Both went into a 3-man tournament. The first match will be Olivares vs Jofre,the winner will fight Zarate to prove the all time bantamweight goat. Who wins for the first match,and who wins the second match? If the loser of the first gets to fight Zarate,would it make a rock-paper-scissor or would he lose too? Or would Zarate lose to both?
Bump,I want to show you guys this interesting thing, it's been kind of a debate.. My opinion:while I personally liked Jofre the most,the highest chance of this tournament is probably Olivares beating both. Sure he got smacked by Arguello,but he's a bit careless in the 13th and Arguello took advantage,I think a composed Olivares would UD Zarate and Jofre. Jofre vs Zarate though... it's interesting as both excelled in beating guys below/above their height. Jofre beat José Legrà via MD Zarate beat many shorter fighters by decision/ko But I think Jofre could get the judges nods here, Zarate did struggle a bit with all-guts Lupe Pintor,he also struggled with tactical boxer puncher Wilfredo Gomez,perhaps Jofre would beat him in a competitive MD.
Personally I've always thought that Eder Jofre would have beaten both Ruben Olivares and Carlos Zarate. Too versatile and well rounded, as well as a very tough fighter with a high ring IQ which makes it even more difficult for power punchers like Olivares and Zarate to knock out.
I rate Olivares as the GOAT BW, but H2h is tougher to call. I think Olivares would edge Jofre on the strength of his workrate & versatile/unpredictable attack, but Zarate's long-armed body attack may pose a big stylistic problem for him - or for any BW, for that matter. I rate Zarate behind Olivares & Jofre on the basis of resume/achievement, but IDK that I would confidently favor any BW over him h2h.
In my opinion the bantamweight division is perhaps the most difficult one to decide who's the greatest of all time . Jofre , Olivares and Zarate are all superb fighters. Who would I favor to come out ahead? I don't see how I could confidently choose any of them to beat the other two. Since this scenario has the winner of the Olivares Jofre fight taking on Zarate I'll go with Zarate because it seems to me to be a huge task to beat two of these guys back to back
The separation for me is pretty easy. All three had massive firepower and superb offensive skill. Jofre had by far the best chin of the three, which I think would be the difference. I'd add that Jofre was a better infighter than the other two. Olivares and Zarare were mainly deadly at midrange.
Hmm,I haven't observed Jofre's infighting skills,any moments in his fight footages that you'd like to point out for?
Hi Buddy. I too favour Jofre over both Olivares and Zarate, I bow to no one in my adoration of Olivares, he shaped my formative boxing years, along with Napoles, so the memories of his fights live long in the memory, but your pinpoint evaluation of the 3, is both prudent and informative, a theme that runs through your posts without falter. stay safe Flo, chat soon buddy.
They are all so good, but Jofre’s superior durability and defense gives him an edge. He was always in great shape and could do it all and fight at any pace. Another key is that against Olivares, his straighter, shorter punches are more likely to land first more often.
Yeah, I think Jofre was the best overall boxer-puncher of the three. He uses the full arsenal of punches in a high-quality manner, including probably the most versatile jab (though that's something I might review). Good punch slipping, very good glove and arm defence. Not the fastest bantamweight, especially by the time of the Harada bouts, but he fights well on the turn and slow-retreat, and is obviously deadly when planted or stalking. I think he's got the best integration of offensive output and defensive skill. One caveat is that this is all from a smaller selection of footage. Seeming him fully against more styles might change the perspective slightly. Zarate was a bit more Tito Trinidad'ish in his style...not as stiff legged, hittable and one-dimensional as Tito was, but still quite a bit closer to the one-paced stalking puncher end of the boxer-puncher spectrum than the other two. He has the clear range advantage over the other two, though didn't always seem too concerned with maximising that once he became champion. Like Jofre, he's very classic on offence, with all the punches thrown in a precise textbook manner. Also not the fastest, and not as comfortably multi-directional as Jofre or Olivares imo. I wasn't overly impressed with his attempt to box more against Pintor. Olivares is the most unorthodox of the three as a boxer-puncher. He's very skilled but more of a mix of well-schooled components and making unusual moves that he can usually get away with against 90% of bantams because of his power. More one-handed (though I still think his right was a quality punch), wider hooks that he'll double up on in quite risky positions, more in the way of sudden swarming bursts forward. Faster feet and probably hands than the other two (though this slipped during his later bouts just like Jofre)...I think he's the most multi-directional, at least regarding what his footspeed and bounce can afford him, if not in terms of sophistication vs slower footed Jofre. imo, he's the unpredictable x-factor of the three...when you're comparing boxer-punchers that all hit as hard as this, I find him the toughest to assess in terms of the less orthodox elements in his technique and approach either being something that could be the wrench in the well-oiled textbook system of the other two, as a past prime version almost was against Arguello, or uneconomical/extravagant moves only serving to have a higher chance of seeing him come spectactularly undone at some point in the fight? I suspect he's the likeliest to have a wider variety of outcomes (good and bad) if they all have a trilogy or more with each other.
A take I could get behind, but who’s going to really pick one of these confidently to smash the other two?
