JC Chavez - The best in the last 25 yrs ?

He's got a good case for sure. Beat a hell of a lot of champions and contenders, more than any other fighter in the last 25 years I'd say.

He was also remarkably consistent. He'd usually dominate his opposition, but even on off nights, like against Laporte, Lockridge and Taylor, he still found a way to win.

I think the answer to Bill's question ultimately lies in how you analyse Chavez's fights with Taylor and Whitaker and Whitaker's performance against DLH. Just how close did Chavez get to Whitaker, and would it have made a difference 7-10 pounds south, and a couple of years earlier? Did the Taylor fight expose a weakness in Chavez's game, or was Taylor simply THAT good to do as well as he did? Did Whitaker beat DLH?

I don't think much can be taken from Chavez's performance against Rosario if you are measuring up to how that Chavez would do against a prime Whitaker. Rosario and Whitaker are chalk and cheese as fighters. Chavez was a demon that night for sure, but he didn't exactly have to go looking for Rosario, and as soon as his jaw stood up to the Rosario bomb test, the fight was all over.

One thing you can definitely take from the Rosario fight, together with the second Mayweather fight and even perhaps the Randall and DLH fights, Chavez's chin was absolutely superb. I probably give only Duran and Armstrong a good chance of standing toe to toe with him and coming out the victor. I reckon he'd take the likes of Williams, Arguello, Napoles, Pryor and Ortiz at that caper. Probably the best chin in the last 25 years (apologies to Laporte, McCall and Hagler).

 

From 88-93 Chavez slowly deteriorated whilst Whittaker got better.

Taylor was a great fighter who was poorly managed IMO. Chavez was sueprb that night, in fact both men were.

In the end I'd have to give the nod to Whittaker though I prefer Chavez. 2 truly great fighters though. Most probably number 1 and number 2 in the era defined.

 

Excellent analysis, BB.

Yes, the two you mentioned were probably the best of the era. Quite an achievment for two LWs seeing the era had dominant heavier fighters like Tyson, Lewis and RJJ.

It is very, very difficult to separate Julio and Pea. If I have to, I would opt for JCC like you.

 

Say it loud and proud

He does.

 

Fair enough Bill. I don't begrudge anyone calling Julio no.1

I respectfully disagree, but you have a reasonable case no doubt.

Personally, I feel that whilst Chavez of 93 was further from peak Chavez than what Whitaker of 93 was from peak Whitaker, it wasn't by much. I felt Chavez fought every bit as good a fight against Whitaker as he did against Taylor for instance. He got out of the gates much quicker against Whitaker, and his workrate was no worse in the Whitaker fight, even though he did slow down in the later rounds. I think Whitaker's defense in making Chavez swing for air and his body work had a little something to do with that - together with the fact that Chavez put in more early in the fight than what he did for Taylor, as has been said.

Since I saw the Whitaker-Chavez fight as quite definitively Pea's way, I don't really see how in a peak on peak fight the gap would close enough to change the verdict. So long as Whitaker employs the same strategy, crouching, tucking the elbows in to protect the body, dodging shots to the head with slick head movement, backpedalling whilst shooting out the jab and nullifying the tendency to be left-hook-happy to the body, Chavez will always have hell with Pea.

For what it's worth, I think if the two were to fight at their peak's Julio would get the judges' decision and whilst many would disagree, I think 75% would agree that it was a fight that could have gone either way. Had that happened, say in 1989, I think most would then sit comfortably with declaring Chavez the better fighter (everything else in their careers being equal).

 

but no more than that...

 

It's amazing the amount of people who have the fight closer if they fought in their primes SS. Funnily enough I think Whitaker beats him easier or on par with the fight they had at WW. Not so much by margins better than 9-3/8-4, but domination during rounds. The speed difference enhances Whitaker's game more than Chavez's. I can see the Whitaker of 89/90 giving Chavez a lesson.

 

No doubt Whitaker was markedly quicker and sharper as a lightweight than he was as a welterweight, but don't forget that Chavez will be much stronger at 135 than he was at welterweight (relatively speaking of course, i.e. because Whitaker won't be as strong obviously at 135). Whitaker was struggling some times to keep Nelson off him at 135. Chavez will gain some ground I feel with the strength advantage he will enjoy and may actually push Whitaker to the ropes a few times where he can do some business - something he was not able to do in their welterweight fight.

 

I'll take Hagler over Chavez.

 

Jack Britton argueably had more title fights.

 

I don't know if I can award any fighter the absolute spot of being #1 pound for pound over such a long duration as 25 years, but Julio Cesar Chavez certainly has an argument for being among the elite bunch..

As already mentioned, his consistancy, focus and activity levels were like none other I have seen since. He was one of the few champions during his era that fought tuneups in between meetings with top challengers or other titlists. In fact, he was very much a throw back to fighters of a different era. He was often criticized in his day for padding his record, but for every journeyman he fought, there was an elite fighter in the ring with him just 2 or 3 months later.

Among his great wins included Limon, Ramirez, Aguilar, Camacho, Taylor, Haugen, Mayweather, and Rozario.. That's just to name a few.... Lastly, he had and still has, the longest undefeated streak of any fighter in any weight class over the last 100+ years in the sport...