Chavez vs. Duran peak/peak at 135.

Just because I happened to use the word 'stalk', you made all this effort? I saw the fight, I know what happened. Stop being so trivial.

Don't give me the emoticons. Duran combined fundamentals with his own moves; he used textbook footwork and head movement but used his hands in an unorthodox way; feinting, guiding, motioning. Then punching. How is my classification important anyway - fact is, Duran was extremely effective, and that's all you need to know.

Chavez had reflexes. Everyone who isn't confined to a wheelchair or a coffin has reflexes. Chavez' were pretty good - Duran's were better. Did you see Chavez moulding himself to the shape of his opponent's attacks like Duran did? Defensively, Chavez was very good, but Duran was excellent. He pulled off the more spectacular and more importantly, effective moves. Reckon Chavez could evade nine Ray Leonard punches in a row with his hands down? Duran did. He was just showing off there. He was that good.

Pretty vacant. Your argument so far has been unconvincing at best; you haven't broken down styles or anything. Specify more.

P.S. - records are not everything.

Then it's just your bad luck that the vast majority are against you. By the way, stop harping on about equal opinions then saying things like 'you can pretend all you want' - contradiction is not smiled upon around these here parts.

 

Great performance from Duran against Palamino. His workrate and accuracy was second to none, and he slipped punches and got inside as well as he ever done. But not a fight where I'd make an argument for Duran's versatility in the ring in terms of pumping the jab from distance, and being calculated to go with his aggression. You could make a case for his versatility in how he varied his attacks while coming forward over Chavez against Rosario, but not versality of being a complete prize fighter.

Manassa. I agree on your point regarding Duran being smooth technically against Palamino. Very free with his punches, and busy throughout the fight. Chavez was a much more measured and accurate, but sometimes not a good thing. Chavez was more of thinker, with Duran simply letting everything flow at a higher pace.

 

:good Chavez was more methodical and measured in his attack, whereas Duran was more of a killer

 

Really? I think many of the regular posters would disagree with you that I am a consensus follower. I am more the opposite. Difference is, I put across reasonable points.

Not my fault your argument is weak.

 

Not too sure you can make a case for Chavez sharing a ring with anyone stylistically close to Hearns. Nobody Chavez fought came near Hearns when combining power with speed as a package. Taylor maybe a little quicker, but not anywhere near the same kind of power.

Since Duran v Hearns was at 154lbs, and Duran being naturally bigger than Chavez, lets put Chavez in a ring with Hearns at 147lbs. I'm pretty confident Chavez lasts around 2 rounds as well.

 

It's one thing to take up an unpopular position (makes life interesting) but gtfo here with the Mayweather compares to Hearn's crap

:fire

 

That post shows you don't need massive paragraphs to make your point. Well said Sweet Pea.

 

Ah, how could we not have known lol. Let us call Mayweather a very very poor man's Tommy Hearn's, including in right hand power. Good right hand speed and power but she wasn't no Tommy.

 

Thunderpower. If you don't mind me asking. How do you see a fight between Chavez and Whitaker shaping out at 135lbs?

 

Mayweather doesn't have the same KO percentage at 130/140lbs as Hearns did at 147/154lbs. Which makes his argument seem even more strange. Height and reach aint even close either.

 

Duran got KO'd in his prime?. The first time he was KO'd was against Hearns in 1984 when everyone in the world would agree he was at least 3-4 years past his prime. Please don't come back and make a case for Duran being in his prime against Hearns. I think your having a laugh about all this Chavez nonsense over Duran.

 

I'll be as fair with my comparison as possible. Duran was just as past his prime against Hearns as Chavez was against De La Hoya when they first squared off.

 

We knew you weren't serious. You sure are the joker of the pack on this thread, and the evidence is for all to see.

 

50 50 fight. could go any way. i like duran on points

You have got to say that J.C'S chin was better than durans

To those who think it would be a walk in the park for RD. Remember the de jesus fights 1 + 2