Was Whitaker the naturally bigger fighter than Chavez when they fought?

I dont think the weight is an issue when you consider that both mens prime weight was 135 and were meant to meet in 1988 If it wasnt for Whitaker getting robbed against Ramirez.

 

To say somebody has nothing on somebody else is to say that this person has no advantage over the other person. To have no advantage means to be more or less equal. Prime's choice of words was perfectly suited to the point he was making.

At the very least Whitaker has nothing on Chavez. But I think this is too generous to Whitaker - and I am a huge Whitaker fan. Prime-for-prime it is hard to see how Whitaker gets past the man who beat down Rosario and Camacho and ruined Taylor. Chavez is greater fighter in my view.

Somebody said that Whitaker was scheduled to fight Chavez. Really? Whitaker wasn't ready for Chavez then and, in any case, if he wanted to sell himself to promoters, he shouldn't have stunk out the place with his Ramirez performance. Granted, he beat Ramirez, but what a boring fight.

 

Whitaker may have been a slightly bigger man, but if so the difference was too small to actually impact the fight.

And although Chavez was better at lower weights, so was Whitaker. I don't see a fight between them at 135 or 140 being much different then their actual encounter. Chavez would probably be more competitive, but he never beats peak Whitaker for me.

 

yes and judgeing the fights they both gave dela hoya i believe you are correct

 

Having nothing on: "to have an advantage over" does not = "Not to have advantage over"

E.g. Butterbean has nothing on Tyson p4p does not mean that Butterbean has comparable abilities

This suggests that Chavez has advantages over Pea rather than as you suggest having the ability to counteract Pea's abilitys.

Parrelell = Eqaual/simliar/comparable.


Not to have an advantage over as your link says: "to have an advantage over someone"

I just gave the ends of the spectrum. Like I said poorly worded I assumed rather than bias.

Not that it matters really.

 

Who cares what weight they broke in professionally at? It's all about where they peaked. What is so hard to understand about that?

Roberto Duran started at around 118. Does that mean he is naturally smaller than Whitaker?

Duran beat Ernesto Marcel at 130 pounds, a better fighter than Chavez EVER beat in his career. Does that make Duran naturally smaller than Whitaker?

Chavez, Whitaker and Duran were all natural lightweights, because that is the weight they all peaked at.

Is that meant to prove that Chavez has a better resume than Whitaker? Why should I even bother mounting a defense to that? It's not worth it.

True. But Whitaker also cleaned out a weight division, something Chavez never did. Whitaker also proved himself the best fighter of his generation when he whipped Julio's ass. Oh well, Chavez can keep his legacy over three weight classes.

When he fought Chavez he was slightly bigger. Was he naturally bigger than Chavez? No.

And pound 4 pound, the only thing Whitaker has over Chavez is the majority decision as the better fighter amongst those in the know. :good

 

This dictionary entry is wrong! It should say, "NOT to have an advantage over."

The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms gives the right definition: "Have nothing on: also, not have anything on. 1. Have no advantage over something or someone, as in: This car has nothing on my old one. [italics mine.]"

Thanks for the help with the homework.

 

A break-in weight does offer perspective: Duran had a full career at lightweight (over 70 fights) and one near-prime performance at welterweight. Everything else he accomplished was great icing on the cake. Whitaker ruled at lightweight and after 32 fights climbed to welterweight and did pretty much the same. So his prime weight is higher.

Point? In my view, considering age, career length and peak weight, I would say Whitaker was at around 90% of his peak abilities whereas Chávez was not quite 70% when they squared off at the Alamodome.
This offers needed perspective. The San Antonio version of Chávez in no way resembled him at his peak.

This is why Ali is generally rated over Frazier, despite FOTC. Frazier was near 100%; Ali perhaps 80%.

Whitaker is roughly like a Holyfield, who left a legacy at cruiser, then did the same at heavyweight. For practical purposes, he was "naturally bigger" (enhancements included) than Michael Spinks, who dominated at light heavyweight and had a couple of good fights at heavy. :good

 

What does it say about the greatness of a fighter who is overwhelmed by a young man in only his 17th pro fight? Yes, Duran would go on to be great, but have you seen the fight?

Was it Marcel squeaking past Sammy Serrano and Antonio Gomez that convinced you that he was better than Taylor, Rosario, or Camacho? Or was it his 10 round loss to Leonel Hernandez (who lost his next fight)? Or maybe his draw with Kuniaki Shibata?

Yes, Marcel was good. He beat a young Arguello over 15 rounds. But, then, other fighters beat Arguello, as well.

Marcel was not better fighter than everybody Chavez beat in his career.

 

How was he overwhelmed? I had him basically down a point to Duran when the ref stopped the fight because Marcel wasn't throwing shots in return. He was in NO danger of being stopped at all, and may have even thought he was ahead and merely needed to stay on his feet to win the fight. Have you even seen the contest?

Marcel beat the suitcase off of Gomez and Shibata. I have seen both fights. You obviously haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you just did.

I haven't seen the Hernandez fight, but I put about as much store on "decisions" in Venezuela as I do on Ray Charles' ability to accurately score a fight. They are hardcore biased. Haven't seen the Serrano fight either, but Puerto Rican judges are nearly just as bad, so I wouldn't be surprised if Marcel beat him easily.

Marcel beat Arguello and did so when he was past his best.

I urge you to see the Shibata and Gomez fights and then come back to me and tell me anyone Chavez beat is better than this guy. I GUARANTEE you won't.

 

A fight the ref calls off because the one fighter isn't throwing anything in return. I'm so glad I left that for the other person so say. Watch the fight. Marcel makes a young Duran look polished.

Marcel beating the suitcase off of Shibata? The United Press scored Marcel-Shibata 69-68 for the Panamanian. After reading your posts, I will trust the UP's judgment over yours.

About the Puerto Rican judges in the Serrano-Marcel fight... The fight was held in Panama City. A hometown decision?

 

i agree with Sweet here.

Marcel was a juggernaut of athleticism and technical boxing ability.Boxrec doesn't do the man justice

 

Neither does film nor newspapers of the day - if it's true that he is better than anybody Chavez ever beat.

 

I didn't mean to take anything away from Leonel Hernandez, by the way. He developed into a solid contender. It's just that if a fighter is better than anybody Chavez EVER beat, you wouldn't expect him to lose to the Hernandezes of the world. Marcel was champion of the world at the time. Not only would Hernandez lose his next fight, but two fights earlier he was knocked out by 3-1 Art Salas. Was Hernandez better than, say, Meldrick Taylor? Was he anywhere close to being as good as Rosario? Camacho? Can you see a fighter of Taylor's caliber losing to Hernandez? I can't. Marcel was a very good fighter. I would never deny this. But he is being overrated in this discussion.