Tyson was undefeated when he fought 'Buster'... He was past his prime. Holmes was undefeated when he fought Spinks... He was past it... Marciano was undefeated his whole career... Was he still in his prime when he quit?
Its not the same, Chavez fought the way Chavez always fights, so cut that bull**** about him not being in his prime, what did Chavez do wrong since he wasnt in his prime? Was Chavez prime when he beat Taylor? Yes, but he was getting his ass beat till Taylor brawled with him instead of boxing, Chavez can´t handle skilled boxers.
So what defines Chavez prime? Would he have done anything different if he was? Hell no, it was the same Chavez that night.
Chavez was past his prime against Whitaker, but he was no more past it than he was against Hector Camacho, or Greg Haugen. And in fact he threw about as many punches against Whitaker as he did against Meldrick Taylor, and started the fighter quicker than any other fight he had started in years looking to aggressively impose himself.
I already said that prime Whitaker beats any version of Chavez so it wouldnt make any difference if he was prime or not but you asked if he was in his prime at the time and the obvious answer is no,saying he was in his prime cause he was undefeated is simply stupid.
Yeah I know you said that, and Im not basing it on if he was undefeated or not, i dont give a ****, I just didnt see anything different in that fight that says Chavez is past his prime, he fought the same way he always does.
Chavez' prime was in the mid to late 80's until the very early 90's... The Whitaker fight was later than that. He already had far over 80 fights behind him at the time. But like I said before... It would have been a 'pick em' fight if they were both in their primes.
Having 80 fights doesnt mean you are past it. What did you see different about Chavez in that fight? I could´nt see anything different.
Were you expecting him to become a slick boxer all of a sudden?of course he fought the same way as ever it was his style.