Opinons on Julio Cesar Chavez?

"Richard Steele....**** you!"

My, my what a short memory he had.

The measure of his delusion was clear when they replayed him hitting Randall in the balls right in front of him and he denied that it was a low blow. atsch

Not rare for a proud champion to not be able to face the facts though.

 

Sues, to discuss Chavez-Whitaker in a round by round basis the way you'd like for it to be discussed would take days........I simply dont have that kind of time as I'd would have to rewatch the whole fight over again and take notes, aside from the fact I'd have to continually respond to your posts.

I've already done what you're asking for years ago with Scientist......our discussion on Chavez-Whitaker went on for days.......
.....quite frankly I loved the experience of disecting the fight with Scientist in a well mannered form without the name calling.

Loved it Scientist!:good

.....but quite frankly to do it again would be to time consuming, and futile against someone like yourself that clings to Pea's balls.

As I told Scientist way back then......Whitaker clearly had the two best rounds of the fight. He punished Chavez in those two rounds........but you stil have to score 10 other rounds........and it Whitaker is just playing defense and not even attempting in the round to mount any type of substantial offense....he's not going to get the round on my scorecard.

I scored the DLH-Whitaker fight with the same criteria and had DLH winning going away.

.....dont give me this crap about me not valueing defense (a scoring criteria)......but when you put value into defense, one must also value what the fighter did to make the other pay after a defensive manuever.
.....all to often Whtitaker did jack **** as far as "effective scoring, particularly in the Chavez and DLH fights.


Yeah, we can waist our time discussing Chavez-Whitaker on a round by round basis......the bottom line is we'd be going around in circles because I use and interpret the scoring criteria differently than you do.

"OOOhhhh, did you see how he made him miss?"
"Did you see how he ducked right under those shots?"

Let me tell you something, I'm not so impressed unless there is some effective punching coming right after and between those misses.


Let me let you in on a little secret, there a reason why certain so called defensive specialist dont get hit as frequently......and most of the time its because they're offense is lacking, the leverage on their shots minimal.

......thats my take on the matter and certainly a round by round debating of the Chavez-Whitaker fight is not about to change either of our minds.

6-6 was a fair score imo, and you would think Whitaker would have learned his lesson off the Chavez fight, and attempted to apply "an effective offense" against DLH, but instead he sided even more to the side of caution.

Outright......Whitaker was'nt willing to apply the adjustments needed to get the judges to see it his way.
He did'nt study the Chavez fight and really said to himself, "what could I have done to make them see it my way?"
.......he never learned, as he applied the same plan vs DLH that he did vs Chavez, this time losing miserably on the cards.


......thats it bro.....no need to get into a round by round on any Whitaker fight........he believes boxing is purely about defense and he has it all wrong.
As I've said to Scientist many times, Whitaker loses to every ATG fighter his size, mainly because he's too reliant on the defensive side of the game and ignores the main scoring criteria that evolves around the offensive game.
Just that simple!:deal

 

You should know my friend........

"They did it to me again Larry!"

 

Fair call. Whitaker must have been smoking some good crack around the time of the Tito fight, both figuratively and literally speaking.

In fairness to Pete, 5 years after the fight he did manage to admit that the fight could have gone either way.

Give it another decade and he'll probably admit he was edged out :yep

 

I put JC 8th on my atg list. Can someone give me a reason why thats such a bad Rankng? Hey i got alot of respect for these old timers,but get realatsch Any unbiased boxing mind knows that the boxers came post 30s got a little better in the 40s and 50s ,ane today are more ??????????, I Know what i wanna say butl,ill save that for another thread.

 

I dont know who he was angry at. He handled himself the same way in future fights. He basically took the cut that was caused by a punch in the rematch and had the fight stopped. It wasnt just that fight. The next fight was the icing on the cake. He also handled himself pretty poorly in the ODLH fight as well.

 

Divac isnt a fan hes a MExican cheerleader, his points are invalid, I have no idea why anyone would waste their time reading his posts let alone replying to them

 

Chavez was angry at both Richard Steele and Don King.

At Steele because he took two points away from Chavez for low blows......one of those point deductions came from a shot that was actually on the beltline (not a low blow)
......but his anger was directed more toward Don King, who had him fighting just about every month.

Chavez did'nt want to fight in January because it was so soon after the Holidays, and he did'nt want to be in training camp during the Christmas and newyear span.

Don King had other ideas $$$$$$
King in order to get Chavez to fight in January, convinced Chavez that Randall was a pushover (an easy defense)
Chavez knew very little about Randall, and he took King's word for it that Randall was'nt a fighter that he'd have to train full throttle for.

That was mainly what Chavez was furious for......he was actually calling for Don King when the decision was announced in favor of Randall, because it was he who had told him Randall was a pushover.
.....we all know during that time frame that Randall was certainly nobodies pushover.

I never heard Chavez once say that he thought he had won the first Randall fight, though a case can be made that it was at least a draw.




.......and whats your beef with Chavez' comportment after the first DLH fight?

Chavez calmly and intelligently fielded questions and his exact quote right after was "its not the kid's fault of course, but I dont feel like I was beat tonight. I suffered a cut during training camp a few weeks ago, and it reoponed a couple of nights ago when my kid accidentaly butted me in the same spot.

.....Chavez was'nt furious or even mad about the situation. He was just telling it like it was.
His kid actually butting him was caught on camera.
Chavez had done an interview in a spanish TV talkshow a couple of nights before the fight, and he carried his kid with him on his lap.....the kid swung his head backwards and caught Chavez right where the cut had been in training camp.
On video, Chavez was even shown with a napkin towel swiping at the cut which had been barely opened enough to cause slight leakage.

People criticized Chavez for his pre-existing cut excuse, but everything he said was backed up by video evidence.

The only person who made a real fuss after that Chavez-DLH fight was DLH......
DLH made a major stink and was furious because he wanted to hear from Chavez' mouth that he had been beaten fair and square.

"He's not man enough to admit defeat," were DLH's words.......
" I wont give him a rematch unless he admits he was beaten fair and square."......of course, true to DLH form, he gave Chavez a rematch over two years later and a weight class heavier, when it was evident Chavez was done as an elite.:nut

There was only one person who made a stink about what transpired in the first Chavez-DLH fight, and that was DLH.


I dont see where all the hate for Chavez is because he makes excuses when he loses........99% of fighters do that.......and in the DLH fight, as I said...actual video evidence suggest everthing Chavez talked about in referring to a pre-existing cut, was legit.


Btw LH, everyone that was around back then and wants to know the truth on matter, found out that Chavez walked into his fight with DLH already cut.
Yeah, the first jab DLH threw had blood gushing from Chavez' cut.......the first jab landed for God's sake!atsch

 

Is that true Scientist?
Are you serious?

If thats true, I find it absolutely hillarious!

 

Give the MAB point a rest bro.....I referred to MAB's right hand lacking being one of the keys to him getting beaten so handily by Pacquiao.

In comparison to the right hands delivered by both JMM and Morales, MAB's lacks bigtime.
.......this is a boxing forum where opinions both logical and illogical are thrown all the time......dont have a hissy fit over something you dont agree with.
....you're obviously bothered by it, and are letting it effect debates on other subjects.

.....Its too bad if you just cant let it go.....at the end of the day they're just opinions.

 

Get over it Addie!
Seriously, not everyone is going to have the same opinion of MAB that you do.

When I give opinions, they're honest ones. I say what I feel, and let others do the same.

I'm certainly not going to go trolling around and hounding a poster I dont agree with, each and everytime not letting an issue from a different subject on another thread go......

You did'nt agree with me on my say of MAB, thats fine and dandy.......but you're wrong that I go out of my way to degrade him.......it must feel that way to you because you think so highly of him.

Bottom line is that I rarely even mention MAB in my posts......whenever I do, you're just right there because you want in on any thread related to MAB.

Tell you what. Next time I degrade MAB out of the blue on a thread unrelated to MAB, call me out and let me know that I'm hating again.

I doubt you'll be calling me out very often!

If I'm hard on MAB, you're probably to lenient to defend alot of his nastiness and outright dirty fighthing and unsportmanship when things are'nt going as planned for him.

The truth on MAB likely lies somewhere between our opinons of him.

I'm hard on him, and you're too lenient.......I'm certainly not going to hold it against you.

Chill out and lets keep on contributing to this forum and keep talking boxing without the grudges.

I dig your interest on Julio Cesar Chavez.....hey, we can agree on that!:good

 

Your kind of making the same arguement that Chavez made. Youre right it was clear to see that cut was prexisting, but it was also really the easy way out to use it as an excuse. Cut or no cut, Chavez was too far done to handle DLH's speed at that time.
Would it really have made a difference if Chavez studied Randall? Randall hadnt really shown he was much of a danger in his previous fights, and Chavez was always a very busy fighter. Hell he took a fight a month before he fought Camacho, who would have been a known tougher fight than Randall was at the time.
Draw in the first fight is a bit stretching it really. Randall sealed the deal with that knockdown, and I still felt the scores were way to close to actually what happened in the fight. I had Randall comfortably ahead.
Chavez had a ton of fights, it was inevitable he would start slipping especially as he moved up in weight. It was clear in the second fight Randall just had his number. Had they fought earlier in Chavez's career, Randall probably wouldnt have had a chance, although he showed some really nice boxing skills. He was kind of an old timer himself at the time of those fights but still looked pretty fresh.

 

I remember everyone dismissing Randall. But i had seen him years before that before his stint in prison,when he fought a prime Rosario and lost a razor close decision. I remember me and my Dad who were both big Chavez fans,saying that Julio better not take him lightly, we were both telling people this before the fight started and everyone wasnt taking what we were saying seriously. Until the around the mid rounds when all the other Chavez fans started getting worried.