I'd love to hear the answer to this as well. I can think of only that ESPN list, which is probably the worst all time list I have ever seen.
Exactly. One need only look at how the media treats some of Chavez's decisions to know that it's not merely Whitaker fans that take him to task on some of his fights.
On the sensitivity issue, I've read through alot of threads over the last several months in this classic section that dump on Chavez. I've actually come to expect such a thing in this section. ....and to be honest, I spend most of my forum time debating current boxing events in the General forum, but still spend time reading, if not debating so much in the classic section. I make no bones about it, JC Chavez is a fighter that I highly admire and have great respect for. .....so its been hard for me to read some of the comments in this section, particularly from the Whitaker faithful..... ....alot of the times, the most brutal and hurtful comments come from other posters that are not particularly Whitaker or Taylor fans, but are more Chavez haters........ I find that in these situations, the Whitaker fans do alot of smiley encouragement and laughing :yep to keep those hate comments coming...... Hey, I can see that they believe Whitaker beat Chavez, so Chavez is not going to be their all-time favorite fighter to compliment.....and so I've learned that its really a waist of time to continually debate those guys one on one...... The deleted thread though imo, just got out of hand. Its too bad we cant go back and read through it, but what I saw was Chavez being depicted as a less than great fighter who made a career benefiting from bogus decisions. I think I've said my peace on the matter......but one question to Scienitst who wrote this..... You make it sound as these dicey decisions you talk about were routine....Name the victories on Chavez' record who you thought were bogus, and what were your scores in those fights? Put it all in the open now, where are all these bogus decisions? ......and btw JT, I'm glad to at least hear that my posts are readable Thanks for the compliment. To be mentioned in the same sentence as a fine a poster as Sal (although he's a Chavez hater:twisted is a compliment. To tell you the truth JT, I seek you out in this forum just to get a whiff of your finely selected avatars!:hey Honestly I do enjoy reading most of the regulars here in the classic section. I dont always agree, but the section is a great read.....although, I will say that I wish that there was more talk of the current crop of fights and fighters coming out of this classic section, but I know it'd be hard to keep the less educated on the matter out that only want to troll and spoil the threads, as is done all too often in the general forum.
Whitaker-Chavez: 9 rounds to 3 for Whitaker. Taylor-Chavez: I think you can make a case for it, but I would not have stopped it. Had Taylor ahead 7 rounds to 4. Ruiz-Chavez: Chavez gets DQ'ed and then gets the verdict changed to fund the "undefeated" myth. Randall-Chavez II: Even with the point deduction I had Randall up by a point when Chavez decided he didn't want to go on and had Homansky stop it because "he said no". I've seen fighters with worse cuts continue. Chavez went for the cheap way out to avoid getting beat up down the stretch. Whilst I think a draw would have been justified, the result in the Miguel Angel Gonzalez fight is dicey too. Scorecards got patched up after the fight, and again, Chavez benefitted from it.
Please Scientist, I've never debated with you on the Taylor stoppage, but how on earth does Steele let Taylor continue after not responding to him? Please, Taylor got worn down, chopped down, and stopped! Its that simple. If a strong case can be made for the stoppage, which you agree, then you have to throw this one out of here. This fight did'nt go to the cards....it was a legit stoppage of a fighter who did not respond to Steeles count, and who did not know where the hell he was at. Ruiz????:huh Did you see the fight??? I dont believe the fight was even on video tape. ....and it really has no bearing at all of what we're talking about in this thread as there is'nt anyone who has ever said that Chavez was getting beaten in that fight. Who the hell knows what happened, could have been something similar to what happened recently with Humberto Soto, clipping his opponent on the head when he was down and getting DQ'd......and it looks like they're going to either reverse that DQ of Soto now or call it a no-contest. I think you're grasping at straws here with this one!:rofl You did'nt give out your own score for Gonzalez? For the record, it did'nt recieve alot of US coverage as far as the result, but in Mexico, most of the news media, thought Chavez landed the better heavier shots and deserved to have taken that decision. It was a tactical type of fight between a faded Chavez and a B level fighter. A decision here either way does'nt effect Chavez' legacy one iota. I think what we have here Scientist is two fights that you feel Chavez should have lost....the Whitaker fight, and the Randall rematch. ......and btw Scientist, you must have never been headbutted near the head area. I have on a basketball court, I did'nt even get cut, but the numbing effect it has on your brain is worst than a punch. There's nauseating feeling after you've been headbutted hard......and that cut was a nasty gash....both Randall and Chavez were landing good shots at eachother.......and neither fighter was about to go anytime soon. Chavez had his hands full with Randall without that nasty gash, and to tell you the truth, I think it would have been an injustice to have the fight continue and have Randall walk away with the benefit of gaining the rounds after the headbutt that he'd have an advantage fighting a Chavez that was cut, and in a bad spot. That cut was in a bad spot, and it was going to effect Chavez' vision. Ih hindsight, going to the cards after 8 rounds fighting when neither was at a cut disadvantage, was the right thing to do. It was a close fight that would not have been controversial had the close decision gone to Randall, but because it went to Chavez, or course it controversial! Either way, its unfortunate, and I'd agree, grounds for controversy. ......but really, thats two fights out of over 100, the other two you mentioned are bogus throw in's from you and you know it! Btw, I've never heard of the scorecards being patched up for the Gonzalez fight. If you dont have a credible source for that statement, please dont mention unfounded rumors!
Even though I don't agree with you on some points, thank you very much for yours posts. Always respectful and full of interesting point.s
Steele called the fight off before the second question even left his mouth in its entirety. As he admitted after the fight, he stopped the fight more in connection to Taylor's condition than what Taylor actually said. Now, whilst I think there is a justification for calling the fight off, I don't think I would have, and there are plenty of others that also wouldn't have. I haven't seen the fight. All I know is this: "For many years all the leading record books, including both Pugilato and The Ring Record Book, recorded the first loss of Julio Cesar Chavez as being by disqualification.... This has since been changed to a knockout victory for Chavez, based on confirmation from the local boxing commission in Culiacan that it altered the verdict the following day. Ramon Felix, manager of Chavez, happened to be a member of the Culiacan commission at the time." - The A-Z of World Boxing by Bert Blewett (1996) at p. 341 Now if that's not suss, I don't know what is. Since when has the discussion only been about when Chavez was getting beaten up? The discussion is about decisions Chavez received that were not on the level. Or it could have been an illegal blow which caused him to get DQ'ed. I know, it's far fetched, but it COULD be the case. I have heard of such things happening when fighters gets DQ'ed. Agree it doesn't effect his legacy, but the circumstances surrounding the fight were very suspect nonetheless and suggested that Sulaiman and Lamazon had cooked the books, changing the scores which originally pegged Gonzalez a split decision winner. Not surprising most in Mexico felt Chavez won when Gonzalez got booed into the ring by near all the 50,000 that were there. By the way, my card: 115-115. Gonzalez winning rounds 1,2,4, 5 and 10. Chavez winning rounds 3,7,8,11 and 12. Rounds 6 and 9 even. What made it all the more controversial though was that Chavez was wading in with his head in a fashion that looked almost certainly deliberate. And whilst I do acknowledge the discomfort headbuts cause, heads do clash in boxing and it's unfortunate, but most fighters deal with it. I think it's fairly safe to say that if Chavez wanted to, he could have continued. I don't think his cut was any worse than say Winky Wright's against Benard Hopkins. But Winky didn't cop out, even though it annoyed him for the rest of the fight. Want a credible source? Boxing Monthly April 1998, pp.25-28, article by Graham Houston entitled "Mayhem in Mexico!" :good I'm pretty sure Claud Abrahms, who was editor of Boxing News wrote a similar article in Boxing News, for Houston and Abrahms both independently saw the patch up job and enquired about it.
Seven to Four you say!!?? I've never seen a fighter with that kind of damage done to him, that only lost four rounds!
Then you need to rewatch the fight and you will see Meldrick being much more active, landing cleanly and effectively much more than Chavez.
Most people had it wider than that for Taylor. Chavez fought very well, but he wasn't winning on points, considering he was getting outlanded heavily, though his punches were heavier.
Chavez done his damage to Taylor over the last 3-4 rounds. Yeah, it can happen. Some fighters swell up quicker and easier than others. 7 rounds to 4 at best for Chavez. Out of the 11 completed rounds Chavez IMO took 3, although not watched it for while.
Chavez pretty much figured that he was going to be outpunched maybe three to one. But he made sure what he did land caused maximum damage. & everyone would at least have to admit Taylor was never the same after the Chavez bout.
You look at how Steele conducting the count, and see the focus he has in examining the condition of Meldrick Taylor.......I mean really...Steele asked Taylor "are you ok are you ok", as far as I'm concerned when you sit back and really examine what transpired. Was Steele's question to Taylor really necessary? Steele was looking right into Taylors eyes, and at a circumstance where any fighter fit to continue would be making sure that the ref knew of this fact by doing whatever to make sure the ref knows he wants to continue.....Meldrick Taylor is standing there like a zombie in a trans.......but you would'nt have stopped it!!!!!:rofl :nut Who the hell knows the real story. What Scientist, you dont believe that the local boxing commision altered the verdict the next day? It really has nothing to do with what the thread starter wanted as far as gift decisions are concerned, but since you want to do a Florida recount and examine every vote card for a possible hanging chad, you brought it up, now I want to discuss this issue with you. JC Chavez has been introduced as an undefeated fighter since before his Championship days. If you can produce a video tape that introduces Chavez as a once beaten fighter, then you certainly have a point about Chavez getting preferential treatment because of his name value......but that reversal of the DQ from my knowleadge came way before Chavez was a household name even in his own backyard, thus it has little relevance with the subject of him getting preferential treatment. You yourself saw it as a draw, the fight was ruled a draw, where the hell is the controversy as far as you're concerned?????Of course, its a **** on Chavez thread you're trying to contribute too. :nut I was just thinking of when Manny Pacquiao was headbutted by Erik Morales in their first fight, right at the moment he got butted he turned to the ref in a nauseating gesture as if he wanted out of the fight. At this point, Pac was getting his arse handed to him.......the ref had a talk with him, and I think what happened is that the ref or Pac himself realized that if the fight was stopped at that point, he was going to lose be technical decision. In that situation, Pac really had nothing to lose by continueing, as he would have lost had he done so...... This Chavez Randall situation was a little different. It was a close fight which either fighter had the right to claim they were winning. Before the headbutt, there was no signs of quit in Chavez. He was in there fighting, but right at the point of head impact, you could just see the look of sickness in Chavez' gesture. That butt imo hurt Chavez just as Morales' butt had hurt Pac, and I'd almost stake my life on it, had Chavez known in his heart that he was losing the fight, he'd have asked for a few moments to recover from that butt and continued, just as what happened to Pac. But just to prove how devestating an effect a hard headbutt can have, look at the video of Chavez against Randall and compare it to Pac against Morales, both immediately after the butt look sick and seem like they want not to continue. ....and btw, get your hogwash about Chavez coming in with his head out of here, go look at the tape, its Randall that came in leaning with his head that caused the headbutt......of that I am absolutely positive!:deal How in the hell did they see a patch up job? The draw with Gonzales was announced right then and there in the ring. This was not a situation like in the first MAB-Rocky Juarez fight, where the decision was rendered a draw and later changed to a MAB victory. The patch-up job with those scorecards were even on boxing sites like F-news...... ......and even that patchup job was explained have having nothing to do with the actual judges. According to those in charge of the scorecard. Scorecards are collected and a someone is in charge of writing down those scores on a master scoresheet. I've seen more than one masterscoresheet scientist with scores crossed out and a correction made because the person copying down the score made a mistake and put it in the wrong slot. Unless those boxing magazine journalist had a copy of the actual scorecards coming from the judges, they really dont have a leg to stand on, and are writing something purely to sell copies and rise controversy. ......Phuey with the reason you brought the Gonzales fight into this Scientist. There is absolutely nothing fishy about a verdict that you yourself felt was the correct one.......but of course, this is a **** on Chavez thread!:yep :verysad