boxing
Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2012, 01:43 PM   #1
salsanchezfan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 4,320
vCash: 1000
Default 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Which weight class would you say featured the best version of Don King's favorite fighter not named Tyson?

Despite his rather abbreviated stay there, I'd like to think the lightweight version showed the best combination of power, speed, timing, and strength. He was a little too bulldozer-ish at 140, and lacked snap at 130 because a lot of the time he was weight-drained and nowhere near as strong. 135 was a nice go-between, for as long as it lasted....
salsanchezfan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-05-2012, 01:47 PM   #2
the cobra
Awesomeizationism!
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

I'd agree with that. He's hell for every Lightweight ever.
the cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 01:53 PM   #3
lora
Fighting Zapata
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,672
vCash: 500
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

He wasn't impressive against Ramirez though.

early 130\135 for me.
lora is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 01:58 PM   #4
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,613
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lora View Post
He wasn't impressive against Ramirez though.

early 130\135 for me.
No, he wasn't too impressive vs Ramirez.
red cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 02:35 PM   #5
AREA 53
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

I actually thought he was not too bad against Ramirez, Given that he
"Tidal-Waved" Rosario, Having the Versatility to completly change approach and make the potentially difficult task that meeting the tough Ramirez Head-on would of been, much easier, by Picking him off, off the back foot, Showed for me, that at 135, Chavez could be both Bull or Matador equally well, at 130 or 140 this Dual capability was probably not quite so even.
AREA 53 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 03:39 PM   #6
sweet_scientist
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,870
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

He definitely looked fantastic at 130 around the Martinez/Mayweather days, but when he outgrew the division he was sluggish and rather ordinary there (vs. Lockridge, Laporte).

He looked good against Rosario at 135 and then kind of went through the motions with Ramirez, although he still looked decent in doing so and the fight was never in doubt....

It's a pity he entered 135 so late and left it so early, he undoubtedly could have done his best work there in the 86-89 period.

In that time he could have made fights with the likes of Camacho and Whitaker, which would have been better battles than the ones he had with those two later on...

Of course, it was a risky proposition to face those two in that time frame.

Mayweather and Taylor were the safer options from a stylistic standpoint.
sweet_scientist is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 03:51 PM   #7
ripcity
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: "Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it."
Posts: 10,232
vCash: 827
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

He was better at 130 & 135 than at 140.
ripcity is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 04:50 PM   #8
jyuza
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,199
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Has to be 135 even though he didn't stay really long. He quickly went up to fight Taylor at junior welterweight.
I still can't understand how Chavez fought a guy like Akwei Addo (5-3-0) after Meldrick Taylor....
jyuza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:11 AM   #9
WhataRock
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11,647
vCash: 166
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

I've really come around to Chavez in his early 130 days...I sort of toed the party line in regards to his best incarnation, I always agreed it was lightweight. He was clearly weight drained in his late 130 days and I always ran with he wasn't quite polished in the early ones...but he truly had it all in his first couple of defenses and was a terminator to boot.
WhataRock is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:16 AM   #10
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Well its alot easier to look good against inferior opposition, 140 is where he was truly tested.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:30 AM   #11
WhataRock
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11,647
vCash: 166
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Outside of Taylor and a resurgent Mayweather his first 3 or 4 years at 140 wasn't nothing to special really...I think Camacho might fall into that timeframe but he hardly tested Chavez.

They don't seem to get talked about much but Mario Martinez & Ruben Castillo were bloody good fighters..and a very young Chavez took them apart no trouble..He may have been the first guy to stop them but I thinking one of them had already been knocked out..Either Martinez by Nelson or Castillo by Arguello..I'm **** with dates.

Anyway Mayweather was a very good fighter...Dwight Pratchett was an absolute warrior who would have easily picked up a trinket today.

When weight was becoming a problem he took on probably his two best opponants to date and still beat them clearly...Lockridge when he had a injured hand no less.

That says well and truly battle tested to me.
WhataRock is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:45 AM   #12
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhataRock View Post
Outside of Taylor and a resurgent Mayweather his first 3 or 4 years at 140 wasn't nothing to special really...I think Camacho might fall into that timeframe but he hardly tested Chavez.

They don't seem to get talked about much but Mario Martinez & Ruben Castillo were bloody good fighters..and a very young Chavez took them apart no trouble..He may have been the first guy to stop them but I thinking one of them had already been knocked out..Either Martinez by Nelson or Castillo by Arguello..I'm **** with dates.

Anyway Mayweather was a very good fighter...Dwight Pratchett was an absolute warrior who would have easily picked up a trinket today.

When weight was becoming a problem he took on probably his two best opponants to date and still beat them clearly...Lockridge when he had a injured hand no less.

That says well and truly battle tested to me.
Mentioning his list of accomplishments at 130 is not going to change anything, meldrick taylor was the big money fight, suggesting he had tougher tests at the lower weights is a lie. His performance against lockridge is unimpressive. People always want to say a fighters prime is in the period where they looked invincible, that is usually the time they also face inferior opposition.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:03 AM   #13
WhataRock
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11,647
vCash: 166
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Mentioning his list of accomplishments at 130 is not going to change anything, meldrick taylor was the big money fight, suggesting he had tougher tests at the lower weights is a lie. His performance against lockridge is unimpressive. People always want to say a fighters prime is in the period where they looked invincible, that is usually the time they also face inferior opposition.
I guess it doesn't change anything for someone who doesn't know what their talking about.

No use talking to ya till you school up.
WhataRock is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 03:06 AM   #14
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhataRock View Post
I guess it doesn't change anything for someone who doesn't know what their talking about.

No use talking to ya till you school up.
The same old ignorant answers, its easy to mythologize chavez as being some terminator at the lower weights. I see that chavez as the same fighter as the one who fought at 140, its just an excuse to help him look invincible and downplay the fact that meldrick was schooling him prior to a late stoppage filled with controversy. Regardless, his wins over Taylor, Camacho, Mayweather 2 are the reason hes viewed as an all timer. His fights at 130 and 135 alone wouldnt even make him a top 100 fighter. Your the one who doesnt know what hes talking about. The chavez from 1990-1992 was the same fighter as the mid 80's chavez. Its people like you who love to mythologize the 'lightweight' chavez as a way to excuse his mediocrity against meldrick and pernell, the two most important fights of his career.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:04 AM   #15
TheSouthpaw
Champion
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,949
vCash: 500
Default Re: 130, 135, or 140....Which Version of Chavez Was Best?

I say 130, hes underestimated at this weight!.
TheSouthpaw is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015