavez is very close to me, just think Cahevz is a bit more refined in his offense, more compact punches for example.....


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vic said:


> Armstrong was pretty good at doing his thing, but I don´t think he looks as skilled as Chavez when throwing his combinations for example, nor he seemed to set up his best punches as well as Chavez.
> Both had good defense, it´s too close IMO, I don´t see how we can say one was clearly better than the other defensively. Hagler and Chavez is very close to me, just think Cahevz is a bit more refined in his offense, more compact punches for example.....


it isn't clear at all, I agree. I just think in slipping and baiting Ross, Armstrong demonstrated his skills better than Chavez ever did. Same with Duran and Leonard. Chavez didn't have that level of victory imo.

Hagler maybe I overrate but his dominance and versatility shown throughout his reign impressed me more than almost anyone. The way he walked through Hearns, outboxed Duran and outfought Mugabi as well as his earlier performances. Chavez is in my top 15 definitely.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Luf said:


> it isn't clear at all, I agree. *I just think in slipping and baiting Ross, Armstrong demonstrated his skills better than Chavez ever did. Same with Duran and Leonard. Chavez didn't have that level of victory imo.
> *
> Hagler maybe I overrate but his dominance and versatility shown throughout his reign impressed me more than almost anyone. The way he walked through Hearns, outboxed Duran and outfought Mugabi as well as his earlier performances. Chavez is in my top 15 definitely.


I think this depends a lot on how do you judge Ross, and his skills, right, luf ?? If you don´t judge him as a very skilled fighter you can´t say that Armstrong is more skilled because he beat Ross, you know what I mean here?? My line of thought on this may be a bit confusing, but try to think about it. It´s always about the level of skills that you see.

Chavez shows in the ring he had the skills, he looks more skilled than Arsmtrong IMHO. We know he didn´t have win against a guy like Ross but I think it´s just a matter of circunstances, because to be honest I really think that if he had a Barney Ross to face he would beat him, in my view...still, it´s all subjective, no doubt about it.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vic said:


> I hardly see (I think I never saw) someone comparing Chavez with the Sugar Rays or even Duran in terms of skills/ability......so, I don´t think I see people overrating him. Do you think is a stretch to compare him with someone like Jose Napoles ? I realyl don´t, even though they are hard to compare because of the essential differences regarding their styles, but you know what I mean..


He's a great fighter, elite skill and defence, pressure, technique. But he doesn't have anything he's the best at so to speak. At the time the whole P4P no1 unbeaten thing has generally overrated him. I think he's a level below Duran, Whitaker and Mayweather at the weight he fought at and on par with Arguello and Sanchez. Personally I think Marquez could beat him and Pacquaio might do, which isn't a massive knock, although some will take it that way.

As for Napoles, I'd say Napoles has slightly more up his sleeve, yes.

Which of the following do you rate over him? (a list in no order)

Ali
Robinson
Roy Jones
Duran
Tyson
Ray Leonard
Hearns
Napoles
Holyfield
Hopkins
Monzon
Hagler
Sanchez
Arguello
Louis
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Toney
Pep
Larry Holmes
Floyd Patterson
and whoever I forgot

That's just modern post 40s, then you have the guys with less film and older eras, some I personally don't rate that high ability wise:

Greb
Tunney
Langford
Benny Leonard
Charles Burley
etc etc


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vic said:


> Armstrong was pretty good at doing his thing, but I don´t think he looks as skilled as Chavez when throwing his combinations for example, nor he seemed to set up his best punches as well as Chavez.
> Both had good defense, it´s too close IMO, I don´t see how we can say one was clearly better than the other defensively. Hagler and Chavez is very close to me, just think Cahevz is a bit more refined in his offense, more compact punches for example.....


Armstrong is a midget with T-Rex arms who'd be a bantam today so he can't really look too skilled against much rangier men. But the way he slides inside without being hit to perfectly turn punches over is top class. Setting up a right hand against a much rangier man with a top jab and right takes a fair bit of skill though I'll tell you that.

Skills aside though Armstrong has a better workrate and speed and P4P you have to rate his strength to handle the likes of Garcia at middleweight.

You are right though it's a valid comparison.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Vic said:


> I think this depends a lot on how do you judge Ross, and his skills, right, luf ?? If you don´t judge him as a very skilled fighter you can´t say that Armstrong is more skilled because he beat Ross, you know what I mean here?? My line of thought on this may be a bit confusing, but try to think about it. It´s always about the level of skills that you see.
> 
> Chavez shows in the ring he had the skills, he looks more skilled than Arsmtrong IMHO. We know he didn´t have win against a guy like Ross but I think it´s just a matter of circunstances, because to be honest I really think that if he had a Barney Ross to face he would beat him, in my view...still, it´s all subjective, no doubt about it.


It depends a lot I agree. The eye test is one facet but when the figter also passes an atg acid test whilst still displaying the level of skill it separates them imo.

So baiscally on film there isn't much between hank and Julio but Armstrong did his thing against an atg in Ross and Chavez never replicated that feat.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

@Powerpuncher. I would say I _certainly_ rate (talking only about fighters with a good enough quantity of footage avaliable): 
Robinson, 
SR Leonard, 
Joe Louis, 
Duran 
and Whitaker _above_ Chavez...... but not by a mile, wouldn´t say Chavez is not on their level.

I would put in the next tier Chavez, Wilfredo Gomez, Eder Jofre and Roy Jones Jr....I would have 9. The number 10, in the next tier (again, almost on the same level, not too much between the tiers) could be anyone between Jose Napoles, Mike McCallum, Fighting Harada, Marvin Hagler, Mayweather Jr, Bernard Hopkins, Ismael Laguna and Luis Rodriguez maybe....James Toney could be considered too.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Vic said:


> ...he is one of the 10 best fighters ever*, p4p, in terms of skill/ability* ????
> 
> How do you feel about that ?


I think you can find at least five fighters just _in his own weight class_ that rate higher in that regard.

Specifically:
Duran
Whitaker
Ike Williams
Carlos Ortiz
Canzoneri
maybe Arguello


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> I think you can find at least five fighters just _in his own weight class_ that rate higher in that regard.
> 
> Specifically:
> Duran
> ...


I disagree about those 3 names personally, all great fighters, did a lot of great things, but Chavez is certainly more skilled than those 3, IMO.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Vic said:


> I think this depends a lot on how do you judge Ross, and his skills, right, luf ?? If you don´t judge him as a very skilled fighter you can´t say that Armstrong is more skilled because he beat Ross, you know what I mean here?? My line of thought on this may be a bit confusing, but try to think about it. It´s always about the level of skills that you see.
> 
> Chavez shows in the ring he had the skills, he looks more skilled than Arsmtrong IMHO. We know he didn´t have win against a guy like Ross but I think it´s just a matter of circunstances, because to be honest I really think that if he had a Barney Ross to face he would beat him, in my view...still, it´s all subjective, no doubt about it.


His twwo victories...against Rosario and the o ne vs Camacho...tell the tale of Chavez's skills better than anything else. He dominated PHYSICALLY Rosario...withstood the guy's tremendous power...smother him really,...and completely negated anything that Camacho could do...two masterful performances vs radically opposite types. Chavez was a force of nature,...and a versatile force of nature at that.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Napoles would have been sheer poison for Armstrong...face it,...Mantequilla was as classy...dangerous and criminally slick as any welterweight ever had any right to be.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Camacho was ordinary by the time he fought Chavez though.I don't think he had been a really good fighter since the mid-80s and was going life and death with guys like Haugen and a semi-retired Mancini by this point.

Something like the Martinez fight was far more impressive and noteworthy imo.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

Vic said:


> one thing that I find Chavez underrated, I mean people don´t talk about his counter-punching skill, he could counter really well, IIRC the fight with Ramirez was a prime example of this.


Very much so, yes. People tend to remember the Chavez that beat Taylor or Camacho, but he could adjust his style if he needed to and the Ramirez fight illustrates that well. I personally don't care for ranking and such, but top 10 is such incredibly rarified air...the top 10 boxers who have ever lived. That is an insanely exclusive club. 
The one thing with Julio, aside from all his skills and all that he achieved, he never had that one mega win, you know? I know you're arguing from a skills perspective and from that angle you can make a case for him, but taking into account everything, that might be the one thing that could provide a bit of a hump.

He was exceptionally talented though, no question.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

fists of fury said:


> Very much so, yes. People tend to remember the Chavez that beat Taylor or Camacho, but he could adjust his style if he needed to and the Ramirez fight illustrates that well. I personally don't care for ranking and such, but top 10 is such incredibly rarified air...the top 10 boxers who have ever lived. That is an insanely exclusive club.
> The one thing with Julio, aside from all his skills and all that he achieved, he never had that one mega win, you know? I know you're arguing from a skills perspective and from that angle you can make a case for him, but taking into account everything, that might be the one thing that could provide a bit of a hump.
> 
> He was exceptionally talented though, no question.


True, true, agree with everything, I´m going to rewatch Chavez vs Ramirez in a few minutes, I remember I loved that fight when I watched it.


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

It's hard to make a definitive list as far as skills go, but he'd be up there with the likes of the following:

Hagler
Saldivar 
Jofre
Harada 
Canto 
Olivares
Gomez 
Kalambay 
McCallum 
Graham (Billy) 
Laguna
DeJesus 
Benitez 
Chang 
Ross 
Canzoneri 
Leonard (Ray) 
Johnson (Harold)
Loi
Ortiz

Just a tad behind the most ever skilled guys like: 
Pep 
Duran 
Whitaker 
Mayweather 
Gavilan 
Rodriguez
Robinson 
Ali
Napoles


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> He's a great fighter, elite skill and defence, pressure, technique. But he doesn't have anything he's the best at so to speak. At the time the whole P4P no1 unbeaten thing has generally overrated him. I think he's a level below Duran, Whitaker and Mayweather at the weight he fought at and on par with Arguello and Sanchez. *Personally I think Marquez could beat him* and Pacquaio might do, which isn't a massive knock, although some will take it that way.
> 
> As for Napoles, I'd say Napoles has slightly more up his sleeve, yes.
> 
> ...


Surely you jest.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

sweet_scientist said:


> It's hard to make a definitive list as far as skills go, but he'd be up there with the likes of the following:
> 
> Hagler
> Saldivar
> ...


I edited my mentions in my post in the last page because I want to include Laguna, who I love to watch and I do believe he is up there.....

Some interesting mentions in your list btw, Loi and DeJesus surprises me a bit.....Loi because I really don´t know too much about him and if he is up there with all those greats in your list he is certainly someone I should try to find and watch more....DeJesus surprises me too because I never though of him as high as this, maybe I need to look at him with more attention.
Isn´t you a big Eddie Perkins fan, btw ? Don´t you think he looks pretty awesome in the Sorimachi fight ? I know there is more footage of him out there but that´s the only one I watched so far....


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

Vic said:


> I edited my mentions in my post in the last page because I want to include Laguna, who I love to watch and I do believe he is up there.....
> 
> Some interesting mentions in your list btw, Loi and DeJesus surprises me a bit.....Loi because I really don´t know too much about him and if he is up there with all those greats in your list he is certainly someone I should try to find and watch more....DeJesus surprises me too because I never though of him as high as this, maybe I need to look at him with more attention.
> Isn´t you a big Eddie Perkins fan, btw ? Don´t you think he looks pretty awesome in the Sorimachi fight ? I know there is more footage of him out there but that´s the only one I watched so far....


Loi is just one of those solid all rounders, with no real flaws. He isn't outstanding at any one facet like a lot of other fighters, but he's a guy that could do most things well. Good on the front foot and the back, solid defense, good body punching technique and overhand shots. There's only snippets that I've seen too, but you get a good idea of his style from the Ortiz and Perkins clips that are out there.

And yes, Perkins himself is a guy who i'd put in that tier with Chavez too as far as skill goes. Was pretty impressive in the Paolo Rosi fight too if you can come across it.

DeJesus was a really skillful guy but his punch resistance and stamina were below the levels they needed to be overall, which cost him quite a bit. Tapered off quite badly at the end of his career too with the drugs and what not, but you can get a good idea of just how skilled he was in the first Duran fight. Beautiful punching technique and subtle yet smooth movement.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

sweet_scientist said:


> It's hard to make a definitive list as far as skills go, but he'd be up there with the likes of the following:
> 
> Hagler
> Saldivar
> ...


Mayweather should be in the first list.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

sweet_scientist said:


> It's hard to make a definitive list as far as skills go, but he'd be up there with the likes of the following:
> 
> Hagler
> Saldivar
> ...


I agree with Flea. I don't think Mayweather has the all round skill set to be placed in with the most skilled guy's. JCC is more deserving of that spot than Floyd. To be honest I think a good few boxers on your first list are more all round skilled than PBF.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

this is such a hard question to answer because of styles; on one hand he didn't do much wrong, but on the other hand, charles, srr, jofre, whitaker, duran, gavilan, toney, pep, benitez, mcallum, 

i'd say top 10 for his style, or within his weight, but overall seems a bit too far.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I just don't really see it with Benitez being ranked among the most skilled fighters of all time. He struggled with Curry, didn't have it all his own way against Palomino, and I felt he was thoroughly outboxed by Ray Leonard. Like, I didn't even think the Leonard fight was close. 

I love the Duran and Ranzany performances, but Benitez isn't top tier in terms of all around ability in my opinion. He wasn't as dynamic offensively as the likes of Napoles, Robinson, Duran, etc.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

with benitez it comes down to how un-motivated/trained he really was, i'd say he was lacking almost every aspect of a succesfull career except ability


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I just don't really see it with Benitez being ranked among the most skilled fighters of all time. He struggled with Curry, didn't have it all his own way against Palomino, and I felt he was thoroughly outboxed by Ray Leonard. Like, I didn't even think the Leonard fight was close.
> 
> I love the Duran and Ranzany performances, but Benitez isn't top tier in terms of all around ability in my opinion. He wasn't as dynamic offensively as the likes of Napoles, Robinson, Duran, etc.


What about 17 year old Benitez Vs Cervantes?

Or seemingly past his best Benitez sparking the thoroughly decent Maurice Hope @ 154lbs?

I do agree with the general sentiment of your post though.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> What about 17 year old Benitez Vs Cervantes?
> 
> Or seemingly past his best Benitez sparking the thoroughly decent Maurice Hope @ 154lbs?
> 
> I do agree with the general sentiment of your post though.


There's not a lot to criticise when it comes to the Cervantes and Hope victories, I just don't think Benitez had enough notable performances in his career to warrant him being listed among the most skilled operators of all time. He was handled fairly comprehensively by a few fighters and even some of the very good fighters he fought gave him problems. He was great as maneuvering out of the way of his opponent's punches, but I'd hesitate to call him a great counter puncher. He wasn't clinical at punishing mistakes against top class opposition.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

Luf said:


> Robinson
> Whittaker
> Jones
> Armstrong
> ...


Is this on technical skill or ability? I would seriously consider having Louis, Gans and Napoles in there somewhere.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vic said:


> @Powerpuncher. I would say I _certainly_ rate (talking only about fighters with a good enough quantity of footage avaliable):
> Robinson,
> SR Leonard,
> Joe Louis,
> ...


It's an odd list for me, I mean Laguna above Ortiz, Buchanan or Saldivar? And McCallum but no Kalambay?

Not having Pep and Armstrong in ability debates is unusual too, although I agree both have some weaknesses, as does Chavez though.

Tyson, Holyfield and Ali, have greater ability than Chavez to me. The heavyweights seem to be struck off P4P debates for some reason despite fighters at the weight effectively competing against a massive weight range of opponents for the greatest prize in the sport.

Then there's Hearns, Arguello, Charles, Moore, Hopkins.

Then again it's hard to compare Hearns ability against Chavez, most pick few welters to beat Hearns.

Not easy to do such a list, but remember I'll personally never agree to put Chavez in the same stratosphere as RJJ :yep


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

sweet_scientist said:


> Surely you jest.


No the match up suits Marquez, I rate Marquez higher than most and Chavez lower than most so don't expect many to agree.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> It's an odd list for me, I mean Laguna above Ortiz, Buchanan or Saldivar? And McCallum but no Kalambay?
> Not having Pep and Armstrong in ability debates is unusual too, although I agree both have some weaknesses, as does Chavez though.
> 
> Tyson, Holyfield and Ali, have greater ability than Chavez to me. The heavyweights seem to be struck off P4P debates for some reason despite fighters at the weight effectively competing against a massive weight range of opponents for the greatest prize in the sport.
> ...


I forgot Kalambay and Saldivar. And also Buchanan. I feel like Ortiz was a pretty complete fighter but not the best at anything from the footage I saw. 
IMHO Ortiz didn´t have that special attribute, I have Laguna winning it very clearly their first fight. I did watch the second one (or it was the third, I can´t remember) many years ago on youtube, in the first days of youtube so I really can´t remember too well, can´t comment, so maybe if I had that fight to watch again I would put Ortiz there with Laguna, I don´t know....
Pep ? Well, not enough footage, not any footage of his prime, so, I don´t know......same with Charles, the footage we had of Charles are good but don´t make me feel confident to pick him over all those guys.
Not sure how I feel about Tyson and Ali, they had more weaknesses than those others. Holyfield was complete, could do a lot of different things, could be there I guess, but not above the guys I mentioned IMO.....


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I´m trying to do it again. A combination of the best in terms of Ability and Skill.

First tier

-Joe Louis
-Ray Robinson
-Ray Leonard
-Duran
-Whitaker

Second tier

-Chavez (oh, something I want to say, the best body puncher ever IMO and also the guy who landed the most compact punches you know, his combinations make me impressed more than anyone else, in this tier)
-Wilfredo Gomez (you may say, where is Sanchez ? He was a better featherweight, especially in that day, judging by what I see in other fights, I see Gomez as better overall IMO)
-Roy Jones Jr
-Eder Jofre

I think those guys are all so polished, so sharp in the ring, great at something but also very good at the rest, maybe Roy Jones is the only one who you can say that had a few flaws here and there, maybe....

Then, the number 10 would be in a third tier, and like I said, there is too many names......Right now, I´m feeling like I should put Jose Napoles in there.

Again, not putting there guys with very little footage of like Benny Leonard, for example......don´t feel confortable judging their skills and abilities without watching them you know...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

JCC is the best combination puncher I've ever seen. There, I said it.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> JCC is the best combination puncher I've ever seen. There, I said it.


I think Louis, Robinson, Duran and Leonard are a bit better but not too much between them...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Danny said:


> Is this on technical skill or ability? I would seriously consider having Louis, Gans and Napoles in there somewhere.


just general win - ability.

napoles is very close to being in there. Not much between Hagler, jofre and napoles at all.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Vic said:


> I think Louis, Robinson, Duran and Leonard are a bit better but not too much between them...


I can accept Louis and Robinson as being better, but not Duran or Leonard.

JCC was a great combination puncher; great variation, incredible accuracy, and he was consistently throwing more than one shot at a time. They weren't as flashy as Leonard's combinations, or as fast as Muhammad Ali's, but they were just as effective.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> JCC is the best combination puncher I've ever seen. There, I said it.


JCC one of them no doubt. I would chose Duran from what I've seen. Duran had freak herky jerky reflexes. He could throw counter combo's almost instantaneous, no matter what position his body was in at the time. I'm not just talking about his hand speed, more his body reaction speed. I hope that made sense :lol:


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

rossco said:


> JCC one of them no doubt. I would chose Duran from what I've seen. Duran had freak herky jerky reflexes. He could throw counter combo's almost instantaneous, no matter what position his body was in at the time. I'm not just talking about his hand speed, more his body reaction speed. I hope that made sense :lol:


I don't really see Duran as being one of the best in this category, rossco. I realise I'm alone.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I don't really see Duran as being one of the best in this category, rossco. I realise I'm alone.


I'll admit I'm slightly biased when I't comes to Duran. There's not much in it. Both were great combination punchers.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I can accept Louis and Robinson as being better, but not Duran or Leonard.
> 
> JCC was a great combination puncher; great variation, incredible accuracy, and he was consistently throwing more than one shot at a time. They weren't as flashy as Leonard's combinations, or as fast as Muhammad Ali's, but they were just as effective.


Absolutely...JCC's combos were just great...in an effective, old school sort of way.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

rossco said:


> JCC one of them no doubt. I would chose Duran from what I've seen. Duran had freak herky jerky reflexes. He could throw counter combo's almost instantaneous, no matter what position his body was in at the time. I'm not just talking about his hand speed, more his body reaction speed. I hope that made sense :lol:


:dealGreat description rossco...that says it about as right as I can imagine...."herky-jerky" and mercurical,...whereas Chavez was deliberate and oh so methodical and unrelenting as hell.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Phantom said:


> :dealGreat description rossco...that says it about as right as I can imagine...."herky-jerky" and mercurical,...whereas Chavez was deliberate and oh so methodical and unrelenting as hell.


Iv'e not watched a Chavez fight in ages. I think I'm going to go and watch some prime JCC with a few beers :cheers


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

rossco said:


> Iv'e not watched a Chavez fight in ages. I think I'm going to go and watch some prime JCC with a few beers :cheers


:cheersSounds like a good plan....btw, I was never a real fan back in his heyday, but I steadily am appreciating him more...the guy was a powerhouse...beating the crap out of Rosario and Camacho being my 2 favorites..


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> No the match up suits Marquez, I rate Marquez higher than most and Chavez lower than most so don't expect many to agree.


That's pretty baffling to me though. Chavez simply had better defense, a better chin, better straight shots.

To me this is a type of fight Chavez dominates 9-3 ish with a couple of knockdowns and perhaps a late stoppage by the ref after Marquez's face is disfigured.

It's one thing to stand and counter Pacquiao, and it's another thing to do it to someone who has the defensive ability not to leave himself vulnerable, and the whiskers to pretty much not get flustered even when he has left himself open and who can quickly reset and look to land an even better combination in return.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Phantom said:


> :cheersSounds like a good plan....btw, I was never a real fan back in his heyday, but I steadily am appreciating him more...the guy was a powerhouse...beating the crap out of Rosario and Camacho being my 2 favorites..


Phantom, those will be the fights I'll watch :good


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

rossco said:


> I agree with Flea. I don't think Mayweather has the all round skill set to be placed in with the most skilled guy's. JCC is more deserving of that spot than Floyd. To be honest I think a good few boxers on your first list are more all round skilled than PBF.


I dunno, maybe.

You've got to hand it to Floyd though, his timing is about as good as anyone's that has ever graced the sport.

His defense is within the top handful of guys I've seen.

His movement and positioning is pretty intelligent and he can fight well against a variety of styles.

And his punch picking is second only to his cherry picking.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

sweet_scientist said:


> His movement and positioning is pretty intelligent and he can fight well against a variety of styles.


Certainly agree with that. Floyd is in my third tier (my tiers are all very close to each other) very definitely. Can´t see a solid case against Floyd with someone saying "this guy could be all wrong for Floyd because of this, this and that..."


----------



## Ted Spoon (Aug 13, 2013)

He was a fantastic fighter, but if you're going to whittle it down to a mere ten men he shouldn't be included.

To answer one of the OP's further questions, I don't believe Chavez was as talented as Jose Napoles, another who made his name _above_ his best weight.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

sweet_scientist said:


> I dunno, maybe.
> 
> You've got to hand it to Floyd though, his timing is about as good as anyone's that has ever graced the sport.
> 
> ...


Mayweather definitely isn't as all rounded as the top tier guys and a lot of the second tier guys but the skills he's got he's extremely good at. I just don't feel he has the all round skill set to be placed amongst the top tier most skilled guy's. His defensive and countering look out of this world at times but those skills haven't been tested by a great offensive fighter in their prime. A past prime ODH gave him a close fight. Imagine if that was Hearns in the ring with him that night.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Ted Spoon said:


> He was a fantastic fighter, but if you're going to whittle it down to a mere ten men he shouldn't be included.
> 
> To answer one of the OP's further questions, I don't believe Chavez was as talented as Jose Napoles, another who made his name _above_ his best weight.


If we are going to include guys like Benny Leonard, Joe GAns and others.....then, I guess there is a good chance that Chavez wouldn´t be a top 10, perhaps....
but my policy on this is that, at least in terms os skills and ability, is impossible to judge without having watched them, many times we judge these old guys based on their reputation, which is fair, but once we are talking about _our perception_ about how good they really were, I think it gets impossible to judge them correctly, in my opinion.

I just did it again thinking about it a little more....the tier 1 is very solid to me, don´t see myself changing those 5 names, even though I don´t beleive there is much between Duran and Chavez, for example....

Tier 1- Robinson/Louis/Duran/Leonard/Whitaker.

Tier 2- Chavez/Gomez/Jones Jr/Eder Jofre
Tier 3- José Napoles/Mayweather Jr/Hagler

I will watch Napoles again these days, maybe I´m forgetting how great he really was....


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

rossco said:


> Phantom, those will be the fights I'll watch :good


:cheersEnjoy! I think they're Chavez at his cruel best.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

If Floyd had KO power then he would probably be more aggressive. He knows what he can and cant do and keeps it safe. He's very intelligent in the ring but there's great fighters who just WOULD be able to impose their will on him and I don't think he has the offensive skill to fight fire with fire. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Vic said:


> I disagree about those 3 names personally, all great fighters, did a lot of great things, but Chavez is certainly more skilled than those 3, IMO.


 Maybe Williams. Canzoneri and Ortiz, though? Don't think so.

I rate Chavez very highly, but you stated earlier you'd have him a tier above Napoles and Hagler. Nah, son.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> Maybe Williams. Canzoneri and Ortiz, though? Don't think so.
> 
> I rate Chavez very highly, but you stated earlier you'd have him a tier above Napoles and Hagler. Nah, son.


My tiers are all very close like I said.....Chavez was, at least, very good at everything, you can´t find one thing and say "hmm, he was not good at this".
He was a monster body puncher, could put combinations as well as anyone in the history of boxing. 
Had ring generalship, defensive skills, his defensive moves were up there with any other offensive fighter, his accuracy is one of the best ever too. Like I said, underrated counter-puncher, could fight on the backfoot very well, had a jab! A good one! Generally underrated but it was a good one!


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

sweet_scientist said:


> That's pretty baffling to me though. Chavez simply had better defense, a better chin, better straight shots.
> 
> To me this is a type of fight Chavez dominates 9-3 ish with a couple of knockdowns and perhaps a late stoppage by the ref after Marquez's face is disfigured.
> 
> It's one thing to stand and counter Pacquiao, and it's another thing to do it to someone who has the defensive ability not to leave himself vulnerable, and the whiskers to pretty much not get flustered even when he has left himself open and who can quickly reset and look to land an even better combination in return.


Chavez is less obvious to counter than Pacquaio, but coming forward Marquez could set up counters, which he's a master at. He's quicker and better at using range than Chavez and skill/technique wise he's certainly up there with Chavez and he's a master thinker in there. Actually I could see Chavez winning but I can't see there been much in it and think either could win.

On the topic of Pacquaio and given their similarities how does Pacman compare to Meldrick Taylor and who handled the speed better? Also who'd win between them. I certainly wouldn't go with the line of Taylor dominating Chavez.



rossco said:


> If Floyd had KO power then he would probably be more aggressive. He knows what he can and cant do and keeps it safe. He's very intelligent in the ring *but there's great fighters who just WOULD be able to impose their will on him and I don't think he has the offensive skill to fight fire with fire*. That's just my opinion though.


I agree with this for opponents who are as quick as him like Robinson, Leonard and Hearns and even then he can at least negate them through defence. The likes of Chavez would be chasing shadows quite a bit though.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vic said:


> My tiers are all very close like I said.....Chavez was, at least, very good at everything, you can´t find one thing and say "hmm, he was not good at this".
> He was a monster body puncher, could put combinations as well as anyone in the history of boxing.
> Had ring generalship, defensive skills, his defensive moves were up there with any other offensive fighter, his accuracy is one of the best ever too. Like I said, underrated counter-puncher, could fight on the backfoot very well, had a jab! A good one! Generally underrated but it was a good one!


When Roger Mayweather talked about him he said he wasn't the best at any one thing but was very good at everything. That makes him very complete and a top top fighter but at the elite level (of all time) maybe lacking, given he wasn't the best at any one thing. In a way like your assessment of another great in Ortiz (60s vintage)


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Vic said:


> ...he is one of the 10 best fighters ever*, p4p, in terms of skill/ability* ????
> 
> How do you feel about that ?





Pedderrs said:


> If we're talking purely in terms of ability then I don't honestly think it's a stretch, Vic. He's one of the most complete fighters we have on film.


It's not a stretch at all, he's in my top ten as far as that's concerned anyway.

And stretch to whom, anyway? What are they going to do about it? :lol: Nothing.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> And stretch to whom, anyway? What are they going to do about it? :lol: Nothing.


They could start to bully me and say things like "your english sucks" and things like this :err


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Vic said:


> They could start to bully me and say things like "your english sucks" and things like this :err


In the event that happens, just ask yourself how Maidana would handle it. ...Like this.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> In the event that happens, just ask yourself how Maidana would handle it. ...Like this.


Like a boss :lol:


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Vic said:


> Like a boss :lol:


I do tend to feel a little intimidated myself when a poster comes in and starts riddling off 15-20 letter words. I'm like "what the fuck did he just say?" You question yourself and wonder if you made the most of your education. I suppose you can either try and comfort yourself by dismissing said posters as being pretentious bastards who still live in their parent's basement, or, if that doesn't work, just tell yourself it could be worse...you could be @heavy_hands.



heavy_hands said:


> i don´t think that it would be that easy, hi i am mike tyson the hw champion all you will respect me.. i think that several guys wouuld try to fuck him , just because he was the champ they would try to hit him 4 vs 1 or so


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Vic said:


> ...he is one of the 10 best fighters ever*, p4p, in terms of skill/ability* ????
> 
> How do you feel about that ?





Pedderrs said:


> In the event that happens, just ask yourself how Maidana would handle it. ...Like this.


In light of all the recent Lomachenko-driven discussion, I think what is considered a stretch has been redefined. Were in the age of making and holding outrageous statements and opinions while getting away with it. Everything really is so damn subjective though in reality.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> When Roger Mayweather talked about him he said he wasn't the best at any one thing but was very good at everything. That makes him very complete and a top top fighter but at the elite level (of all time) maybe lacking, given he wasn't the best at any one thing. In a way like your assessment of another great in Ortiz (60s vintage)


I recall Roger saying nothing but his chin stood out. Then again I never really saw Roger as the most reliable source.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Chavez is less obvious to counter than Pacquaio, but coming forward Marquez could set up counters, which he's a master at. He's quicker and better at using range than Chavez and skill/technique wise he's certainly up there with Chavez and he's a master thinker in there. Actually I could see Chavez winning but I can't see there been much in it and think either could win.
> 
> On the topic of Pacquaio and given their similarities how does Pacman compare to Meldrick Taylor and who handled the speed better? Also who'd win between them. I certainly wouldn't go with the line of Taylor dominating Chavez.
> 
> I agree with this for opponents who are as quick as him like Robinson, Leonard and Hearns and even then he can at least negate them through defence. The likes of Chavez would be chasing shadows quite a bit though.


Don't forget Duran. Prime Duran's another great who just WOULD be able to impose his will on Mayweather.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Who gives a flying fuck what Roger Mayweather has to say about anything?! I watched an interview of his recently. I'm paraphrasing slightly...

_"Err..yeahh...the thing about chavez man, da thing about dat motherfucka was his.........(pause)....*points to his chin*...dat fuckin chin. he wouldnt go nowhere. He was easy to hit...but...some of 'em just don't go nowhere man...chavez was one of them motherfuckas". _

It's kind of cruel to use his own patented phrase against him, but...


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

In fairness, Mayweather did hit Chavez with some hellacious shots in their second fight; he tagged Julio more cleanly than most I would say, but that piece of granite stood up well. In any event, sometimes being extremely well-rounded and making use of a multitude of skills is better than relying on one or two outstanding abilities.


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Chavez is less obvious to counter than Pacquaio, but coming forward Marquez could set up counters, which he's a master at. He's quicker and better at using range than Chavez and skill/technique wise he's certainly up there with Chavez and he's a master thinker in there. Actually I could see Chavez winning but I can't see there been much in it and think either could win.
> 
> *On the topic of Pacquaio and given their similarities how does Pacman compare to Meldrick Taylor and who handled the speed better? Also who'd win between them. I certainly wouldn't go with the line of Taylor dominating Chavez. *


They were both quick and threw a lot of punches, but there's not too much else similar between them I'd say.

Meldrick was more of a combination/flurry guy, whilst Pac was more explosive and exposed himself more in an attempt to commit to punches and hurt opponents.

I fancy Chavez would cope better with Pacquiao than he did with Taylor, simply because it was the effect of Taylor's non-stop throwing of punches in combination which was breaking Chavez's rhythm up and not allowing him to set up as he'd wish, rather than his explosiveness or power, which is more Pacquiao's game.

I can see Pac having the better of it in the early to mid stages as Chavez attempts to come to terms with Pac's explosiveness and power, which will be his main hindrance to Juilio, but I can't see Pac dealing with Chavez in the later stages as he's forced to go onto the back foot and fight from a non-aggressive stance. Pretty sure Julio would dispatch of him before it's done, though if Pac can hear the final bell I'd give him a decent chance of eeking out a close decision given his punching output.

Wouldn't rule out him hurting Chavez either really, but only one of them has the potential to be stopped and it's not Chavez.


----------



## Ted Spoon (Aug 13, 2013)

Vic said:


> If we are going to include guys like Benny Leonard, Joe GAns and others.....then, I guess there is a good chance that Chavez wouldn´t be a top 10, perhaps....
> but my policy on this is that, at least in terms os skills and ability, is impossible to judge without having watched them, many times we judge these old guys based on their reputation, which is fair, but once we are talking about _our perception_ about how good they really were, I think it gets impossible to judge them correctly, in my opinion.
> 
> I just did it again thinking about it a little more....the tier 1 is very solid to me, don´t see myself changing those 5 names, even though I don´t beleive there is much between Duran and Chavez, for example....
> ...


Gans and Leonard were two of the names I was thinking of; the lightweight division is packed with talent.

I appreciate your remark about a lack of footage, of course you can get a better gauge (your own gauge) about fighters who enjoy a good stock of film. Regarding your tiers, I could easily have Napoles in the first one, that's how talented he was; you'd do well to find a better combination puncher. And though Jofre only seems to have snippets outside of his fights with Medal and Harada his skills are the stuff of legend. The Brazilian bantamweight would be my pick for the most underrated boxer these days (historically speaking).

Jones was brilliant to watch, and clearly a special talent, but that talent wasn't tested enough. The untouchable theory doesn't hold water. Just look at Robinson's tribulations at 147lbs against Artie Levine, Georgie Abrams. Every other guy you mentioned (even Mayweather) have shown the ability to navigate choppy waters. Though tough and clearly brave, I couldn't say Jones demonstrated those essential skills of adaptation.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Ted Spoon said:


> Gans and Leonard were two of the names I was thinking of; the lightweight division is packed with talent.
> 
> I appreciate your remark about a lack of footage, of course you can get a better gauge (your own gauge) about fighters who enjoy a good stock of film. Regarding your tiers, I could easily have Napoles in the first one, that's how talented he was; you'd do well to find a better combination puncher. And though Jofre only seems to have snippets outside of his fights with Medal and Harada his skills are the stuff of legend. The Brazilian bantamweight would be my pick for the most underrated boxer these days (historically speaking).
> 
> Jones was brilliant to watch, and clearly a special talent, but that talent wasn't tested enough. The untouchable theory doesn't hold water. Just look at Robinson's tribulations at 147lbs against Artie Levine, Georgie Abrams. Every other guy you mentioned (even Mayweather) have shown the ability to navigate choppy waters. Though tough and clearly brave, I couldn't say Jones demonstrated those essential skills of adaptation.


I can´t say I really disagree with nothing of what you said, all good points. 
Just to clarify my opinion, one of best, most important, attributes a fighter can have is combination punching and punching technique, that´s why I rate Chavez higher than most and why I think Louis is so great....the other attributes I give a big value to are defensive skills combined with a high ring IQ and adaptivity (I generally rate high guys who can fight on the outside and on the inside well, that´s almost a required attribute in my view)....those are the most important things a fighter can have IMHO.

Those things comes first to me, and when you have power, and is a great finisher, that´s to me make a fighter truly amazing and as perfect as is possible.

*From tier 1 and 2*, Jones Jr is the only one that doesn´t fit in all those categories, ring Iq and skill of adaptation like you said, for example, and I agree.......but Jones´s attributes like speed (IMO the faster fighter ever) and offensive competence makes him go there, the good things compensate the bad things in his case, to me. I think he was a exception.


----------



## Ted Spoon (Aug 13, 2013)

Vic said:


> I can´t say I really disagree with nothing of what you said, all good points.
> Just to clarify my opinion, one of best, most important, attributes a fighter can have is combination punching and punching technique, that´s why I rate Chavez higher than most and why I think Louis is so great....the others are defensive skills combined with a high ring IQ and adaptivity (I generally rate high guys who can fight on the outside and on the inside well, that´s almost a required attribute in my view)....those are the most important things a fighter can have IMHO.
> 
> Those things comes first to me, and when you have power, and is a great finisher, that´s to me make a fighter truly amazing and as perfect as is possible.
> ...


That's a fair outlook.

Cheers for the video; perhaps one magical day we will be graced with Jofre's entire championship run in high definition.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Ted Spoon said:


> Cheers for the video; perhaps one magical day we will be graced with Jofre's entire championship run in high definition.


We can dream! For those who didn´t see it and are reading this, someone posted Jofre vs Legra on youtube these days, jus type Jofre Legra on youtube and you´ll see the video and the guy´s channel.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Adults are talking, go to bed.


the most funny thing is that you REALLY think that you are important... hahaha a pathetic freak in a sad forum... face to face in front of me probably you would piss your pants


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Ted Spoon said:


> Gans and Leonard were two of the names I was thinking of; the lightweight division is packed with talent.
> 
> I appreciate your remark about a lack of footage, of course you can get a better gauge (your own gauge) about fighters who enjoy a good stock of film. Regarding your tiers, I could easily have Napoles in the first one, that's how talented he was; you'd do well to find a better combination puncher. And though Jofre only seems to have snippets outside of his fights with Medal and Harada his skills are the stuff of legend. The Brazilian bantamweight would be my pick for the most underrated boxer these days (historically speaking).
> 
> Jones was brilliant to watch, and clearly a special talent, but that talent wasn't tested enough. The untouchable theory doesn't hold water. Just look at Robinson's tribulations at 147lbs against Artie Levine, Georgie Abrams. Every other guy you mentioned (even Mayweather) have shown the ability to navigate choppy waters. Though tough and clearly brave, I couldn't say Jones demonstrated those essential skills of adaptation.


Jones fought the best fighters in the divisions he fought though, Robinson didn't and Jones had better opponents. I'm not sure Abrams giving Robinson a close fight looks likely when you see the film too.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> the most funny thing is that you REALLY think that you are important... hahaha a pathetic freak in a sad forum... face to face in front of me probably you would piss your pants


:lol: Yeah, sure. Or I'd stab you to death.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Jones fought the best fighters in the divisions he fought though


How about Dariusz ?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vic said:


> How about Dariusz ?


The best light heavys of Jones' era were European. And Ruiz was crud even then.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Chavez was really, really good at everything...but, in many ways, so was Olivares. Chavez threw tighter combos, but Olivares put more on each one. Kind of a wash. JCC was pretty slick on the way in...but then again,Rockabye Ruben's ability to box, when he elected to do so, wasn't something to take at all lightly.

So, as good as JC Superstar was, I have to wonder if he was the most talented or p4p greatest-in-terms-of-ability among _Mexican_ fighters.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Drew101 said:


> Chavez was really, really good at everything...but, in many ways, so was Olivares. Chavez threw tighter combos, but Olivares put more on each one. Kind of a wash. JCC was pretty slick on the way in...but then again,Rockabye Ruben's ability to box, when he elected to do so, wasn't something to take at all lightly.
> 
> So, as good as JC Superstar was, I have to wonder if he was the most talented or p4p greatest-in-terms-of-ability among _Mexican_ fighters.


Agreed with Olivares. Guy was very complete himself.

I'd say Julio's in-fighting ability is what seperates them...Julio was better at what he did best than Ruben IMO.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vic said:


> How about Dariusz ?


The actor? I'm not sure he was better than Rocchigiani in '97






In all seriousness probably the second best from '97-'00 but after beating Hill he went onto fight easier fights. He managed to beat an inactive Rocchigiani fairly second time around. The first Hall fight the ref rescued him with a gift stoppage when he was behind on points and the second they drained Hall by giving him the fight on very short notice. Gonzalez absolutely schooled a slower older Michalczewski a couple of fights later.



Flea Man said:


> The best light heavys of Jones' era were European. And Ruiz was crud even then.


Darius and Rocchigiani, maybe but I'm not sure either would have beat Harding or Reggie Johnson. Rocchigiani was offered a Jones fight but went after his WBC lawsuit instead. I think Dariusz wanted 10 million. By 2000 Harding and Tarver were clearly better LHWs than those 2.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> I think you can find at least five fighters just _in his own weight class_ that rate higher in that regard.
> 
> Specifically:
> Duran
> ...


No love for Joe Gans?


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> :lol: Yeah, sure. Or I'd stab you to death.


i am talking for real not in your ciber scenario keyboard warrior.. it is not call of duty.. usually the freaks think that they are the same heros in the real life... sorry... keep in the forum and watching porn


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> i am talking for real not in your ciber scenario keyboard warrior.. it is not call of duty.. usually the freaks think that they are the same heros in the real life... sorry... keep in the forum and watching porn


Yes, because your posturing is so much more mature.

You'd be surprised if you knew what I was like in real life. Keep making your youtube videos you sad, sad little man.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Yes, because your posturing is so much more mature.
> 
> Keep making your youtube videos you sad, sad little man.


:lol: MAD? POOR POOR NERD...


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Yes, because your posturing is so much more mature.
> 
> *You'd be surprised if you knew what I was like in real life*. Keep making your youtube videos you sad, sad little man.


:lol: I DON´T NEED GREAT IMAGINATION.. 24 HOURS ON A FORUM... LMAO


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> :lol: I DON´T NEED GREAT IMAGINATION.. 24 HOURS ON A FORUM... LMAO


Block caps? Upset much?

I wasn't on here for months you 'tard. You're the one uploading recordings of yourself to youtube :rofl


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

flea man said:


> block caps? Upset much?
> 
> I wasn't on here for months you 'tard. You're the one uploading recordings of yourself to youtube :rofl


poor poor freakk


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> poor poor freakk


Your comebacks are brutally harsh. How ever will I cope?

Why am I a freakk (sic) and a nerd? Because that's the best your unimaginative ass can think of?

I bet you're single and still live with your parents and haven't left your home town in years :deal And I bet you don't have a job either.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Drew101 said:


> Chavez was really, really good at everything...but, in many ways, so was Olivares. Chavez threw tighter combos, but Olivares put more on each one. Kind of a wash. JCC was pretty slick on the way in...but then again,Rockabye Ruben's ability to box, when he elected to do so, wasn't something to take at all lightly.
> 
> So, as good as JC Superstar was, I have to wonder if he was the most talented or p4p greatest-in-terms-of-ability among _Mexican_ fighters.


Well, in my top 10 list the two names at the top are Chavez and Sanchez. I confess to developing a fascination with Chavez...and I may end rating him at #1 ,,,with Sanchez coming in at #2 ...partly due to the brevity of his career.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Phantom said:


> Well, in my top 10 list the two names at the top are Chavez and Sanchez. I confess to developing a fascination with Chavez...and I may end rating him at #1 ,,,with Sanchez coming in at #2 ...partly due to the brevity of his career.


Saldivar>>> Sanchez


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Saldivar>>> Sanchez


Hmmmm:think


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Phantom said:


> Hmmmm:think


Definitely. He came back from the dead. Better wins. Better title reign. Is Gomez that good a win that Sal would rank higher?

Ramos-Lopez are about even
Robertson> Ford
Winstone> Castillo
Famechon> Lopez II
Legra> Nelson about even, Nelson pre-prime, Saldivar past prime
Seki> Castillo
Laguna, two more wins over Winstone> Gomez


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

I think it's kind of hard to over rate a guy that at one time went 89-0-1 before his first loss. The man fought for over 25 years in the ring, and like most long time fighters, many of his losses came at the end of his career, similar to Roberto Duran. If a record of 107(86 KO's)--6(4 by KO)--2 is considered over rated, I'd love to have such distinction.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

rossco said:


> Don't forget Duran. Prime Duran's another great who just WOULD be able to impose his will on Mayweather.


I'm not a Mayweather fan by a long shot, but I can't agree with this. When Sugar Ray Leonard used his skills as a slick boxer and didn't sit down on his punches and try to mix it up with Duran in their second fight-------well, we all know how that ended. Then again, it all depends on which Mayweather you are referring to. If Roger or Floyd Sr., he destroys them both. Floyd Jr. is another story.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> I'm not a Mayweather fan by a long shot, but I can't agree with this. When Sugar Ray Leonard used his skills as a slick boxer and didn't sit down on his punches and try to mix it up with Duran in their second fight-------well, we all know how that ended. Then again, it all depends on which Mayweather you are referring to. If Roger or Floyd Sr., he destroys them both. Floyd Jr. is another story.


Mayweather is pretty suspectible to feinting, especially early on.
Floyd would adjust like he always does but probably too late and not enough.

Leonard was also bigger than Mayweather and superior with his feet at welter.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> I'm not a Mayweather fan by a long shot, but I can't agree with this. When Sugar Ray Leonard used his skills as a slick boxer and didn't sit down on his punches and try to mix it up with Duran in their second fight-------well, we all know how that ended. Then again, it all depends on which Mayweather you are referring to. If Roger or Floyd Sr., he destroys them both. Floyd Jr. is another story.


I'm talking prime Duran vs Mayweather Jr. Everybody knows Duran in the second Leonard fight wasn't in the same shape as he was in Montreal. I cant agree with you. Leonard is a better all round fighter than Mayweather Jr and Duran wasn't in good condition so your view doesn't really hold up. It's clear to see that Leonard was a more skilled fighter than Mayweather is/was, especially in offence. Mayweather couldn't pull off the kind of skill Leonard did against Duran.

Even Montreal Duran isn't really prime Duran. He was stepping up a weight and he was also in his 30's. Prime Duran is lightweight Duran. Lightweight Duran would beat the shit out of Mayweather imo. Most versions of Duran beat Mayweather to be honest. You cant really compare Mayweather to Leonard because Leonard was better than Mayweather Jr at nearly everything.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

gumbo2176 said:


> I'm not a Mayweather fan by a long shot, but I can't agree with this. When Sugar Ray Leonard used his skills as a slick boxer and didn't sit down on his punches and try to mix it up with Duran in their second fight-------well, we all know how that ended. Then again, it all depends on which Mayweather you are referring to. If Roger or Floyd Sr., he destroys them both. Floyd Jr. is another story.


Duran is a nightmare for Floyd Jr. When has he ever faced anyone that could feint like Duran? His defence would look less than stellar.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I certainly wouldn't bet my mortgage on Roberto Duran if he was facing off against Floyd Mayweather Jr. In fact, I wouldn't be prepared to bet anything on Roberto regardless of who he was fighting. The dude was prone to the odd no-show.

I just watched Dodie Boy get his ears boxed off against Hilario Zapata, @Flea Man. It's probably not the best representation of him as a fighter, but he wasn't as good as his brother based on this evidence. Gerry actually had footwork.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I certainly wouldn't bet my mortgage on Roberto Duran if he was facing off against Floyd Mayweather Jr. In fact, I wouldn't be prepared to bet anything on Roberto regardless of who he was fighting. The dude was prone to the odd no-show.
> 
> I just watched Dodie Boy get his ears boxed off against Hilario Zapata, @Flea Man. It's probably not the best representation of him as a fighter, but he wasn't as good as his brother based on this evidence. Gerry actually had footwork.


Zapata is so much better than Kawashima it's ridiculous.

I've already said I concede Gerry was better anyway.

When discussing hypotheticals you have to pick the best veraions of both fighters unless stated IMO. And when Duran showed up, he was better at Floyd at everything. Totally different levels. I'd even say Duran faced a far higher calibre of offensive operators so I'd even give his defence higher marks.

Mayweather, in terms of variety/quality of stylists faced, is probably the most overrated stylist I've ever seen. He'd have fits with say, Federico Thompson.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Zapata is so much better than Kawashima it's ridiculous.
> 
> I've already said I concede Gerry was better anyway.
> 
> ...


Kawashima could actually knock you out though. Zapata was a tall, slippery bastard who possessed a jab; but he had nothing on that left hand. It's also a no contest when it comes to their respective trunks; Kawashima's were much prettier.

I don't subscribe to the idea that Roberto Duran had a better defense than Floyd Mayweather Jr, and Floyd possessed the superior hand speed of the two, but Duran might have been better at everything else. I was just saying that if I had to bet my mortgage on the result then I'm siding with Floyd Mayweather Jr based on Duran's penchant for a "no mas". It's also difficult to ignore the fact that "45 have tried".


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Kawashima could actually knock you out though. Zapata was a tall, slippery bastard who possessed a jab; but he had nothing on that left hand. It's also a no contest when it comes to their respective trunks; Kawashima's were much prettier.
> 
> I don't subscribe to the idea that Roberto Duran had a better defense than Floyd Mayweather Jr, and Floyd possessed the superior hand speed of the two, but Duran might have been better at everything else. I was just saying that if I had to bet my mortgage on the result then I'm siding with Floyd Mayweather Jr based on Duran's penchant for a "no mas". It's also difficult to ignore the fact that "45 have tried".


45 fights over what, 16 years, isn't very impressive at all IMO.

No love for Zapatas green trunks???

And shaky though he was, Zapatas knockdown of Bassa in the first round was a thing of beauty.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

flea man said:


> your comebacks are brutally harsh. How ever will i cope?
> 
> Why am i a freakk (sic) and a nerd? Because that's the best your unimaginative ass can think of?
> 
> I bet you're single and still live with your parents and haven't left your home town in years :deal and i bet you don't have a job either.


lol the complete thread is spammed by posts from you, you don´t have a life little simpleton.. Haha i imagine that your dream was to be decent in boxing but you never could even train that because you were the puching ball of the gym, so you are talking crap hiding in your cave in a forum , it is the best that you can do.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> lol the complete thread is spammed by posts from you, you don´t have a life little simpleton.. Haha i imagine that your dream was to be decent in boxing but you never could even train that because you were the puching ball of the gym, so you are talking crap hiding in your cave in a forum , it is the best that you can do.


Embarrassing attempt.

Get back to me when you get paid to write about boxing.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

This thread actually has a fair few posts from me.

All heavy_hands managed was :rofl Because he actually only knowd about heavyweights and fuck all about boxing.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> This thread actually has a fair few posts from me.
> 
> All heavy_hands managed was :rofl Because he actually only knowd about heavyweights and fuck all about boxing.


don´t worry tomorrow will be a new day


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> don´t worry tomorrow will be a new day


Another day in your pitiful existence with no friends and family. Hilarious


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Definitely. He came back from the dead. Better wins. Better title reign. Is Gomez that good a win that Sal would rank higher?
> 
> Ramos-Lopez are about even
> Robertson> Ford
> ...


You've given me something to think about here...what you say is actually true about the title reigns of both men comparatively...but H2H? You think that Saldivar would be able to impose his will on SS? I's say that it would depend on which version of Sanchez he would face...the destroyeer of Gomez or the guy who struggled..somewhat...with Cowdel. You may be right Flea...


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

I'm saying now that Chavez is #1 Mexican of all time....sorry Sal,...but I've been awakened in a big way about JCC.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

The top three goes like this:
1. Chavez
2. Sanchez/Saldivar (you're working on me Flea)
3. Olivares


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Phantom said:


> The top three goes like this:
> 1. Chavez
> 2. Sanchez/Saldivar (you're working on me Flea)
> 3. Olivares


Purely on skills/ability, i'd rate Olivares above both Saldivar and Sanchez...without a doubt.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Zopilote said:


> Purely on skills/ability, i'd rate Olivares above both Saldivar and Sanchez...without a doubt.


I can respect that...Ruben was more hell than average IMO..and I wish that there was film of Olivares-Rudkin...he was red-hot then,...just after that masterful performance vs Rose.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Phantom said:


> I can respect that...Ruben was more hell than average IMO..and I wish that there was film of Olivares-Rudkin...he was red-hot then,...just after that masterful performance vs Rose.


Yeh no doubt.

I would like to see film for the 3rd Chucho Castillo fight. I haven't seen it, but i hear he put on a masterclass on that one.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Vic said:


> ...he is one of the 10 best fighters ever*, p4p, in terms of skill/ability* ????
> 
> How do you feel about that ?


No doubt.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Phantom said:


> You've given me something to think about here...what you say is actually true about the title reigns of both men comparatively...but H2H? You think that Saldivar would be able to impose his will on SS? I's say that it would depend on which version of Sanchez he would face...the destroyeer of Gomez or the guy who struggled..somewhat...with Cowdel. You may be right Flea...


I don't think Sanchez of the Cowdell fight was that different from Sanchez of the Gomez fight, P.

He just struggled with certain styles - jabbers/movers were his achilles' heel.

Saldivar was much better at dealing with them.

That left hand was deadly. Almost Galaxy-like.

In other words, Winstone is a tougher fight to win for Sanchez than Saldivar.

Not saying that Saldivar would be an easy fight, of course.

Sanchez's counterpunching skills, movement, height advantage and his famous durability/stamina would help him to edge Saldivar but he would eat a lot of leather in the process.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> Yeh no doubt.
> 
> I would like to see film for the 3rd Chucho Castillo fight. I haven't seen it, but i hear he put on a masterclass on that one.


He was dropped


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Phantom said:


> You've given me something to think about here...what you say is actually true about the title reigns of both men comparatively...but H2H? You think that Saldivar would be able to impose his will on SS? I's say that it would depend on which version of Sanchez he would face...the destroyeer of Gomez or the guy who struggled..somewhat...with Cowdel. You may be right Flea...


It's styles. Sal struggled when forced to lead.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> It's styles. Sal struggled when forced to lead.


He was then out of his comfort zone.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> He was dropped


Aside from that, he put on quite a show in outboxing the counterpuncher Castillo.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Vic said:


> ...he is one of the 10 best fighters ever*, p4p, in terms of skill/ability* ????
> 
> How do you feel about that ?


I agree 100%

Chavez was 1 of the best fighters in history p4p, a machine of a fighter.

I think he is joined with Whitaker as the best fighter of the last 25-30 years, personally.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> Robinson
> Whittaker
> Jones
> Armstrong
> ...


Not seen a lot of Jofre to be honest but Chavez looks a better fighter than Roy Jones IMO.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> Not seen a lot of Jofre to be honest but Chavez looks a better fighter than Roy Jones IMO.


don't see it at all tbh


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> It's styles. Sal struggled when forced to lead.





Phantom said:


> Aside from that, he put on quite a show in outboxing the counterpuncher Castillo.


Anyone of you gentlemen happen to know where i can watch this fight??


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> No the match up suits Marquez, I rate Marquez higher than most and Chavez lower than most so don't expect many to agree.


How did you know he was talking about this part of your post ?... it was a very big post.

I`ll tell you why, its because you know how ridiculous Marquez beating Chavez really is, you`re pulling every cunts plunger, I think you know Chavez would piss on JMM.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> Anyone of you gentlemen happen to know where i can watch this fight??


I'll upload it for you if it ain't on youtube, send me a PM if you can't find it on there.
@Phantom I really disagree. Whilst Sal won handily in the end, I felt he looked clueless for long spells in the fight and I consider it further proof that it was a style he struggled with.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

Vic said:


> I do think he looks better than Armstrong.


I agree, Vic. Though something I have to point out, as an admirer of Armstrong - and I'm sure you already realise this, but for the benefit of others - the fact we have none of his knockouts on film hurts his standing a lot. In that footage, we see him squaring up mostly with larger men or Hall of Famers and fighting well, just not spectacularly. It looks particularly negative on him as a puncher, where in fact he was an absolute destroyer in the lower divisions. The dude was smashing everyone, his sheer physical capabilities were too much. Bouncing his opponents up and down until they submitted, I would certainly rate that version of Armstrong up there with the best ever, even if I can't see it.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

A similar case to the above is Jose Napoles. I'm a little less confident saying this about him than I am with Armstrong, but there's a good chance Jose Napoles in the late sixties was one of the best ever. Skill wise, he was operating on another level, wasn't as slow and lazy as he became in the seventies, and always had that iron jaw.

Also, I would have to put Mayweather in a top ten. Say what you want about him as a person, or about how he picks fights or doesn't fight enough or whatever, but the dude has major skills and hasn't looked vulnerable more than a handful of times in his whole career; at 130lbs he was an engine, a speedster and as slick a counter puncher as anyone, ever.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Manassa said:


> A similar case to the above is Jose Napoles. I'm a little less confident saying this about him than I am with Armstrong, but there's a good chance Jose Napoles in the late sixties was one of the best ever. Skill wise, he was operating on another level, wasn't as slow and lazy as he became in the seventies, and always had that iron jaw.
> 
> Also, I would have to put Mayweather in a top ten. Say what you want about him as a person, or about how he picks fights or doesn't fight enough or whatever, but the dude has major skills and hasn't looked vulnerable more than a handful of times in his whole career; at 130lbs he was an engine, a speedster and as slick a counter puncher as anyone, ever.


Mayweather has not fought a sufficient calibre of stylist to orove his skills as being _that_ good.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I'll upload it for you if it ain't on youtube, send me a PM if you can't find it on there.
> 
> @Phantom I really disagree. Whilst Sal won handily in the end, I felt he looked clueless for long spells in the fight and I consider it further proof that it was a style he struggled with.


Ohhhhh shit.

Had a brain fart and thought we were talking about Sal Sanchez Vs Castillo atsch Sorry @Phantom

Only highlights of Olivares-Castillo 3 are available, sorry to say.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Another day in your pitiful existence with no friends and family. Hilarious


i imagine that all your friends are virtual in this forum lmao, because your life is this forum, you are 24 hours for day here, you can say what you want.. the posts are here.. and the hour also.. you are a sad nerd.. a poor frustrated in the real life who need to be an "autority" in a virtual place because you are a complete nobody in the real life haha, yes flea man yes blablabla.. the facts talk my dear nerd.. facts...


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Ohhhhh shit.
> 
> Had a brain fart and thought we were talking about Sal Sanchez Vs Castillo atsch Sorry @Phantom
> 
> Only highlights of Olivares-Castillo 3 are available, sorry to say.


:lol:

Ya thats all i found.

and i just noticed, i quoted the wrong post from you.

I originally meant to quote your post where you said that he (olivares) was dropped in that fight. :lol:atsch


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> i imagine that all your friends are virtual in this forum lmao, because your life is this forum, you are 24 hours for day here, you can say what you want.. the posts are here.. and the hour also.. you are a sad nerd.. a poor frustrated in the real life who need to be an "autority" in a virtual place because you are a complete nobody in the real life haha, yes flea man yes blablabla.. the facts talk my dear nerd.. facts...


Sure. I'm not even gonna bother to explain myself further, because I will come off as egotistical if I wax lyrical about my girlfriend, and my mates (I don't have many, who does in their mid 20s) and my occupation (modest, decent enough pay) but all your criticisms of me can be levelled at you.

The fact is you are banned because I know it will annoy you :hi:


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Mayweather has not fought a sufficient calibre of stylist to orove his skills as being _that_ good.


You could say the same about a few other nominations. I don't reckon his era was sufficiently shit enough to use that against him too much; being undefeated in an average era somewhat cancels out being beaten in a stronger one for me, especially with the fashion in which he has consistently dominated.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Manassa said:


> You could say the same about a few other nominations. I don't reckon his era was sufficiently shit enough to use that against him too much; being undefeated in an average era somewhat cancels out being beaten in a stronger one for me, especially with the fashion in which he has consistently dominated.


I wouldn't say so. Napoles schooling Cokes as he did is far more impressive than anything Floyd has done.

For me, it boils down to time; 45 (or whatever it is now) fights undefeated sounds impressive, but over 15 or so years? That's pathetic IMO


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

heavy_hands said:


> i imagine that all your friends are virtual in this forum lmao, because your life is this forum, you are 24 hours for day here, you can say what you want.. the posts are here.. and the hour also.. you are a sad nerd.. a poor frustrated in the real life who need to be an "autority" in a virtual place because you are a complete nobody in the real life haha, yes flea man yes blablabla.. the facts talk my dear nerd.. facts...


Man, I seem to always be on a computer but I'm not a nerd. Maybe I am. But I have a good bunch of mates, it's the twenty first century, technology has invaded.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Manassa said:


> Man, I seem to always be on a computer but I'm not a nerd. Maybe I am. But I have a good bunch of mates, it's the twenty first century, technology has invaded.


I've been out all day with my missus, and just come back from the pictures with my mate (Wolf of Wall Street: shit hot) and wasn't on the forums for months (literally)

But that twat wants to persist. So I've banned him for a week to wind him up.

If any other posters think I'm being unfair, or abusing my position, bite me. I'm nice to you guys 'cause you're sound to me. That dick is rude to everyone, and I can annoy him, so I have.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I wouldn't say so. Napoles schooling Cokes as he did is far more impressive than anything Floyd has done.
> 
> For me, it boils down to time; 45 (or whatever it is now) fights undefeated sounds impressive, but over 15 or so years? That's pathetic IMO


And I gladly back you up on that :yep

You could argue that Hagler-Hearns is similarly more impressive than any single Mayweather performance; but who's to say Mayweather couldn't beat an opponent of that level in such fashion? It's definitely more convenient to go on what we know for sure rather than speculate (though we do a lot of that over here, can't help it), but what I do know is that Mayweather has displayed a level of skill that is once-in-a-generation rare.

I'm with you; I hate the fact he's so choosy and infrequent, but really we should hate the game and not the player (on his wages I'd fight once and fuck off underground with my hoes). Alright, he's a bit of a twat as well.

But stick him in the strongest era and, though I'm sure he'll pick up a good loss or ten, he'd still dominate.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Manassa said:


> And I gladly back you up on that :yep
> 
> You could argue that Hagler-Hearns is similarly more impressive than any single Mayweather performance; but who's to say Mayweather couldn't beat an opponent of that level in such fashion? It's definitely more convenient to go on what we know for sure rather than speculate (though we do a lot of that over here, can't help it), but what I do know is that Mayweather has displayed a level of skill that is once-in-a-generation rare.
> 
> ...


All fair, but I stick with the guys that have actually proven it.

For me, guessing that Floyd would still do well in a packed era, fighting once every six weeks, is as meaningless to my placing him in the pantheon of great operators as assuming he'd be as successful as many great 'contenders' rather than legendary champions.

I mean, Floyd is greater than Kalambay, but Kalambay proved his skillset against McCallum in a way that smashing Corrales and Gatti about just cannot compare to.

But that's just me.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> All fair, but I stick with the guys that have actually proven it.
> 
> For me, guessing that Floyd would still do well in a packed era, fighting once every six weeks, is as meaningless to my placing him in the pantheon of great operators as assuming he'd be as successful as many great 'contenders' rather than legendary champions.
> 
> ...


And it's a sound position to take. I'm a believer that fighters of a certain level will adapt to whatever is in front of them. It's possible Mayweather would be broken in a tough era, though I would propose it is probable he wouldn't, just going on his skill level plus the pride he takes in his ability. You never know, he might have lost once and crumbled, but we're talking about an era where one loss is akin to a death knell.

Where do you think Benny Leonard fits in?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Manassa said:


> And it's a sound position to take. I'm a believer that fighters of a certain level will adapt to whatever is in front of them. It's possible Mayweather would be broken in a tough era, though I would propose it is probable he wouldn't, just going on his skill level plus the pride he takes in his ability. You never know, he might have lost once and crumbled, but we're talking about an era where one loss is akin to a death knell.
> 
> Where do you think Benny Leonard fits in?


In what sense, skill level?

He looks good on film, but we only have him against one of his trickiest opponents.

Would be nice if we could've really seen him open up against Rocky Kansas or summat. Or the third Welsh bout. What we have, is kinda like if we only had Floyd Vs Oscar.

'Cept Tendler was better than Oscar


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> In what sense, skill level?
> 
> He looks good on film, but we only have him against one of his trickiest opponents.
> 
> ...


Yeah, skill level, or basically in a 'best' of all time discussion.

It would be nice to see some more... But, you know something, I think we have enough. Dare I say it, I think we have enough of Harry Greb to put him up there as well. There's simply no fucking way a fighter could achieve all that without being an astronomical marvel.

Leonard is backed up by footage fortunately, he shows some great skills. And his record is one of the best ever, I couldn't not include him in a top ten on ability.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> How did you know he was talking about this part of your post ?... it was a very big post.
> 
> I`ll tell you why, its because you know how ridiculous Marquez beating Chavez really is, you`re pulling every cunts plunger, I think you know Chavez would piss on JMM.


Because he highlighted the part he was talking about, I'm observant like that. As for your latter ramblings, it's the exact type of Chavez overrating I'm talking about.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Ohhhhh shit.
> 
> Had a brain fart and thought we were talking about Sal Sanchez Vs Castillo atsch Sorry @Phantom
> 
> Only highlights of Olivares-Castillo 3 are available, sorry to say.


:cheersLol,...hey that happens Flea,...no problem...both fought a Castillo...speaking of,...I love how Olivares turned boxer and showed his versatility in regaining his bantam title from Chucho like he did. Just picked himself up off the deck in the 6th and put on a master class demonstration in forsaking that precious knockout.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I wouldn't say so. *Napoles schooling Cokes as he did is far more impressive than anything Floyd has done.*For me, it boils down to time; 45 (or whatever it is now) fights undefeated sounds impressive, but over 15 or so years? That's pathetic IMO


Amen to that!! I remember both that fight and the mirror image rematch fought just a couple of months later.....Napoles...the Napoles of those fights especially, would have taken Mayweather's 0 for sure...I'm sold on that.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

I rank Sanchez below Olivares based on the resume of Olivares. I think Sanchez is probably better h2h though and I rate JCC above both as far as Mexican ATGs go.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Amen to that!! I remember both that fight and the mirror image rematch fought just a couple of months later.....Napoles...the Napoles of those fights especially, would have taken Mayweather's 0 for sure...I'm sold on that.


No arguments there.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> I rank Sanchez below Olivares based on the resume of Olivares. I think Sanchez is probably better h2h though and I rate JCC above both as far as Mexican ATGs go.


Surely you wouldn't rank Sanchez over Saldivar?


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Because he highlighted the part he was talking about, I'm observant like that. As for your latter ramblings, it's the exact type of Chavez overrating I'm talking about.


Chavez is underrated way more than overrated.... and I don't think I`m overrating him by saying he`d piss on Marquez.

Marquez has never been in with anyone as good as Julio Cesar Chavez, in fact he lost 12-0 in rounds vs the best boxer he ever fought, and Chavez is better than Mayweather H2H and in greatness.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Chavez is underrated way more than overrated.... and I don't think I`m overrating him by saying he`d piss on Marquez.
> 
> Marquez has never been in with anyone as good as Julio Cesar Chavez, in fact he lost 12-0 in rounds vs the best boxer he ever fought, and Chavez is better than Mayweather H2H and in greatness.


Marquez has been with plenty of boxers in the Chavez bracket, who did Chavez defeat in the class of Marquez, no one.

And that was at 147 where Chavez's record against ranked guys is what? 0-2? Mayweather was way bigger than Chavez, way quicker, rangier, bigger with a far better defense. Chavez was a better puncher but that's it and Mayweather would clearly beat him.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Sanchez > Saldivar
Chavez > Sanchez

I personally think Chavez is the greatest Mexican ever. Unless we include Napoles.

Chavez vs Marquez would be an incredible war and Chavez certainly takes the early rounds, it all depends if marquez's sharp shooting can take it's toll down the stretch.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> Sanchez > Saldivar
> Chavez > Sanchez
> 
> I personally think Chavez is the greatest Mexican ever. Unless we include Napoles.
> ...


If Marquez won any rounds it would be the early rounds because Chavez got stronger in the late rounds, Chavez does just about everything better than JMM plus he is bigger and tougher as well. Cant believe I`m actually having to put forward a case for Chavez to beat Marquez to anyone outside of powerpuncher.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Chavez beats JMM probably by late stoppage or UD. Marquez would hit the deck 2 or 3 times in that fight.

Mayweather wouldn't clearly beat Chavez. If he has lots of trouble with JLC then Chavez beats him. Mayweather could beat an older Chavez. Prime he has no chance.

The overrating of Mayweather's ability is quite amusing. I dont know why people pick him to beat great pressure fighters when he doesnt like pressure and has had trouble in his career against not so great and past it pressure fighters.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Marquez has been with plenty of boxers in the Chavez bracket, who did Chavez defeat in the class of Marquez, no one.
> 
> And that was at 147 where Chavez's record against ranked guys is what? 0-2? Mayweather was way bigger than Chavez, way quicker, rangier, bigger with a far better defense. Chavez was a better puncher but that's it and Mayweather would clearly beat him.


The fact that you think JMM has been in with `plenty` of boxers in the `Chavez bracket` tells me you aren't qualified to discuss Chavez because guys like Taylor, Rosario and Camacho were at least H2H (which is what we`re discussing here) as good or better than Marquez.

As for Floyd, he`d do better vs JCC because he was a fair bit better than Marquez but the only way I could see Floyd beating Chavez is at 147 or above were JCC was much less effective than Maweather, but from 130-140 when BOTH men were in their physical primes, Chavez beats him, likely by clear decision. If Floyd tries to win he gets hurt and out-scored, if he tries to play defence he gets out-scored. Chavez is 4 or 5 times the fighter Castillo was so even if Floyd didn't have his best night/nights vs Castillo I still don't see how he raises his game enough to be able to beat a prime Chavez. Chavez was simply a better fighter than Floyd.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> If Marquez won any rounds it would be the early rounds because Chavez got stronger in the late rounds, Chavez does just about everything better than JMM plus he is bigger and tougher as well. Cant believe I`m actually having to put forward a case for Chavez to beat Marquez to anyone outside of powerpuncher.


I probably rate Chavez higher than you so don't feel a need to get all defensive.

Chavez is a strong fighter and will sweep the early rounds against Marquez as all stronger fighters did. It's whether Chavez can take the pinpoint counters where the others failed.

Don't be so naive. We are talking about two great fighters in a fight that hasn't happened. Of course a case must be made. I think Chavez is better but that doesn't mean he gets a default victory here. Marquez outpointing Chavez 7-5 wouldn't exactly be the biggest upset in history now would it.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Surely you wouldn't rank Sanchez over Saldivar?


Wasnt talking about Salvidar, but yeah hes above Sanchez, I rank both very close in the h2h category but Vincente takes it with his great resume. Im unsure if Salvidar is better than Olivares overall but Julio has become the #1 mexican for me.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

rossco said:


> Chavez beats JMM probably by late stoppage or UD. Marquez would hit the deck 2 or 3 times in that fight.
> 
> Mayweather wouldn't clearly beat Chavez. If he has lots of trouble with JLC then Chavez beats him. Mayweather could beat an older Chavez. Prime he has no chance.
> 
> The overrating of Mayweather's ability is quite amusing. I dont know why people pick him to beat great pressure fighters when he doesnt like pressure and has had trouble in his career against not so great and past it pressure fighters.


Not sure who this was directed at, although I rate Mayweather highly. I'd still pick Chavez to beat him - I don't think I'd pick any #1 fighter to beat everybody below him.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

I think it's more if Marquez can tighten up his defence.Tough to beat chavez with slow feet, less power and durability, no significant speed or skills advantage and be looking to win by out-countering and combo'ing the guy while sporting a worse defence.

chavez was hardly invulnerable to close\very close fights against top fighters if not 100% though.It's likely if both had been of the same era we would have seen a hard, competitive fight, but a Chavez win, quite possibly via late stoppage.Marquez brings more to the table than a highly overrated 86\87'ish inconsistent Rosario though and i doubt he'd be dominated in a one-off where both know what the other is capable of.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

This is p4p, 130 or 130 Marquez vs 135 Chavez speculation btw.An actual 135 or 140 fight between the best versions we saw there would see the older, hittable Marquez happy if he could do better than JLR imo.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

As far as #1 goes, it's Chavez...easily...you can argue about the rest.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Chavez would grind down JMM, punish hin and probably stop him within the distance.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

I don't see how Marquez would win against Chavez personally. He would have his moments counter punching but I think it comes down to styles and Marquez would struggle like he did against diaz, barrera and kataidis. Guys who brought the fight right to Marquez and had huge success on the inside. Chavez on a differrnt level to those guys too.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Atleast Marquez will like that JCC is coming forward rather than having to go forward himself which he isn't exactly good at.
That's probably the only thing he'd like about the fight except for the payday.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> I don't see how Marquez would win against Chavez personally. He would have his moments counter punching but I think it comes down to styles and Marquez would struggle like he did against diaz, barrera and kataidis. Guys who brought the fight right to Marquez and had huge success on the inside. Chavez on a differrnt level to those guys too.


what a war it'd be.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> what a war it'd be.


Yeah great fight, would be even better than the Barrera fight tbh. thats really the only outcome I see is Chavez's unbelievable pressure and inside punishment slowing down Marquez after a great start from Marquez.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Yeah great fight, would be even better than the Barrera fight tbh. thats really the only outcome I see is Chavez's unbelievable pressure and inside punishment slowing down Marquez after a great start from Marquez.


I see it more like Marquez v Diaz but only the great start keeps going.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> I see it more like Marquez v Diaz but only the great start keeps going.


And Chavez's work would be better than Diaz's, would be more brutal and more relentless. Marquez lands some sweet counters and laces some nice combinations together but Chavez can counter him back and eventually stop him.

Id love to see Chavez vs Barrera or Morales, those would be extraordinary fights as well.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> And Chavez's work would be better than Diaz's, would be more brutal and more relentless. Marquez lands some sweet counters and laces some nice combinations together but Chavez can counter him back and eventually stop him.
> 
> Id love to see Chavez vs Barrera or Morales, those would be extraordinary fights as well.


not sure if he stops him but I think he wins 8-4 type fight. Think Marquez takes some middle rounds but Chavez finishes stronger.

tbf any atg Mexican matchup would be an amazing figt.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> not sure if he stops him but I think he wins 8-4 type fight. Think Marquez takes some middle rounds but Chavez finishes stronger.
> 
> tbf any atg Mexican matchup would be an amazing figt.


Yeah I can see a 8-4 decision. Not inconceivable that Chavez knocks him down at some point.

You think Chavez would beat both of them though?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Yeah I can see a 8-4 decision. Not inconceivable that Chavez knocks him down at some point.
> 
> You think Chavez would beat both of them though?


Well Chavez was at his best as a LW - LWW so was had a significant size advantage as well as being more skilled.

I would be surprised were he not able to beat both Morales and Mab.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chavez would have bodied JMM. :lol:


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Chavez would have bodied JMM. :lol:


it would be a great fight.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Chavez would have bodied JMM. :lol:


Chavez had a more purposeful, deliberate, relentless and more methodical style than Pac,...and therefore, would have imposed himself more effectively and successfully on JMM than did Pac. he would have dominated and inflicted more hurt on JMM than did Pac. Either a onesided decision or a late tko would have been the result. I have no doubt. Chavez is becoming more and more of an obsession with me, and I also have no mdoubt that he was the greatest Mexican force ever,...even more than Sal Sanchez, whom I also hold in the highest esteem.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Chavez would probably box with Marquez, and win the fight like that. He wouldn´t give Marquez the opportunities to counters like Pac gave.....his offense was so much more educated than Pac.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pacquiao and Chavez are drastically different. JMM's success against Manny serves as little to no indication how he'd handle Chavez's more educated and methodical offense.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

What an awesome fight the two would put on.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Unlike the majority of the JMM-Pac fights, a Chavez-JMM bout would have ended with no controversy at all. Chavez would have won decisively....and would have put JMM down a few times in the process.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

It would be incredible seeing the two Mexican greats go at it.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> It would be incredible seeing the two Mexican greats go at it.


You keep saying that but I completely disagree. Marquez is completely one dimensional and would have limited success against Chavez.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> You keep saying that but I completely disagree. Marquez is completely one dimensional and would have limited success against Chavez.


the degree of success matters not.

for example Calderon had very limited success against Segura but that was a great fight to watch.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> I probably rate Chavez higher than you so don't feel a need to get all defensive.
> 
> Chavez is a strong fighter and will sweep the early rounds against Marquez as all stronger fighters did. It's whether Chavez can take the pinpoint counters where the others failed.
> 
> Don't be so naive. We are talking about two great fighters in a fight that hasn't happened. Of course a case must be made. I think Chavez is better but that doesn't mean he gets a default victory here. Marquez outpointing Chavez 7-5 wouldn't exactly be the biggest upset in history now would it.


I think it goes without saying that if you rated Chavez higher than I rate him you wouldn't give the inferior Marquez as much of a shot as you do.

I don't think you need to worry too much about Chavez ability to take Marquez shots late on or anytime in the fight, he`s proved his chin is 1 of the best ever vs harder punchers than JMM without blinking, its the more vulnerable Marquez that has a habit of hitting the deck in his biggest fights that you should be worried about. Chavez starts slow and gets stronger as the fight goes on, he would be way too much for Marquez, who IMO would do extremely well to last the distance and lose a clear and punishing decision... my money is on a late TKO in Chavez favour. Marquez is not on Julio Cesar Chavez level.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Id love to see Chavez vs Barrera or Morales, those would be extraordinary fights as well.


I would like to see Chavez vs Barrera just for the fun it but not vs Morales, I like Morales too much.

Chavez would batter both of them.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> I think it goes without saying that if you rated Chavez higher than I rate him you wouldn't give the inferior Marquez as much of a shot as you do.
> 
> I don't think you need to worry too much about Chavez ability to take Marquez shots late on or anytime in the fight, he`s proved his chin is 1 of the best ever vs harder punchers than JMM without blinking, its the more vulnerable Marquez that has a habit of hitting the deck in his biggest fights that you should be worried about. Chavez starts slow and gets stronger as the fight goes on, he would be way too much for Marquez, who IMO would do extremely well to last the distance and lose a clear and punishing decision... my money is on a late TKO in Chavez favour. Marquez is not on Julio Cesar Chavez level.


well I rate Chavez the greatest Mexican ever and see him as a top 15 atg. I suspect you don't rate him so highly.

You don't have to be on someones level to make a fight entertaining. Not sure what that idea has originated from.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

To answer the question in the OP simply... Yes you overrate him.. but only slightly


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Chavez > Walcott


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

HAHA... Not when it comes to quality wins big buddy luf... beating Charles is better than anything Chavez has even done... Shit, I could say the same for H.J. or Bivens... That's not even getting into the Louis WIN


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> HAHA... Not when it comes to quality wins big buddy luf... beating Charles is better than anything Chavez has even done... Shit, I could say the same for H.J. or Bivens... That's not even getting into the Louis WIN


:lol: one day people will see jersey as you see him


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

As a top 15 all time HW? They already do big buddy


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> As a top 15 all time HW? They already do big buddy


I rate on h2h so he isn't even a notable mention for me I'm afraid. Too many losses and not enough big wins :-(


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Too many losses early in his career? Surely you don't count those with the same weight being a part time fighter and all... Not enough big wins... Do you like Chavez has more big wins than JJW?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chavez holds two wins over Mayweather. It doesn't get any bigger than that.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> Too many losses early in his career? Surely you don't count those with the same weight being a part time fighter and all... Not enough big wins... Do you like Chavez has more big wins than JJW?


No his prime went from 44 till retirement.

He lost a heck of a lot during his best years and that's not even counting the 8 round loss coz I don't count those neither.

Chavez is a top 15 atg, number 1 at his best weight and was much more consistent through his career. It isn't possible to rank jersey above Chavez.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Chavez represents the quintessence of the mexican style of boxing, but I would not go as far as putting him in my top 10.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Luf said:


> No his prime went from 44 till retirement.
> 
> He lost a heck of a lot during his best years and that's not even counting the 8 round loss coz I don't count those neither.
> 
> Chavez is a top 15 atg, number 1 at his best weight and was much more consistent through his career. It isn't possible to rank jersey above Chavez.


This doesn't make much sense at all though Luf... during the years you mention.. he only has ONE questionable loss... and that was to Allen... Besides that.. he lost to Maxim.. Marciano.. Louis.. Charles and Layne... Those are losses to some of the best of the best... He was fighting much tougher fighters than Chavez on a regular basis. The loss to Allen was avenged two times as well. Think about it this way... can you name anybody on Chavez record that can compete with beating Charles x2.. E . Ray.. Bivens (right when he was on top and beating everybody).. Harold Johnson and Joe Louis... Can you name me the names on Chavez list that can compete with these big wins?

BTW I'm not saying JJW is above Chavez in an all time ranking list... But you said not enough big wins.. JJW has more big wins than Chavez..


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> This doesn't make much sense at all though Luf... during the years you mention.. he only has ONE questionable loss... and that was to Allen... Besides that.. he lost to Maxim.. Marciano.. Louis.. Charles and Layne... Those are losses to some of the best of the best... He was fighting much tougher fighters than Chavez on a regular basis. The loss to Allen was avenged two times as well. Think about it this way... can you name anybody on Chavez record that can compete with beating Charles x2.. E . Ray.. Bivens (right when he was on top and beating everybody).. Harold Johnson and Joe Louis... Can you name me the names on Chavez list that can compete with these big wins?
> 
> BTW I'm not saying JJW is above Chavez in an all time ranking list... But you said not enough big wins.. JJW has more big wins than Chavez..


I don't rank on the names someone has beat.

When I say big wins I mean like Chavez against Rosario. A truly masterful performance that when you watch it, you think "wow". That's how I rate fighters. On the eye test and on h2h ability.

Chavez has tremendous ability as demonstrated on film, he was incredibly consitent and super dominant. He was a p4p great. Jersey, on the other hand has an amazing knockout and a bunch of close fights. They're in different stratospheres. By that I mean I feel comfortable placing Chavez a top 15 atg. I would feel ridiculous placing Jersey as a top 15 atg.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

How on earth is that a BIG win? That isn't a big win... A big win... is beating somebody of note.. and most preferrably somebody that is a fellow ATG.. That is a big fight. Who cares if somebody has a great looking performance against Joe Schmoe.. How is that a big fight? A big fight is against a fellow ATG.. not just ohhh he looked good in that fight. Come on Luf. 

SO I say again.. Which losses.. you said JJW had a lot of losses during the time period you listed.. Yet everyboyd he lost to.. he either avenged or won the first time out.. The only perosn this didn't happen with was Rocky.. but he retired. SO I'm still waiting on all these losses... So you do agree though.. That JJW has more ATG wins on his resume compared to Chavez correct?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> How on earth is that a BIG win? That isn't a big win... A big win... is beating somebody of note.. and most preferrably somebody that is a fellow ATG.. That is a big fight. Who cares if somebody has a great looking performance against Joe Schmoe.. How is that a big fight? A big fight is against a fellow ATG.. not just ohhh he looked good in that fight. Come on Luf.
> 
> SO I say again.. Which losses.. you said JJW had a lot of losses during the time period you listed.. Yet everyboyd he lost to.. he either avenged or won the first time out.. The only perosn this didn't happen with was Rocky.. but he retired. SO I'm still waiting on all these losses... So you do agree though.. That JJW has more ATG wins on his resume compared to Chavez correct?


I just told you how it's a big win. A mesmerizing performance that makes you go "wow"

I'm not gonna make a list of all his losses, they're on boxrec to see. Likewise I'm not gonna make a list of all Chavez's wins as they're also on boxrec to see.

Which fighter do you think looks the most skillful and dominant on the film we have.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

My only problem with him is that he never went to the body.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

I wuoldn't say Chavez was super dominant.Very consistent and awfully tough to beat? definitely, but calling someone "super dominant" speaks to someone that was never-or hardly ever- tested, which isn't the case here. when he fought the good to excellent fighters(Martinez, Mayweather, Lockridge, Laporte, Rosario, Taylor, it was about half in half between close hard fought(even controversial) fights and clearer wins.He was dominant against the lesser talents, and never slipped up with shit performances there like a lot of highly rated fighters, but i wouldn't say he stands out from the pack of great fighters for dominance against contenders\champs that were of genuinely worthy talent by any means.Not that this is a criticism per se, i just feel we all sometimes over-egg the achievements of great fighters that really don't need it.

That's looking at his prime years.after Taylor, he went on a run of fighting terrible competition for a P4P 1 and the best two fighters(and arguably only ones that were very good for me as i don't rate 92 Camacho or 93 Haugen as being any better than ok, both had seen much better days)he fought both beat him unless we count the pea fight as a draw:lol:.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Jincock said:


> I wuoldn't say Chavez was super dominant.Very consistent and awfully tough to beat? definitely, but calling someone "super dominant" speaks to someone that was never-or hardly ever- tested, which isn't the case here. when he fought the good to excellent fighters(Martinez, Mayweather, Lockridge, Laporte, Rosario, Taylor, it was about half in half between close hard fought(even controversial) fights and clearer wins.He was dominant against the lesser talents, and never slipped up with shit performances there like a lot of highly rated fighters, but i wouldn't say he stands out from the pack of great fighters for dominance against contenders\champs that were of genuinely worthy talent by any means.Not that this is a criticism per se, i just feel we all sometimes over-egg the achievements of great fighters that really don't need it.
> 
> That's looking at his prime years.after Taylor, he went on a run of fighting terrible competition for a P4P 1 and the best two fighters(and arguably only ones that were very good for me as i don't rate 92 Camacho or 93 Haugen as being any better than ok, both had seen much better days)he fought both beat him unless we count the pea fight as a draw:lol:.


he was a dominant force in his best years.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Chavez said in Los Goples (ESPN show where Chavez is one of the regular participants) that he rewatched recently the Whitaker fight and saw himself winning by 2 points.
Not that I agree, just saying what he said because it´s a interesting information.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Luf said:


> I just told you how it's a big win. A mesmerizing performance that makes you go "wow"
> 
> I'm not gonna make a list of all his losses, they're on boxrec to see. Likewise I'm not gonna make a list of all Chavez's wins as they're also on boxrec to see.
> 
> Which fighter do you think looks the most skillful and dominant on the film we have.


I'll answer this question when you answer mine... Who had more wins against better ATG fighters?


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Vic said:


> Chavez said in Los Goples (ESPN show where Chavez is one of the regular participants) that he rewatched recently the Whitaker fight and saw himself winning by 2 points.
> Not that I agree, just saying what he said because it´s a interesting information.


I feel sorry for him then.. he's obviously losing it or was always a moron if he thinks he won by 2 rounds.. he was lucky to win 2 rounds total.. and he only did that cause Whitaker took off a few rounds. he won by two rounds LMAO


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> I feel sorry for him then.. he's obviously losing it or was always a moron if he thinks he won by 2 rounds.. *he was lucky to win 2 rounds total.*. and he only did that cause Whitaker took off a few rounds. he won by two rounds LMAO


Nah, he won 4 to me...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> I'll answer this question when you answer mine... Who had more wins against better ATG fighters?


it depends who you class an atg doesn't it?

For me the atg's are

Robinson
Whittaker
Jones
Armstrong
Duran
Leonard
Ali
Pep
Jofre
Napoles

I used to have Hagler there but removed him in favour of Napoles.

None of them beat anyone on my atg list. Dunno who's on yours.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

@Luf arent there more ATGs than that, thats just your top 10?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> @Luf arent there more ATGs than that, thats just your top 10?


That's kinda my point. Atg is just a label. Where is the cut off? Is there a cut off? Which names overlap, if any?

For example I could say Camacho is an atg coz he would succeed in any sfw division in history. I could say the same about Rosario, I believe he'd succeed in any era also.

It's a meaningless label really. Not something I use to determine how great someone is anyways.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Luf said:


> it depends who you class an atg doesn't it?
> 
> For me the atg's are
> 
> ...


In terms of skill Napoles is top ten with ease. I could watch him for hours.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

rossco said:


> In terms of skill Napoles is top ten with ease. I could watch him for hours.


totes agree.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> That's kinda my point. Atg is just a label. Where is the cut off? Is there a cut off? Which names overlap, if any?
> 
> For example I could say Camacho is an atg coz he would succeed in any sfw division in history. I could say the same about Rosario, I believe he'd succeed in any era also.
> 
> It's a meaningless label really. Not something I use to determine how great someone is anyways.


So.. Holyfield isn't an ATG? Joe Louis? Hearns?

There isn't just 10 ATGs. there's certainly more than that. For me it always depended on resume & H2H ability, as well as dominance and how they look on film etc.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> So.. Holyfield isn't an ATG? Joe Louis? Hearns?
> 
> There isn't just 10 ATGs. there's certainly more than that. For me it always depended on resume & H2H ability, as well as dominance and how they look on film etc.


that's exactly my point.

it's a subjective sport and one mans list doesn't agree with another.

I'd say Louis is an atg hw as he's in my top ten. I'd say holyfield is an atg cruiser as he's in my list there. I'd say hearns is an atg lmw as he's in my list there.

But again there's no definitive definition is there? For me it's on eye test and h2h, for you it's resume and h2h.

The "who beat more better atg's" is a completely redundant line of questiong to me.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

But the POINT IS... there are more than 10 ATG fighters Luf and you know it. No amount of red herrings or missing the points can change that. You know there are more than 10 and you have more than 10. In fact, if one was to look at your 10 ten P4P rankings.. Which you "conveinently" didn't post for this top ten you listed... You would see a name on there that JJW did beat... Ezzard Charles. So just by going a list I've seen you post JJW has more. To go further, if you look at McGrain's Top 100 p4p all time rankings... Again... You would see Charles.. Harold Johnson.. Joe Louis... and I believe Bivens as well. Again, that is more than Chavez has.. I can't think of one person on Chavez's list that he beat that was in that top 100. 

now, let's try this again.. Who has more wins against all time great fighters... Let's say a top 75?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> But the POINT IS... there are more than 10 ATG fighters Luf and you know it. No amount of red herrings or missing the points can change that. You know there are more than 10 and you have more than 10. In fact, if one was to look at your 10 ten P4P rankings.. Which you "conveinently" didn't post for this top ten you listed... You would see a name on there that JJW did beat... Ezzard Charles. So just by going a list I've seen you post JJW has more. To go further, if you look at McGrain's Top 100 p4p all time rankings... Again... You would see Charles.. Harold Johnson.. Joe Louis... and I believe Bivens as well. Again, that is more than Chavez has.. I can't think of one person on Chavez's list that he beat that was in that top 100.
> 
> now, let's try this again.. Who has more wins against all time great fighters... Let's say a top 75?


I didn't conveniently forget nothing :lol: that was my top 10 list.

I haven't got a top 75, I stretch it to maybe 15 at a push. Chavez is in the "at a push" section as he would be in that top 15. Jersey is a million miles off.

I'm not sure what you want from me tbh. We could compare records against hof guys to keep it objective if you want but I cba checking who beat who.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Charles wasn't in your top 10 p4p list? 

further... Why would we need to go by HOF.. when it's rather easy to see which ATG are on the others resume? 

So you tell me.. which fighters on Chavez's resume did he beat that YOU would consider an ATG


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> Charles wasn't in your top 10 p4p list?
> 
> further... Why would we need to go by HOF.. when it's rather easy to see which ATG are on the others resume?
> 
> So you tell me.. which fighters on Chavez's resume did he beat that YOU would consider an ATG


no I posted my top ten list.

From memory I think it's just Camacho for Chavez and just Charles for Jersey.

For me an atg is a top 10 in their weight or any weight... My lists are on my pc though, but I'm sure they're the only two who make it.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Well if you include the victory most give JJW against Louis.. he'd have 2 on his resume.. compared to only 1 on chavez's... Then again... Camacho is in your top ten at a weight? Really?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> Well if you include the victory most give JJW against Louis.. he'd have 2 on his resume.. compared to only 1 on chavez's... Then again... Camacho is in your top ten at a weight? Really?


nah I haven't seen the first so I don't feel.comfortable giving a verdict contrary to the judges decision.

yeah sfw I think. The bastard weights I don't go down to 10, just top 5.

So going by that criteria it's 1-1.even still I dont rate like that.i judge on filmed performances and h2h.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Problem is Cream beat somebody x 2.. so that would mean he has 2-1 victories over ATG in comparison to Chavez. Further... I wouldn't even consider Camacho an all time great really.. he's borderline if anything. Charles is certainly an ATG.. and in some people's eyes a Top 10 p4p great... In either case.. he's rated much higher than Camacho on any list. Cream beat that guy twice.. So no matter how you slice it.. JJW has more big wins than Chavez right?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> no I posted my top ten list.
> 
> From memory I think it's just Camacho for Chavez and just Charles for Jersey.
> 
> For me an atg is a top 10 in their weight or any weight... My lists are on my pc though, but I'm sure they're the only two who make it.


Camacho is not that great a win. Just about 'good' IMO


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

My thoughts exactly Flea.. My only point isn't that JJW is better in all time rankings for a p4p list.. only that JJW has more big wins and more wins against "ATG's" than Chavez. Which was brought up when Luf said Chavez had more big wins.. which I disagree with.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> My thoughts exactly Flea.. My only point isn't that JJW is better in all time rankings for a p4p list.. only that JJW has more big wins and more wins against "ATG's" than Chavez. Which was brought up when Luf said Chavez had more big wins.. which I disagree with.


Chavez has more notable wins tallied up though....which can override a few marquee wins.

Probably what Luf was getting at. I agree that the KO of Charles is probably the no.1 win between the pair of 'em though.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

In fact I'd rank Rocky Lockridge over Camacho @130lbs @Luf

A top ten there is pretty feasible as well. Chavez, Chocolate, Saddler, Morgan, Mayweather Jr, Arguello, Bass, Shibata, Escalera, Serrano, Nelson, Mitchell, Elorde, Lockridge, Villaflor, Camacho, Boza, all make up a solid 15-20 IMHO


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> well I rate Chavez the greatest Mexican ever and see him as a top 15 atg. I suspect you don't rate him so highly.
> 
> You don't have to be on someones level to make a fight entertaining. Not sure what that idea has originated from.


I rank Chavez the greatest Mexican ever and the 2nd best Latino fighter ever after Duran. I also rank Chavez in the top 10 (but my criteria is I only rank fighters with reasonable viewing footage available so no Greb, Langford, Benny Leonard etc.)

I never said Chavez v JMM wouldn't be an exciting fight, it would be no doubt, I just don't give Marquez any sort of chance to win the fight that`s all.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Chavez has more notable wins tallied up though....which can override a few marquee wins.
> 
> Probably what Luf was getting at. I agree that the KO of Charles is probably the no.1 win between the pair of 'em though.


Hey big Flea... I'm curious to expand on your more notable wins tallied up...

Holding out the Louis "win" for a moment and Charles x2

Who did Chavez beat that you feel to these names JJW beat... I'm kinda curious which fighters you think mirror these in a all time rankings sense....

1. Harold Johnson
2. Bivens
3. E. Ray
4. Maxim

Thanks bud


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

If I had a top 10 list it would include Ezzard Charles.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> Problem is Cream beat somebody x 2.. so that would mean he has 2-1 victories over ATG in comparison to Chavez. Further... I wouldn't even consider Camacho an all time great really.. he's borderline if anything. Charles is certainly an ATG.. and in some people's eyes a Top 10 p4p great... In either case.. he's rated much higher than Camacho on any list. Cream beat that guy twice.. So no matter how you slice it.. JJW has more big wins than Chavez right?


 You had my definition of what I was discussing on the first page.

So I dunno why you're changing the context.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

KuRuPT said:


> My thoughts exactly Flea.. My only point isn't that JJW is better in all time rankings for a p4p list.. only that JJW has more big wins and more wins against "ATG's" than Chavez. Which was brought up when Luf said Chavez had more big wins.. which I disagree with.


I didn't say anything about wins over atg's mate.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> In fact I'd rank Rocky Lockridge over Camacho @130lbs @Luf
> 
> A top ten there is pretty feasible as well. Chavez, Chocolate, Saddler, Morgan, Mayweather Jr, Arguello, Bass, Shibata, Escalera, Serrano, Nelson, Mitchell, Elorde, Lockridge, Villaflor, Camacho, Boza, all make up a solid 15-20 IMHO


I'm not saying a list can't be made. I'm just saying after the top 5 I don't consider them worth listing.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> I rank Chavez the greatest Mexican ever and the 2nd best Latino fighter ever after Duran. I also rank Chavez in the top 10 (but my criteria is I only rank fighters with reasonable viewing footage available so no Greb, Langford, Benny Leonard etc.)
> 
> I never said Chavez v JMM wouldn't be an exciting fight, it would be no doubt, I just don't give Marquez any sort of chance to win the fight that`s all.


There's footage of Langford and Leonard in their prime.

Tbh that's naive, no one gave Gonzalez much chance of beating Mares,but he did. You should always try to analyse both fighters and find a way in which they can win. Upsets happen in this sport.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> There's footage of Langford and Leonard in their prime.
> 
> Tbh that's naive, no one gave Gonzalez much chance of beating Mares,but he did. You should always try to analyse both fighters and find a way in which they can win. Upsets happen in this sport.


You're trying to hard and completely missing the point if you're accounting for upsets in hypothetical matchups.

I'm siding with Bill there.

I'm with you on Langford and Leonard though. Langford looks quality on film.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> You're trying to hard and completely missing the point if you're accounting for upsets in hypothetical matchups.
> 
> I'm siding with Bill there.
> 
> I'm with you on Langford and Leonard though. Langford looks quality on film.


I think you have to account for them. Fights aren't won on paper otherwise no one would ever score an upset. It's about the intangibles of a fight.

No one on this planet is naive enough to consider Marquez SD Chavez the greatest upset in the sport. That means stranger things have happened. Which in turn means you should always give the underdog a chance of victory.

Saying there is no way he can win is entirely naive imo.

Even if, and I believe this is more in line with you stance, you're to say something like "Chavez is on a different level and the most likely outcome is he punishes Marquez throughout the fight, but of course anything can happen" even if the upset is just there as a caveat, as a formality, it should still be there.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> I think you have to account for them. Fights aren't won on paper otherwise no one would ever score an upset. It's about the intangibles of a fight.
> 
> No one on this planet is naive enough to consider Marquez SD Chavez the greatest upset in the sport. That means stranger things have happened. Which in turn means you should always give the underdog a chance of victory.
> 
> ...


When did Chavez lose in his prime?

Marquez has lost throughout his career.

Stylistically I would say it's naive to see JMM having much success at all. Chavez would outbox or outfight him.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> When did Chavez lose in his prime?
> 
> Marquez has lost throughout his career.
> 
> Stylistically I would say it's naive to see JMM having much success at all. Chavez would outbox or outfight him.


I'm not disagreeing with that. I pick Chavez to win.

You agree with me anyways really, obviously there's a scenario whereby Marquez can score the victory. That's all I'm saying. It wouldn't be the biggest upset. You agree with everything I'm saying really.

To summarise:

It would be a great fight
it's naive to 100% write off Marquez


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chavez-Marquez can't be anything other than an entertaining fight whilst it lasts. It would be entertaining in the same way Arguello-Pryor II was entertaining. The same way Pavlik-Miranda was entertaining, but there's only one winner. It's cool though, Barrera and Morales have no way of beating Chavez either.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Chavez would have especially beaten JMM,....hell, he wouldn't just have fought for the glory and honor of May-he-co,....he wouid have *BECOME* May=he-co!!!


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> There's footage of Langford and Leonard in their prime.
> 
> Tbh that's naive, no one gave Gonzalez much chance of beating Mares,but he did. You should always try to analyse both fighters and find a way in which they can win. Upsets happen in this sport.


There might be footage of them in their prime but its not the clearest, particularly the footage of Langford, its fuckin terrible actually.

Also, what is so difficult for you to understand here in this JCC v JMM thing ?... of course any man CAN beat any man on any given night, there is no such thing as guarantees in boxing or life in general, but we can give our opinion on what we would expect to happen having seen both men fight other fighters and all I`m saying is I`d be flat out shocked if Marquez could somehow beat Chavez because Chavez is not only bigger and stronger, he`s a better and more complete fighter and I PERSONALLY would make him a huge favourite in that fight.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

JMM is too easy to hit, too easily hurt. He gets beaten up.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that. I pick Chavez to win.
> 
> You agree with me anyways really, obviously there's a scenario whereby Marquez can score the victory. That's all I'm saying. It wouldn't be the biggest upset. You agree with everything I'm saying really.
> 
> ...


Nope, I am disagreeing with you.

It would be one sided. It'd be entertaining if you like seeing fighters get drubbed.

It's completely feasible to completely write off Marquez as he's at a stylistic disadvantage and a level below Chavez and he doesn't have a punchers chance.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I do think the fight would be competitive for a few rounds, Flea. Marquez is going to land some sharp, accurate punches before Chavez starts to take over. He can't win though. I really just can't see how he could.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I do think the fight would be competitive for a few rounds, Flea. Marquez is going to land some sharp, accurate punches before Chavez starts to take over. He can't win though. I really just can't see how he could.


I think Chavez at his best is too good a punch picker. Marquez will land here and there but he's too one dimensional to put up much of a fight. He'd only fare marginally better than Rosario, although he'd probably last the 12 (disfigured and exhausted)

If Chavez boxes him JMM gets fuck all going. And JCC could pick his spots well without going too gung ho, like he did against Lockridge.

Lockridge at his best Vs JMM at 130lbs would be a brilliant matchup.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I think Chavez at his best is too good a punch picker. Marquez will land here and there but he's too one dimensional to put up much of a fight. He'd only fare marginally better than Rosario, although he'd probably last the 12 (disfigured and exhausted)
> 
> If Chavez boxes him JMM gets fuck all going. And JCC could pick his spots well without going too gung ho, like he did against Lockridge.
> 
> Lockridge at his best Vs JMM at 130lbs would be a brilliant matchup.


JMM would soak up a beating from Chavez, and since he didn't have a chin like Hector Camacho, he wouldn't last the distance like Hector did.


----------



## Manassa (May 16, 2013)

@Flea Man

Who did contest Leonard, Leonard.


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

Even with a hand injury ala the one sustained against Rocky Lockridge I can't see JMM beating Chavez.

It would take a real left field injury to cast the decision in doubt for mine. 

To me the only two likely outcomes are a clear Chavez decision or a late stoppage. Heck with a Richard Steele type ref, perhaps a mid rounds stoppage.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Nope, I am disagreeing with you.
> 
> It would be one sided. It'd be entertaining if you like seeing fighters get drubbed.
> 
> It's completely feasible to completely write off Marquez as he's at a stylistic disadvantage and a level below Chavez and he doesn't have a punchers chance.


I think you're missing the point tbh mate.

Chavez is a huge favourite. Marquez is a sizeable underdog. Marquez winning wouldn't be the biggest upset ever. The fight would be entertaining.

That is all.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> There might be footage of them in their prime but its not the clearest, particularly the footage of Langford, its fuckin terrible actually.
> 
> Also, what is so difficult for you to understand here in this JCC v JMM thing ?... of course any man CAN beat any man on any given night, there is no such thing as guarantees in boxing or life in general, but we can give our opinion on what we would expect to happen having seen both men fight other fighters and all I`m saying is I`d be flat out shocked if Marquez could somehow beat Chavez because Chavez is not only bigger and stronger, he`s a better and more complete fighter and I PERSONALLY would make him a huge favourite in that fight.


I agree with every word in the second paragraph:good


----------

