Opinons on Julio Cesar Chavez?

Do you know the story behind why Chavez was angry after his loss to Randall???

Chavez never complained about losing a decision to Randall.....so he was'nt mad with the scorecards announced.

.....but you know so much about Chavez, who was he angry at and why???

 

Chavez' defense was top notch even against Taylor and Whitaker.......you dont think so????
......next time you watch any of those fights, do so paying only attention to Chavez' defense....
......watch even the Pernell Whitaker fight, you'll be shocked at just how many punches Pernell was missing.
.....considering that Chavez was aggressively coming foward, thats great head movement by Chavez to slip many of Whitaker's shots......but since Chavez is'nt your stereotypical defensive fighter that fights on the side of caution, people dont really pay attention to his great head and waist movements.


Chavez' offense=Awesome
Chavez' defense=Great


Sues2nd, you severely underrate Chavez' defense. Calling his granite chin his best defensive asset is insulting to anyone that ever followed Chavez' career.

The man fought well over 100 fights, and if his best defense was his chin, believe me he'd be in a sad mental state right about now.

Chavez' mental faculties are intact. He does'nt stutter and he does'nt slurr.....which is alot more than I can say for both Pernell Whitaker and Meldrick Taylor.

 

Once again, my point is proven that while Chavez was unbelievably talented and undoubtably great, he, on ESB is very overrated (especially by Divac, who if you were to say you didnt like his haircut, will make a 10,000 word essay on how every hair was in place...).

Obviously I was overblowing the point about his chin being his defense, but to call Chavez defense great is hilarious in my opinion. Yes he had over 100 fights, but many were against fighters who shouldnt hold his spit bucket, even as he became a name...in those fight, no his defense did not probably appear to be bad, but as he started to fight GREATS it became just that.

To point that he doesnt slurr or stutter as the proof of his great defense is moronic. Whitaker does slurr, so does that mean that he has better defense than Pernell? Much of Pernell's speech has to do with his drug use as it does the amount of punches landed to his head. Taylor has brain damage, which, can happen with one ill placed punch. Learn something about head injuries before you say something so disrespectful and dumb.

And to say that his defense was top notch against Whitaker and Taylor? That is all the proof I need that you clearly overrate him Divac...but you and I have been over this...mostly over the fact that you believe the draw was justified, when clearly you cant find more than 4 rounds, being generous, to give to JCC.

I stand by what I said about the man...very great in many ways, defense was not one of them. And I have seen a TON of Chavez fights running the gammut of his career.

 

Salvador Sanchez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, and ironically did not typify the stereotypical Mexican style or the type of Mexican fighter that the Mexicans themselves most adore.

 

Well over 100 fights Sues, and if Chavez defense was what you depicted, he'd be a walking vegetable.

The man was a fighting machine. A rarity in the sport that with his parrying type defense was able to apply extreme pressure while picking off incoming with his gloves.
A fighter that could mount an effective offense off of his defense, parrying shots and instantmatically countering with an offensive move.

Are you jealous that unlike Pernell Whitaker, Chavez while playing defense, (head movement, waist movement, parrying shots) could mount a "SUSTAINED AND EFFECTIVE....RELENTLESS REALLY" offense....
......while your Pernell had to air in the side of caution, playing defense, on the move retreating, and putting minimal effort into his punching leverage????......hmmmm, I wonder why he was on the short end on some of these so called controversial decisions?:think

Sorry bud, but thats just the way it is!yep

 

Sanchez accomplished so much in his career up until he died at only 23 years of age. He had 9 defenses of the featherweight title against some real good fighters. Not many fighters in the history of the sport will achieve what he did in such a short space of time.

 

And THAT my friends is how you clearly admit to only watching one Pernell Whitaker fight in your entire life!!!

:good

 

The Mexican Legand, he was the ultimate blood and guts warrior, he wasn't the type of fighter that studied opponents or viewed their faults, he was a fighter who would simply corner you on the ropes then land his trade mark left hooks and body shots.

 

You're suggesting I only watched the Chavez-Whitaker fight, yet you did nothing to rebutt my premise of Whitaker siding on caution.......in other words you're saying, "yeah, he fought like that vs Chavez, but clearly you've only seen that one Whitaker fight!"
.....nice to know you agreed with my premise!:yep:hi:



Funny how the truth really comes out of how these Pernell fanatics really feel when only the Chavez fight is mentioned........yet they feel they have to defend that Pernell did'nt fight that way all the time.

.....I know Sues, Pernell did'nt fight that way all the time....only against fighters it was'nt a given he'd beat!.......against fighters clearly not at the top level, he was much more open to apply something called leverage....something that was a rarity against the elites of the game.

 

good shout Saldivar had brillaint combinations from that southpaw stance

I see how Arguello can do it, he has the firepower to keep Chavez off of him as well as the counter punching ability to land on Chavez. He also comes on strong late like Chavez so he wont fade and Arguello has that body attack that is lethal and Chavez can be hit to the body.

Chavez is revered in exico as he is there typical fighter. I read an article where Barrera says that Canto isnt respected or even rated among Mexican fans as he dditn fight. :shock:

 

Agreed on your Arguello assesment GP. Arguello was a complete fighter. Great boxing skill, and with power in either hand.
He would have had a sizeable reach advantage on Chavez as well.

People are hard headed and really dont put their mind to work when drawing an analysis. Because Meldrick Taylor had some sucess against Chavez it is assumed that anyone with speed could trouble Chavez....
...far from the truth. Chavez had great sucess against speedsters. Hector Camacho and "Lightning" Lonnie Smith just to name two very fast fighters that Chavez easily bloodgeoned.

Great skill in combination with other attributes is what troubles any fighter.....its not just a one thing deal that does the trick.
I've heard posters say, "Zab Judah over Chavez because Chavez had trouble with speedsters.":rofl:rofl:rofl


Arguello was'nt a speedster, but by God he had other physical attributes that certainly could trouble a great like Chavez.

My opinion, but any fight between either Chavez, Arguello, and Duran is a tossup imo.
All three have special attributes that can possibly lead to victory over the others.
It would just depend on who was on their A game that night.

I will say this......If there was any fighter in the history of the sport with a realistic chance to stop a prime JC Chavez, it would have been the Great Alexis Arguello.
......great boxing skill, stamina, and KO power in either hand.
Christ, I've got goosebumps just thinking about it.
I cant say this about many matchups, but I'm 100% certain this matchup would not dissapoint.
What a fight it would be!:yep:bbb

 

Chavez vs Arguello at 130-135lbs is my all time favrouite match up

i dont think Arguello would stop Chavez but he would beat him IMO

 

Bottom line is that Sanchez was a Warrior with a capital W........
.....all the Mexican boxing fans want is to see their fighter fight, and not to stink up the joint by airing on the side of caution.

Sanchez was a great boxer, but he meets the typical Mexican criteria....he was a Warrior, and he had Killer instincts.:deal

 

Chavez was great at what he did. He wasn't quite one dimensional but he fought the same way mostly every fight as he played to his strengths. If someone stood in front of him, he'd feast, if they moved laterally and on the retreat, he'd go looking for them.

He's certainly a fighter I admire. But he wasn't a complete fighter, so thats why he doesn't score high enough regarding my rulebook and taste in fighters. I prefer a varied defense, brilliant point scoring jab, combinations, counter-punching and the ability to not rely on full steam ahead.

Chavez did have a decent defense, a fair jab, and good combinations and the ability to counter-punch. But not quite enough to impress me I'm afraid. That would be like me saying Whitaker was a complete fighter because he KO'd opponents like Tyson on a few ocassions.

Chavez was a come forward, aggressive, gradually break your spirit and heart kinda fighter. Not my style. I also don't really like Foreman, Frazier, Tyson, Tszyu, Trinidad, Hatton, etc.

Give me Whitaker, Hopkins, Hearns, Hagler, Marquez, Holmes, Sanchez, Toney, Pep, Duran, etc, any day of the week.

 

Do you know what controlling the distance is? Do you know what working your offense through your jab is? Do you understand ring intellect?

Chavez was stronger than Pernell. Chavez was a harder hitter than Pernell. Chavez was a better inside fighter than Pernell. It didnt make sense to fight Chavez in the same way you would fight someone who didn't hold these advantages.

What you are saying is, because he didnt fight on the inside, this somehow means he put minimal effort into his punching? Or that he couldnt maintain a sustained attack? No, what that is called is switching your style to fit your opponent...and your laughable generalization and overexaggeration of his style again proves that you are clearly biased on the subject.

And if we again are talking about the fight...one that Pernell CLEARLY won...lets get back again to what I have been asking you to do for, what, 4 years now?

I posted the videos for each round. I posted my round by round breakdown. I gave you the exact reasons to why there was no possible way in hell that Chavez deserved even 5 rounds...and 4 is with me being extremely generous. I asked you to do the same...and you came back with "I just value Chavez's body work more". Never giving the rounds you gave to JCC. Never giving breakdowns.

I understand that it must be a tough fight to watch...seeing your favorite fighter get outboxed so badly round in and round out. But really...put up for shut up about it. Dont give me a score...dont give me a generalized breakdown of the fight...round by round.

You wont of course because you cannot.

This content is protected

I have proven on this site to be about as unbiased as one can be (honestly, we are all biased to a point...its just some of us are fans of the sport first, fighters second...others are the opposite)...the older regulars can attest. You on the other hand have proven to be the exact opposite. Which is sad, because honestly, when you are posting on something that you have a outside/unbiased look on, you are a damn good poster...one I actually respect alot more than it comes off as. But once it makes it to Chavez, the 25 smilies come out...the vague generalizations...the constant overrating and underrating of anything against it. Its a waste of a good boxing mind IMO.

:hi:

(and again, people wonder why I say Chavez, who is an obvious high ranking ATG, is so overrated on here)