Does Julio Caesar Chavez make the Top 20 All-Time

One of the best in boxing history? As in one of the 50 best? Maybe. One of the 10 or 20 best? NAH.

 

I genuinely don't believe anyone can legitimately argue against this excellent post.

 

You can spin resumes pretty much any way you want. Ultimately for me, it comes down to the eye test. With the unfortunate exception of Harry Greb and a few others, we have film on these guys. Have I seen 20 guys better than Chavez? Yes. Maybe 25. 30? Not so sure. That's where I start thinking about slotting Chavez in.
LA_Califa made a great point about Chavez being a 15 round fighter in a 12 round era. I also think Chavez would be thought more highly of if we'd seen more of him at his best weight, which i believe was 135.

 

I was talking about Barbados Demon who belong very high in p4p list. I'm a huge Jersey Joe fan but its not a crime to place him outside top 100.

 

This post demonstrates the way folks rationalize Chavez's career in order to justify leaving him outside the top 20.

Chavez didn't beat Whitaker at welterweight. It wasn't a draw. Whitaker won. We all know that. That's why, when I talk about Chavez, I talk about his success from 130-140 pounds. That was his prime and his ideal fighting weight. A machine at 135 pounds often doesn't do as well at 147 pounds (slick boxers do better weight jumping). Canzoneri is a great illustration of this. In fact, he didn't do as well at 140 pounds. Furthermore, Whitaker was an all-time great boxer, a defensive genius on the level of Willie Pep. The fact that 31-year-old Chavez, a veteran of tough fights against tough hombres across four modern weight divisions, fought so well against a wizard like Whitaker at 147 pounds is what's remarkable. McLarnin beat the stuffins out of Canzoneri and McLarnin is no Willie Pep.

The Taylor fight is another example of spinning. Taylor was outpointing Chavez, to be sure. But Chavez was breaking Taylor down and beating him up. Taylor looked awful at the end of the fight, the victim of a mugging. Steele made the right decision in stopping the fight. He's not the time keeper. He's there to make sure that a fighter isn't killed in the ring. That fight ruined Taylor. Had it been stopped earlier, Taylor might have had a much longer career. And suppose we put the fight in the era of 15 rounds and the referee, not as sensitive to the health and well being of a boxer, allows it to go on, does anybody believe Taylor would have made it out of the 13th round? The consequences of that could very well have been legendary as the world watched a man be permanently damaged in a much more serious way that Taylor actually was. Some corners need to think better of their fighters, frankly. The fight proved why Chavez is a great fighter: the ability to methodically broke down a extremely talented speedster. The fight also proved why the condition of a fighter needs to be carefully considered. Chavez had hammers for hands.

Here's another example: "No one is going to proclaim Chavez the greatest of the last 30 years for beating the Greg Haugens, Roger Mayweathers and Jose Luis Ramirezes of the world." Not on these examples alone, of course not! But also because he beat the Taylors, Rosarios, and Camachoes of the world. Camacho isn't regarded as an excellent fighter because he beat Haugen. He's regarded as an excellent fighter because of the way he fought and how he won throughout his career. The man was brilliant in his prime. You are really dead set on running Chavez down to pretend that Camacho was a lesser fighter. It has been a geniune pleasure watching Camacho fight all these years. He's had fantastic moments in his career and some damned exciting fights. Like? His fight with Rosario.

Please don't come back and try to run down Taylor and Rosario. Your arguments are getting sillier by the post.

And for the record, Pernell Whitaker is a top 20 all-time fighter, and the biggest reason for this is his brilliant performance against Chavez.

 

This thread is becoming tiresome now. You've been making the same post for page after page, and every time you overrate Chavez's comp individually, and collectively as his resume. If you can't select 20 from the 35 fighters I posted that you believe should rank above JCC, I suggest you start doing a bit of video and book research.

 

Its been great reading your posts Mr.Marvel.

I believe JCC is a top 20 ATG and it is very sad to see that someone like JCC is so unappreciated for whatever reason, specially in the classic forum.

 

i have him at 23, i just feel that hagler, wilde and jack johnson should be ranked higher

 

On the last page, I posted 35 fighters. Could all these guys who say Chavez is top 20 please name the minimum 15 of those 35 they think Chavez ranks higher than? I am a real fan of his ability, but I cannot fathom how his resume justifies a top 20 placing at all. And the mere idea of top 10 is utterly ridiculous.

 

One of the worst possible examples you could of used to make out this point is Tony Canzoneri-Jimmy McLarnin. You are aware that Tony beat the stuffing out of Jimmy in their first fight right? McLarnin got the better of it in the rematch, but Canzoneri was on the way out by then. The first Jimmy McLarnin fight was his last great outing.

Also, Chavez weighed 142 for the Whitaker fight, it wasn't as if the weight effected his performance. Whitaker maybe came in a little stronger at 145 than he would have at 140 or 135, but he also would have been quicker and had a higher activity rate at the lower weights.

The stoppage was justified, but I think other referees in that situation might have let the fight continue. Chavez caught a break that night because it could have turned out differently. If you don't acknowledge that, you are being too one eyed.

Chavez's resume is simply not as good as you want to make it out to be. He fought and beat a lot of good fighters, I'm not denying that, but the truly special fighters he fought and beat are VERY few.

Camacho looked special for a time, but he got badly exposed in the Rosario fight and progressively started going downhill when his speed left him. Even with his speed though, his lack of heart would have always shone through against the greats.

Sure, but not that alone. He also showed his greatness against Azumah Nelson and Oscar de la Hoya whilst past his prime. Even against Trinidad when he was utterly shot he still proved his heart and toughness.

Chavez, in his biggest fights (Taylor, Whitaker, DLH) simply didn't look as good. The Camacho and Rosario performances were good, but they weren't great fighters (Camacho certainly wasn't when he faced Chavez and I would argue that he never was great).

 

I don't know how you can tell anything from the first Chavez-de la Hoya fight. Chavez went into the fight with a cut and was a bloody mess right off the bat. Moreover, he was past his prime and you know that. The second de la Hoya fight was an old way pased it Chavez who gave de la Hoya some moments before having his tounge nearly cut in half by wicked shot. As for Taylor, Chavez beat the crap out of a prime Taylor, so the idea that he didn't look good in that fight is absurd. He ruined Taylor.

And the Canzioneri fight. In the rematch, held less than five months later, McLarnin beat Canzoneri so badly that the audience was yelling for the referee to stop the fighter. Canzoneri was only 27!

You're arguments are so drenched with bias, sweet scientist, that I must conclude that it's useless to debate with you.

 

chavez is the 2nd best fighter in the last 25 years. putting ONLY one boxer(sweet pea) in the all-time top 30 is biased against boxers in this era...

 

No, judging from the poll results it doesnt look as tho he made it. Had he beat hector around 84-85, that would have caught the attention of the boxing world for sure. A win over Hector AND Pernell might put him in the same league as Duran or Hagler.

 

Good debate, and respect to Mr. Marvel and his opponents.

In a nutshell, I would say JC Superstar probably just edges into the top 20 pound-for-pound greatest of all time. Placing him in the top 10 or outside the top 30 I think is misleading.

It is easy to dislike Chávez for his poor-sport attitudes in his twilight, his sponsorship by Don King, the Steele stoppage ("Unbelievable!!!!"), the "draw" with Whitaker, maybe even the fact of his astounding 88-0 run (a record like this rings unreal).

But Julio César Chávez was truly one of the very greatest fighters ever. Had he remained at his best weight classes, super featherweight, lightweight and super lightweight, he might have cemented a more cosmetic legacy. At these weights, the man cleaned out the divisions, beating the best in the world in his time. In these debates, the way a fighter wins counts, as well: he broke Rosario, tracked down Camacho, and destroyed Taylor (from a historical perspective, this win is sterling: over 15 rounds, the result is a foregone conclusion; within 12, Chávez remained cool and steady and only true greatness accounts for that extraordinary right that felled Meldrick.) In between, he never lost over 88, count them, 88 pro bouts against all comers, "tough" (a beaten Haugen) Mexican cab drivers and all, a mark of amazing consistency, no way around it.

His steady-pressure style translated extremely well across three divisions and he gave lauded great Whitaker a run for his money at welterweight, though clearly not at his best weight nor age as a fighter. And, by the way, Whitaker's best claim to greatness is beating this version of Chávez.

Chávez is a throwback to the greats of the past in that he kept busy, fought everyone, ducked no one, for 88 straight wins. He avenged his first official loss, twice. His granite chin, excellent stamina, relentless body attack and unshakable confidence would match up for war with hallowed top-10 pound-for-pounders Roberto Durán and Henry Armstrong at 135. In comparison, Armstrong went 59-1-1 (51 KOs) during his best run from 1935 to 1940 over 3 divisions, while Durán went 73-1 as a lightweight. There is not much difference between these three titans.

By the way, Mr. Marvel, could we see your top 20?

 

I agree with most of your post, but not the part about holding Whitaker to a draw it was a gift.