Chavez or Hearns? Who would be the mainevent in the 2011 IBHOF Induction

Actually Chavez has a lot more worshippers...

I don't think anyone hates him, and calls him names and ****. But no one with half a brain thinks he was the monster Hearns was.

 

for everyone saying jcc failed in his biggest fights the same argument can be made with hearns bar 1fight with duran who was coming out of his natural comfort zone anyway.for what its worth i liked hearns style of fighting alot more and think his resume is slightly better so my choice would be him but i think jcc will be the main event to which i wouldnt have no problem with.

 

80 fights but not 80 fights against top guys. Look at Hearns now, he has almost 70 fights but those were tough tough fights, not guys like Kenny Vice or Aquilar. Chavez fought guys just to stay active. When he fought Pernell he still was dominant. He demolish Haugen easy than I ever thought he would in 1993, the same year he fought Pernell.

 

He has more haters here than worshippers, and you are hater #1. You show up in EVERY thread that mentions his name, just hating all day long as hard as you can. It's kind of funny.

Hearns wasn't even the best welterweight of his day. His best victory is over Duran fighting at Junior Middle, hardly Duran's best weight. That mother****er should have been a middleweight to begin with lol

 

JCC's resume EASILY matches Hearns.

Ruben Castillo. Roger Mayweather. Bumphus. Rocky Lockridge. Juan La Porte. Rosario. Aguilar. Bazooka Limon. Ramirez. Fuentes. Taylor. Camacho. Haugen. Kamau. Tony the Tiger Lopez.

You want to give Hearns credit for the fights he drew or lost? Ok then let's do the same for JCC and add Whitaker, ODLH and Kostya Tszyu to the list.

And that's not all the good fighters he fought, just the ones that are very well known to any boxing fan. He disposed of a whole host of up and coming, unbeaten fighters along the way, which not many champs are doing these days. He also didn't just beat great fighters, he beat the **** out of them and changed them forever. He beat everyone there was to beat at 130 and 135 and fought everyone at 140. He fought Pea at 145, waaay past his best weight and definitely on the downslope of his ability. He lost to Frankie Randall two fights later.

If you don't know what you're talking about, there's really no need for you to open your piehole and let everyone else know that you don't know what you're talking about, ok?

 

In no way does Chavez match Hearns. The guys like Cueves and Benitez and Duran and Hagler and Leonard and Hill, all champions when he fought them and not just formers. That is significant. Hearns record with those guys is 4-2-1 (2). The odd thing is that Hearns actually fough 23 bouts with current and former and future champions. I just looked on his record. so even on that he beats Chavez by one, but to be fair, that part is equal.

 

Duran was a champion when Hearns beat him, which many people fail to mention. Anyone can say most legends are not at their best weight if they move up. Some would say Hearns best knockout weight was welterweight which is true, but he made most of his legacy outside of the welterweight class. Just because he was 6-1 1/2 does not mean he should have been a welterweight. Against Leonard he came in weighing 145. Mike Tyson is 5-10, and he could not even come in at 205. Height is not the indication for where a guy should fight. Duran weighs now about 265 I bet.

 

Yep, and you just pretty much named every big opponent on his record, including two who knocked him the **** out in that little half sentence right there, while you damn near have to write a book to name all of JCC's quality opponents and NOBODY ktfo's JCC. Now that I think about it, JCC's resume pisses all over Hearns' resume, it doesn't just match it.

 

What dumb **** did I say? All are facts. Pea didn't want to fight Chavez after he brutally destroyed Taylor's life.

 

No one in boxings records ever pissed on Hearns resume, so how could Chavez. Write a book on those opponents who fill his records? Wouldn't be a very good book. I am not going to insult his record by saying they are Tijuana Taxi drivers, but for all the good opponents he padded his record against very easy opponents. Chavez liked to stay busy, but he came up a little short when you compare his opposition to Hearns. Hearns was just lucky he had a chance to fight the guys he did,but in that 1970's/1980's era, the welterweight and middlewieghts were thriving. Hearns records against 6 HOF fighters was great, and he lost to 2 of them. But Hearns beat 4 of them when they were champions something unequaled with Chavez. No matter how much you spin the information, you cannot make Chavez fight the same top opposition as Thomas Hearns. I pointed out the facts and you failed to read it. Hearns fought current champs 23 times and Chavez 22. Hearns fought more HOF fighters who were champs at the actual time and legends at that. People want to believe what they want to believe. I understand that, but saying Chavez pisses on a resume when the facts show different is interesting. You have to know that Chavez never fought the great guys Hearns did. Rosario and Ramirez and Mayweather and Taylor do not compare to Cuevas and Benitez and Hill and Duran.

 

Hater #1???

Nah. I'm just puttoing this **** in perspective.

Chavez was a legend. He was a hero. And he was a great fighter. But when you say that he was a better fighter than Hearns????

Who did Hearns lose to at his prime weight? SRL and Hagler... OMFG! This guy is a bum.... GTFOH with that ****. If Chavez had fought anyone of that level, he would have been goven boxing lessons.

Sweet Pea was no Sugar Ray Leonard, and would have beaten him at any weight.

 

Ruben Castillo? Are you kidding? Aguilar,Fuentes,Kamau? Those are the guys who compare to Hearns record? You can throw in there Hearns pretitle fights of Harold Weston and Bruce Curry and it overshadows those guys. The fact you have to mention them doesn't say much about JCC's record. Chavez did not beat great fighters who? Changed them forever? Who? Are you alluding to Taylor? Taylor was not great. He was a good fighter with great skills who had porous defense, which fell apart at the end of a fight he had won. Those years of 135-140 were not great for that division . I give Chavez respect for 130 a little, but 135-140 he did well but the guys there were not really HOF fighters. Then when Chavez moves up to fight Whitaker people say he was not at his best, disregarding the Haugen fight where he looked pretty good. Which goes with my feeling that he did well with the Haugen guys, but when he moved up and fought the better guys he couldn't match up. Hearns did match up and seem to go with the top guys a little better even when he was older. Hearns turned 33 the year he beat Hill. You cannot make Chavez resume as good as Hearns. He didn't have the great fighters Hearns had to fight. If Chavez had the great fighters Hearns had he would have had Pryor to fight and Mosley at 135. That would have been comparable. Not Aquilar or Ramirez.

 

exactly, and when Chavez did fight the elite which Hearns fought, he was outsped and outboxed and outclassed. He was great, but when people say he was so much better the facts have to come out. Hearns fought better guys. To be honest also, Delahoya fought much tougher competition than Chavez. Chavez padded his record, then Oscar comes out and starts to fight the top guys in every fight. He fought less fights, but he fought better guys. Oscar did what Hearns did more, although he had more guys to fight like Hearns did, but he searched out the great fighters more than Chavez did which then wears out fighters a little more.