A funny thought regarding Chavez and Camacho....

To me, the bizarre paradox of Hector Camacho's boxing career is that he is supposed to have been a great streetfighter, claiming he never lost one (although he admitted to using a bat or brick on occasion to get the better of his antagonist).

Ultimately, the impression of him that I envision in my mind is of the demonic speedster who overwhelmed Louis Loy in his national television debut. SRL provided color commentary on his one round single punch annihilation of John Montes, and raved about how Camacho set up Montes for that left uppercut, with his extended right arm held over the head to set it up, for months on end. (Ray was such a big fan of Camacho's in the early eighties, when Macho was a junior lightweight, that it seems incredible Hector would ultimately retire him as a MW nearly a decade and a half later.)

Melvin Paul boxed him intelligently, not giving him the usual opportunities to counter. It wasn't exciting, except for some momentary clowning by Camacho, but for the most part, he maintained an expression of very intense concentration, and shooting out one jab at a time, he won an extremely tense and tedious chessmatch over a fine craftsman.

Where Camacho lost my interest was when he faced Cubanito Perez. Irleis buckled him early with a body assault in the corner, and from that point on Hector would rush him with multiple jabs and then clinch to prevent countering. Perez seeming exposed Camacho as somebody who couldn't take it downstairs, and had serious problems with physically stronger opposition. I remember Cubanito as a big strong lightweight, and fine counterpuncher. The audience booed the decision in favor of Camacho, but at least Hector was running at him with his jabs and clinches. (Irleis Perez could have been an ATG, except for being developmentally crippled with allergies. Boxers can self-destruct by choosing to eat, drink, abuse drugs, or indulge in other unhealthy behaviors, but to be sidetracked with a malfunctioning immune system is dreadfully unfortunate.)

While Camacho succeeded in sustaining a very long career, he started out giving the impression early that he might be an aggressive predatory killer in the ring, but he ultimately didn't make the most of his talent. He didn't grind his body down with incessant training either, but with a hungrier attitude, he would have been the reincarnation of Willie Pep.

As smart and experienced as he is, if he developed better communication skills, he would make a superb commentator. Unfortunately he's more intelligent than he is articulate about boxing, and he remains quite the juvenile delinquent in his personal life.

 

How often in the history of the sport has anyone literally said I don't want to continue, I've had enough? If that's the definition of quitting, hardly anyone has ever quit.

Chavez didn't quit against DLH either then, because all he did was refuse his mouthguard and complain about his lip and ribs. He didn't say he didn't want to continue!

Quitting is nearly always done through mannerisms or through complaints.

I'll never believe that Homansky stopped that fight because of the severity of the cut alone. He referenced Chavez not wanting to continue TWICE as Mills Lane was probing him.

He sured up his story afterwards not to seem biased, but come on, why would he answer Mills TWICE with reference to what Chavez wanted?

 

The impression I'm getting from you and others in this thread is that it was Chavez' sole decision to not continue.....and thats not true.

If I'm not mistaken, when Homansky told Lane something to the effect, "no more, he does'nt want to go on"......Lane then told Homansky so that he (Lane) could decide what to do next and find out who was stopping the fight, Homansky or Chavez.....Lane asked Homansky, "are you stopping it?" and Homansky said yes!

Lane was wise to get that straight, because he could'nt let the fighter stop it. The doctor could stop it, but not the fighter.

Just answer this Scientist, do you believe the cut to be severe enough to stop the fight?????
Not only was that a nasty gash, but it was a large and deep cut.
Are you going to tell me that Homansky erred in stopping the fight?
Chavez was good to go with that cut?

 

To repeat, here's the dialogue between Flip Homansky and Mills Lane:

Mills: What do you think?
Flip: No, stop it.
Mills: Stop the fight?
Flip: He (Chavez) wants you to.
Mills: You want the fight to go on?
Flip: Stop it. It should not go on. He (Chavez) says 'no.'

After the first time Flip told Mills to stop the fight, Mills thought that Homansky was stopping it because Chavez wanted it stopped. So Mills Lane asked again (knowing that only the ref can stop it) whether Flip himself wanted the fight to continue. Flip then said stop it. Mills did. As Mills is waving the fight off Flip says 'he (Chavez) says 'no'.

I think Homansky was being overly protective of Chavez. Flip made the decision to stop the fight, but I feel Chavez's demeanour (as well as his stature) had a lot to do with it. Had that been Randall in the exact same situation as Chavez I'd bet my house the fight would have continued.

Not being a doctor and being up in the thick of it, I can't really say. What I can say is that I have seen fighters continue with what LOOKS to be worse cuts.

A stoppage might have been warranted, but to mention what Chavez wanted TWICE in your rationale for it, sounds kind of fishy to me.

 

You dont know, you're not a doctor?


Listen, I've seen fighters continue with just as bad a cut, but usually when the fighter lets the ref know that he wants to continue, that he could fight with the cut, its' because the cut has'nt been ruled to be by an accidental butt, or the cut fighter knows he'd be behind if they went to the cards.

The Chavez-Randall fight was a situation where it was give and take, then all of a sudden one fighter is dizzy from being butted at about the temple spot and now at a huge disadvantage if he were to continue.

I have no idea if Chavez was thinking along those lines, but he more than likely was going to get ouboxed by Randall the rest of the way with blood trickling into his eye.
Those types of deep gashes usually get worse as the fight goes, not better.

Looking back at the fight now, I think the only fair way to have settled that fight was to go the scorecards and score 8 rounds between two healthy fighters, and not Chavez having to fight the last four rounds with a handicap.

I've always said it, it was an inconclusive ending. As a Chavez fan, I was'nt satisfied with the ending.
But what are you going to do. I certainly would'nt expect either fighter to have continued to fight on with that nasty a gash, and that deep a cut.

I dont agree with you Scientist that Homansky would not have acted the same way if the cut was on Randall.

However, Randall would have imo likely have continued with the cut, because in such a nip and tuck and close fight, Randall would have realized that the odds of him getting a decision in such a close fight vs a legend like Chavez, was against him. He would have let the ref know he wanted to continue, unless he was fairly sure he had outboxed Chavez clearly enough to be up on the cards.

By the looks of Chavez instantly after getting butted....he was nauseated and sick to his stomach. That can occur when you get butted near the temple area.
Chavez certainly was'nt feeling well, and it was compounded by the knowing that he had a deep cut right above his eye.
He still never said to Homansky that he did'nt want to continue, but was pointing to his head and letting him know that he was headbutted.

Dont call Chavez a quitter for the act of Homansky.
Had Homansky told Mills Lane that Chavez in his opinion was good to go, and Chavez refused, then I would say that was Chavez quitting.


Homansky would have likely let the fight continue another round or two and checked if the cut was'nt bleeding and interfering with Chavez' vision.
.....but I've seen most doctors stop it when the fighter is'nt showing enthusiasm to continue, and then go to the cards.


I hate the word quitter labeled to fighters in situations like that in which Chavez was up against.
He certainly did'nt chose to get butt and cutted, and was fighting galantly at the time of the butt.

Like I said earlier with respects to Pac vs Morales.....it was very early in the fight when he was butted.....Morales was boxing the pants off of Pac.....Pac got butted and had about the same mannerisms as Chavez
(and his was just a small cut in comparison to Chavez'.)
Pac most likely would not have complained had the fight been stopped and ruled a no contest.

But the ref ruled for the fight to continue and continue Pac did, even while not feeling well from the effects of the butt.

I have absolutely no doubt that Chavez would have continued had the ref ruled for them to do so.


What I'm getting at is dont call Chavez a quitter over the acts of Flip Homansky.
If Homansky was influenced by Chavez mannerisms, thats on Flip Homansky.
......at the end of the night, accoding to Homansky called the fight because of two things.....the cut was bad enough for stoppage, and Chavez did'nt look eager to continue.

Homansky probably lets the fight go another round or two and see if the cut is'nt hindering the action.
.....but what does Homansky do when he's looking at the cut which is bad enough to stop, and then see's a fighter that is hurting in front of him.

Both Chavez and Homansky were in tough spots in that situation.
....but at the end of the night, the right thing was done by adding up the cards of rounds that were fought between two healthy fighters!

Chavez is labeled as a quitter by some of his most ardent haters, (calm down Scientist, I dont believe thats you. )

.....but fighters who should rightfully be labeled quitters are fighters like Alcelino Freitas who has quit in fights he's in while not suffering a substantial injury.
Freitas even quit in a fight against Chico Corrales where many still had him up in front!
Thats a quitter.