Does Julio Caesar Chavez make the Top 20 All-Time

Sure is:good

 

I said on par because MrMarvel was talking in h2h terms with his Camacho comparison. If i would have pointed out the obvious (which you just did) i would likely have been countered with a return post saying something along the lines of 'i was talking h2h'. I don't think it's too outrageous to use the term 'on par' in a discussion of h2h ability.

Of course resume wise you are correct by a mile. I wouldn't debate it in a million years.

 

When discussing prime versions of fighters like Ambers and Ross, I don't think you can say the running, hiding, pawing version of Camacho that Chavez faced was on par. He just wasn't that good a fighter past a certain point in his career.

 

I was considering prime for prime. I agree Ross and Ambers were certainly better, their resumes more than imply it. And yes Camacho's way of bxing isnt of the best choice for me either, but he was effective with it, almost completely due to speed. Like i said, i don't think the choice of words i used was too outrageous. And i've already pointed out i used that wording just to cover myself from a comeback from MrMarvel.

 

I already explained why he accomplished more. You are ignoring my argument to maintain your position. Strawman tactics.

 

What does this demonstrate? NOTHING. Chavez could have fought twice as many fights every year but that would tell us nothing about why Canzoneri lost badly to fighters Chavez likely would have whipped easily.

It's fine that you can't explain why Canzoneri lost a bunch of fights while Chavez didn't lose ever against top flight competition over the same career path. Just throwing up a bunch of numbers looks desperate.

 

After some more research, I have some more information on the quality of two fights.

The loss to Harry Dublinky came after a good start by Canzoneri. He rushed out of the gate. But by the third Dublinsky was fully recovered and in charge. Observers describe Dublinksy taking the life out of Canzoneri, who was missing badly by the middle rounds. Dublinsky began to thoroughly dominate by the latter rounds, making a terrible mess of Canzoneri's face. In essence, according to accounts, Dublinsky beat up Canzoneri.

The Blitman fight was a non-title match while Canzoneri was featherweight champion. Good thing the title wasn't on the line. Blitman had Canzoneri against the ropes most of the fight and busted up his eye real good in the latter rounds. Three fights later Blitman was knocked out by a single shot from Benny Bass, who was not the world featherweight champion and had a sub-30 percent KO record.

Anybody who thinks Chavez loses to fighters like Dublinksky and Biltman... I won't finish that sentence.

 

He already explained why having more fights involves a much greater rate of attrition, especially when you're routinely facing the quality of opposition that far outstripes that of the man you're being compared to. You are ignoring his argument to maintain your position. Strawman tactics.

 

I'd say. Mr Marvel is also ignoring the fact that constantly having to fight good fighters like Canzoneri was doing would leave you vulnerable to the odd few losses. It's one thing to fight one or two decent fighters a year like Chavez was doing, it's another thing altogether to have to fight 4 or 5 good fighters a year like Canzoneri was doing. It's another thing to face great fighters too - something Chavez never did with any success. First time he came up against a near great fighter he came within a line call of losing.

 

Your arguments aren't working guys. They're premised on three false assumptions or claims.

The first is that Canzoneri was losing only to very good fighters. Wrong. He was losing to very good fighters and to good to ordinary fighters. Canzoneri lost (a lot) more to excellent fighters than he won. He lost to Taylor, Routis, Mandell, Jadick (twice), Ambers (twice), McLarnin, and Ross (twice). And Canzoneri was losing to fighters who no great fighter at the peak of his career should lose to, including Ramey, Fuller, Woods, Dublinski, and Biltman. These weren't close and controversial losses, folks. Canzoneri was outclassed and even wounded.

The second false claim is that Chavez was not regularly facing excellent competition. What makes Chavez' record so remarkable is that he was undefeated for so long against such excellent and very good opposition. Lockridge, LaPorte, Rosario, Ramirez, Camacho, Taylor, to name a few. Unlike Canzoneri who was losing to excellent, good, and ordinary competition, Chavez wasn't losing. Losing isn't better than winning when both are facing excellent and very good opposition. And when one is losing to ordinary competition, then the defense of that fighter goes from wrong to silly.

The third is that Canzoneri's regular appearance in the ring somehow accounts for him losing fights or the fact that he was washed up by his late 20s. There is no validity for the first part and the second part must be qualified. Robinson regularly appeared in the ring and he only lost once during his prime. During Armstrong's reign of terror, he fought constantly and he didn't really lose. During Duran's run up to the welterweight fight he only lost once to an excellent fighter (and twice avenged the loss). Willie Pep during his prime only lost once and he was appearing all the time. No, Canzoneri was losing because he wasn't on the level of these other fighters. They were greater, and one of the main reasons they were is not because of how often the fought but because of how often they won compared to how often the lost against a range of competition.

As for attrition, there's something to that. This is why Chavez was slowing down in early 30s. Trench warfare does that to a fighter. Hagler was worn out by his mid-30s. But Chavez was still one tough SOB. Canzoneri was a tough fighter, too. And, in any case, none of this explains why Canzoneri lost so many in his prime years, especially why several of these losses were to ordinary fighters.

Finally, to introduce a new point (or really to highlight an earlier one), we have film of Canzoneri. We see how he fights. That helps us understand his record. It also gives us some insight as to how well he would do against a fighter like Chavez. How can he be better than Chavez if he doesn't look better than Chavez? Take Canzoneri's winning effort against Ambers. Take Ambers out and put Chavez in.

 

MrMarvel, you have been seriously overrating the standard of Chavez's comp throughout this thread.

 

OMG, Mr. Marvel is Revolver everyone. I did some research and his speech pattern is the exact same as Revolver/Hank/Pepping It. They are ALL the same person!



REVOLVER IS BACK!

 

Yeah what a hack Wes Ramey was. He only managed to beat Tony Canzoneri, Cocoa Kid, Benny Bass, Ray Miller, Battling Shaw, Johnny Jadick, Harry Dublinsky, Lew Jenkins, Leo Rodak, Chuck Woods. **** that may be a BETTER wins resume than Chavez himself

Oh wait, Sammy Fuller was a hack too. He just managed to beat Tony Canzoneri, Jackie Kid Berg, Ray Miller, Benny Bass, Johnny Jadick and pushed Billy Petrolle to a draw whilst losing a MD to Barney Ross. Good point there :good

Their competition is NOT equivalent. Anyone that knows about the sport knows that. It's not even worth debating. It's not even close. Chavez was more consistent, yes, but he did not face the hurdles Canzoneri did. THat is not debateable in the least.

Pep and Armstrong were not facing the quality guys that Canzoneri was. Neither was Duran, though Duran wasn't fighting with Canzoneri's frequency either.

And as for Chavez, he wasn't even in the ball park as far as comp goes, and fought much less than Tony in any case.

Anyway, I dont have a problem with someone saying Canzoneri isn't on Pep, Robinson's, Duran's, Armstrong's level, but that you slip Chavez in amongst that lot is not warranted.

He lost to less than a handful of ordinary guys in his prime. Most were excellent fighters. Fighters the level of which Chavez didn't even beat in some cases. Besides Taylor there is no extraordinary name on his whole resume, and he came within a line call of losing to him.

Canzoneri looks good on film on the whole and I've seen just about everything there is to see of him. I think Chavez beats him basically becuase of size, but in a p4p matchup I think it could go either way.

 

Two of the better fighters of that weight class of the era. Mr. Marvel is really making a fool of himself by claiming fighters of that quality were in any way ordinary.

 

You guys are completely missing the point. I am selecting examples of excellent, very good, and ordinary fights on purpose: the context brings the era down to earth. I'm not cherry picking. People romanticize this period far too much and the facts show this to be the case.

If Canzoneri deserves to be ranked over Chavez, then he should have dominated this period. He didn't. That's the point.

Remember what my my argument is: if Canzoneri deserves to be top 20, then Chavez clearly does. To say that Chavez is not top twenty is to say that Canzoneri is not top twenty.