Jeff Chandler vs Carlos Zarate

the Chandler that took so many punches against Murata, solis, Canizales etc would have been worn down by Zarate in some manner or other.Be a good fight though.

The BHOP comparison is a decent one, especially in the tendency to have a lot of dirty tricks up their sleeve and little glaring weaknesses, but one key difference is hopkins was a very good defensive fighter, where Chandler veered between average, solid and mediocre.

You could make the argument Chandler fought the best opposition(at least in the sense of greatest amount of good fighters, if not elite scalps) of the 80s crop, but i don't think he was the greatest talent or one with the most potential.

For me, a strong jack of all trades fighter.but by that, being very good at most things and decent at others, rather than average at most things as is often the case with the term.

He'd be a good fight for almost any Bantam, though i've never thought he quite had enough standout tools to be favoured over the best of the boxer-punchers or the really elite swarming\pressure fighters and cuties.

 

Zarate never considered the best Bantam by ring? That sounds like madness to me.

 

Hell if I remember. I think KO did a survey in 1977. Ill try and find the post.

Edit: it was boxing illustrated 1977. He was ahead of Arguello.

 

He was never the lineal champ, because his fight with Zamora was non-title (scheduled for 10). He was certainly the best bantamweight following that fight, though....even if he Zamora/Lujan held claim to Ring's World Championship.

 

Who did Zamora beat for the title? Wasn't it vacant?

Lara beat Herrera than amounted to little. Herrera got a strap back, but lost to Martinez. Martinez was surely the best bantam when Zarate smashed him?

Anyway, Zarate was ranked highly P4P in his day.

 

You said it yourself. I know plenty about Jeff's scalps, hence why I find your eternal optimism about his standing quite frankly nauseating.

 

I'd say he was considered the best by everybody when he beat Zamora. Only boxing politics prevented that from being a title fight. With Chandler there was always a question mark about Pintor.
If your basing this on ratings did you see my earlier post?

 

The only reason Zarate was never recognised as Ring champion was because Enrique Pinder refused to defend against Rodolfo Martinez. The WBC stripped him, he instead fought and was stopped by Romeo Anaya. The Ring had a policy of a champ could only lose his title in the ring and so recognised the WBA line. Anaya, Taylor, Hong, Zamora etc.
Zarate was The Ring fighter of the year for 1977.

 

Says it all.

 

EDIT: Post deleted, as the question has been asked and answered.

 

Jeff has the skills to beat Zarate, but it would be a hell of a fight.Really to close to call definitely, for either man.

 

Chandler was no Pintor {who I think beats him by stoppage in 10} Gomez would box superiorly pound the body and BRUTALLY KO Jeff in 6. Chandler has nothing to hold him off. at his best, Gomez, along w/ Duran and Monzon, were the best fighters I saw from 1970 on. Gomez could do everything. IF HE FELT LIKE IT. Davila fought them all and Gonez {then a bantamweight too} just ate him up. GOMEZ' VICTORY OVER ZARATE was one of the single greatest performances I ever saw in watching fights since the 40s. and I gotta say, Sandovals attack was unrelenting and Jeff had no answer. To say that was because of the drugs is bull****, because whosoever fought him at that time would fighhim on drugs too. He says he started doing them in the 70s

 

It caught up to him about '83, obviously, Oscar and Richard wouldn't have beaten him if he was on point.

 

i disagree. i think Sandoval always outhustles him.

 

Zarate destroys Chandler imo