Not only zarate over chandler but davila also

Chandler had bad problems with his eyes by the end of his run.He clearly wasn't nearly the same fighter against Sandoval that he was in his early title fights.And i say that as someone who has never been that big a fan of him.

 

I don't think prime Davila would beat prime Chandler. Jeff had the height and handspeed to handle Alberto.

 

Carlos Zarate was an all-time great in the bantamweight division with fine offensive skills, terrific punching power and a big height advantage. While having fine boxing skills, Jeff Chandler was outstanding bantamweight at best. During his peak years, Zarate would have beaten Chandler with relative ease.

Alberto Davila had an absolutely beautiful boxing style and plenty of skill. But he was short, lacked punching power and had a tendency to cut. Moreover, he often wasn't aggressive enough, which resulted in him not doing well in some bouts, even with some less capable fighters at times.

Zarate, having a huge advantage in height and punching power, stopped Davila in their only bout. I would pick Chandler, being more consistent and also having a height advantage, to beat Davila, but the latter would still have a good chance to win in such a bout.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Muniz, and especially, Sandoval, were very good fighters, but Chandler was using cocaine, in addition to his eye problems, I think if you take out those two factors he beats both Muniz and Sandoval.

 

hey guess what? I'm also from southern California and from what I seen of Zarate, is too slow for Chandler who would pick both of them apart

US trained fighters are much better trained, sharper, and just always seem to get the better of their Mexican counterparts. Jeff would've embarrassed this guy

 

Do you consider PR fighters as US fighters?
Also, consider Chavez vs Taylor and Whitaker. Was he embarrassed by either of them? Both were younger and bigger, but still.

Was Ramirez embarrassed by the younger and bigger Whitaker?
I know the majority's opinion to it, but unlike them I watched these fights so I know the truth, and do not approve with the traditional consensus.

Was Alfonso Zamora embarrassed by Alberto Sandoval?

 

Before his bout with Wilfredo Gomez, Carlos Zarate was tremendous on a consistent basis. But he was absolutely destroyed by Gomez.

As a result, I feel that Ruben Oliveras was a better fighter than Zarate because he had very underrated all-around boxing skills and was able to match up well with a greater variety of fighters, notably featherweights. Yes, Olivares could be inconsistent due to a lack of training or focus. But as a short, over-blown bantamweight on the downside of his career, he gave Alexis Arguello fits before being stopped in the 14th round. Arguello, a truly great fighter, had huge advantages in terms of youth and height over Olivares at the time.

- Chuck Johnston

 

yes. Chavez lost to both far as I'm concerned and well behind on the cards. Which bolsters my argument. without the help from refs and judges where would people like Chavez be? he wouldn't have gone unbeaten for as long as he did, that's for sure

 

I remember KO did a feature back in 81 about head to head matchups and one of those was Olivares vs Zarate in which Carlos puts Ruben to sleep. How absurd!

btw, Gomez fought like a dirty SOB in that fight

 

Wilfredo Gomez did get away with a lot in his bout with Carlos Zarate largely due to the referee's failure to clamp down on his transgressions. But it looked like Zarate would not match up well with Gomez in a million years.

- Chuck Johnston

 

He destroyed Taylor and drew with bigger and younger Whitaker.
And I did watch his fight vs Whitaker.
And what about Alfonso Zamora vs Alberto Sandoval?

 

Yes, he was. Only a very dubious decision by his Italian friends, influenced by the WBC, kept the title in his hands. Then, Whitaker easily won the rematch.