I mean, the list is obviously awful, but the way they present the fighters is even worse. Talk about myth spreading from supposed "boxing historians". Chavez was just a tough son of a *****, apparently, as was Frazier et al. Laughable. EDIT: Some posters have had a degree of difficulty in understanding this post, so let me make it clear that I disagree with the characterisation of Frazier and JCC as one-dimensional sluggers with a big heart and little else, instead rating those attributes as only scratching the surface of their skills as ATG fighters.
Your just bitter cause thers isnt a brit on there Do you think Chavez was just a tuff guy with no sklill?
Chavez was never outstanding at anything? ...Yeah, his combination punching and cutting off the ring was...so-so.
it's the fight game, we all like different things for different reasons. for instance every time i watch that fight i see someone new: usually something subtle that chavez did and taylor didn't (though i'll never give jc superstar more than 3 rounds...NEVER!) and for me, the greatest fight of all time happened between gatti and ward. we each have a preference and honestly, i was totally underwhelmed by castillo/corrales 1. bought a bootleg right away and never got the big deal
One of the biggest myths is how one-sided the Chavez/Taylor fight was prior to the KO. Taylor may've been racking up the rounds with his far superior workrate and flashy combinations, but his flurries were doing about 1/3 the damage as the one or two well placed shots that Chavez was landing amidst them. Going into the last round, I'd say Chavez had won a good 3 or 4 rounds that way, and the proof was in the pudding (the pudding being Taylor's mashed up face). Chavez gave him a subtle, but devastating beating throughout the fight, which is what lead to dramatic KO at the end.
no question: chavez worked him over real well. but in the process won 3 rounds at the most. in a street fight it's no contest but in boxing, taylor put on a clinic