Humberto González vs Hilario Zapata @ 108

Chiquita probably, Zapata had problems with these pressure fighter styles,I don't see Chiquita getting in trouble with movers yet.

 

Gonzalez by TKO 6-8.

 

If he's near his best form, I favour Zapata in a clear UD. Trouble is the guy had his issues out of the ring (the usual partying that eventually developed into a more serious drug issues during mid-late 80s ), despite his great skills he was never a Miguel Canto who could be relied on to be 100% focused and fit from fight to fight.

Chiquita is good enough to take advantage of and possibly beat an off-form Zapata, though that's a scenario I see being more likely to end in a hard-to-score, could have gone either way sort of fight.

It's interesting that both these guys had a shock KO loss in their initial reigns: Zapata vs Ursua and Gonzalez vs Pascua. However, tempting as it might be I don't think the circumstances of each would have much relevance for this fight. First of all, Zapata vs Ursua...we've got an example of the champion not giving the challenger enough respect early, underestimating their punch (Ursua was a limited one-punch knockout artist) and getting caught relatively cold and finished before the fight gets going. Gonzalez wasn't that sort of puncher - he hit hard, but was more of a wear 'em down with heavy-handed accumulation guy, and even though I think he does hit more than hard enough to get Zapata in trouble if he lands a great shot, or were Hilario to exchange too long and become careless defensively, I can't see that happening in the peak vs peak scenario we usually judge these fights on. This would be a big fight with both aware of the other's style to a higher degree. Gonzalez vs Pascua highlighted that Chiquita had some durability and defensive issues against fighters that could hang in the exchanges, but Zapata doesn't have the punching power or approach to take advantage of that in the same manner...though I do think he was a sharp and sneaky enough hitter to gain respect and possibly drop/stun Gonzalez.

chiquita's other losses were also more about his vulnerability against punchers. Not much relevance here.

As far as Zapata being vulnerable to pressure...well a peak Chang was far from a typical textbook pressure fighter, his ability to close distance was like a young early lightweight Duran and he could bounce in and out quickly from awkward angles like Pac at his best. He had an uncommon athleticism, reflexive prowess and sense of distance that the methodical, more straightforward textbook pressure that Gonzalez used simply doesn't come close to. Humberto was more like MAB when he would go patient stalking and slugging mode. Or an offensively sloppier Chavez without the deceptively fine defensive skills (pre-140 at least) great chin and impeccable ability to cut the ring off.

The other relevant losses/draw are the very close, debatable fights with Laciar and Bassa up at Flyweight. I find those fights tough to analyse as they give the distinct impression that Zapata could have put distance between them and won clear had he only been a bit more active - both fighters struggled to land a glove on Zapata all fight, generally just getting through with the occasional jab or bodyshot. With the Laciar fight there's a case to be made he couldn't be more active because Laciar's strength (he was a hugely powerful flyweight that still looked like a tank at superfly) and own typically unorthodox Argentine pressure/box-puncher style didn't permit it. But Gonzalez has nowhere near the physicality of Laciar ( I think it's likely Santos would ragdoll and break him down badly in a h2h) isn't as tricky to hit or predict offensively.

The Bassa fights are more interesting as he was a more methodical, textbook fighter like Chiquita, but he was substantially smoother on his feet and had much better upperbody movement to slip and slide his way in from a variety of angles after making Zapata miss. Zapata was a borderline junkie at this point and quickly lost the plot after failing to regain the title due to the controversial draw.... was that affecting his workrate by then? Possibly, but he had the occasional lazier offensive performance earlier too.

Gonzalez does not have the athleticism, reflexes, strength, awkwardness or smooth slip and countering to replicate the gameplan used in these fights, which only really provided a clear win for Chang anyway. But I guess he has to try a pressure approach as he's got no chance of winning a ring-centre fencing contest or trying to go on the backfoot himself. It goes without saying that the loss to Carbajal (or against limited knockout artist Sorjaturong) aren't relevant here as he's about as different to Zapata in strengths as it's possible to get.

Best on best, I see more often than not a frustrated Chiquita losing a 9-6/10-5'ish decision. A step behind throughout most of the fight, without the right sort of pressuring skillset to corner and land on Hilario with any consistency, nor quite enough power to reliably exploit any openings he does take. Makes Zapata work for it throughout and possibly has him hurt a few times, but almost equally likely to get hurt or dropped himself if he gets too careless. If they had been active in the same era it could have produced an interesting trilogy as more depends on the actual timing of the fights than in a fantasy h2h best vs best scenario. Though he was the slightly lesser fighter when compared to Gonzalez, I'd bet on Carbajal actually having a better chance of winning a trilogy as I thought he had more genuine one-punch knockout potential throughout fights....I can more easily see a scenario there where Zapata gets tagged early and can't recover or knocked out while well ahead on points. Still I'd favour Zapata as Carbajal was so slow and turgid on his feet, and more predictable in his punchpicking, but I wouldn't put too much money on it.