Roman Gonzalez vs. Jung-Koo Chang

How about watch the fight. I have it either 9 to 6 or 8 to 7 to Chang. It's a close and competitive bout (probably one of the best fights I've ever seen) and although there are swing rounds it's clearly a Chang victory.

But then again, you might think that yourself if you'd actually watched the fight rather than just going on boxrec and providing the judge's scorecards.

You need to realise you have nothing in your toolbox with which to combat me with. So step down.

 

I was planning to watch a series of Chang fights, since he's generally considered to be one of the most exciting foreign fighters of the low weights. However, I'm not sure which order to watch his fights in or how many. Should I watch them in order to get a sense of his career and the layout of the division in his era, or should I just watch the most popular ones for fun, or the ones where he has a big name opponent for history? Which ones would you suggest, Flea?

I also want to watch a bunch of Harada, since I recently got around to watching that cool Kingpetch match you recommended to me a while ago. The Jofre matches are a given, but what else?

 

Benitez sure, but I'm not as sure that Tyson declined that much by the time he was 26. Or at least his decline is over emphasized. Who's he really losing to in this time period? Evander Holyfield, who would have beat him at any time. He walked through and knocked out everybody else for another ten years before meeting Lennox Lewis, who also was a better fighter and always could have beaten him. Physically, he was all there, even if his training wasn't as good or he wasn't all there emotionally as when he was a kid. But I doubt there was a real physical decline.

As for Canzoneri, he was 5'4" 100+ fights in, fighting at light welterweight, still getting wins over Kid Chocolate, Jimmy McClarnin, Lou Ambers, and Baby Arizmendi. His record from 26-30 doesn't look that bad even if it's not as good as it was.

 

Well batting .500 ain't bad.

 

I don't enjoy this much vinegar in my arguments, but I have to say reading Mendoza respond earnestly to Boxed Ears nonsense made me spill my drink. Like literally. It's all over my shirt now.

Edit: "Chang by early stoppage you say?" could be a meme.

 

More of a split my sides decision.

 

For Chang, watch him in his prime mate.

Watch these:

Zapata I
Zapata II
German Torres I, II and III. This shows how Chang could be inconsistent. The first and third Torres fights are incredible performances. The second is God awful, but the third shows that he knew not to underestimate Torres
Tokashiki: Great fight, Chang displays a Ward/B-Hop-esque ability to slow the pace when he needs to and his all-in offensive mode is breathtaking.
Chitalada I: Just a great performance against a fighter who would peak at fly but already had a wealth of experience as a Muay Thai fighter. Chitalada went on to be the best flyweight of the era and it wasn't long after Chang beat him that he won his world title.

For Harada, watch Harada vs. Aoki NOW. Only a few minutes worth of footage but it's incredible. Then watch both Medel fights, which will show you Harada's ability to adjust.

 

Bump. Would be a helluva fight but I think Chang might just edge Gonzalez.

 

Christ almighty. Even Yuh doesn't think he would've beaten Chang.

Edit 1: Yuh's concession is on video. Also, fighters do not tend to say x was better or y would have beaten him. So this concession says volumes.

(Heck, Duran even says he would've knocked Hearns out if they had a return bout. For the record, I think Duran is the best boxer I've seen in my lifetime; and yet Duran does not even beat Hearns in his Montreal self.)

Edit 2: Yuh's style was not remotely same as Chang. Yuh was more volume puncher with more textbook style; Chang was as unconventional as you get. The only thing Yuh had over Chang was cardio - but that's true of any fighter who went up against Chang. And that mattered? Exactly who beat Chang in his prime? Zapata over 15 rounds when Chang was injured and couldn't move.

 

Why not actually watch the fight?

Oh, and Chang had a foot injury which severely limited his training. He should've postponed, but that means he may lose a shot at the world title.

Finally, did you read about the return bout - when Chang was healthy?

 

Ever heard of Mike Tyson? Wilfred Benitez?

And the lighter guys burn out much quicker.

 

The best Chang v. top competition would be:

Zapata II (Zapata is one of the great defensive masters in boxing history, and Chang just goes right through him);

Torres I (Torres was the hardest puncher I've seen at flyweight, and Chang gets hardly touched in a shut-out type of performance);

Chitalada I (he is shutting out Chitalada till he gets - likely intentionally - butted and begin to have vision problems).

Edit: Not sure why the site won't take my edits...

 

Point-by-point:

1. Lomachenko analogy - even if partly in jest - is not fitting at all, because he is a much bigger guy than Chang.

26 is simply not so young at flyweight - especially if 1) much of your game is based on speed and reflexes; and 2) you are notorious for not training.

An analogous case is Chan-hee Park - who was also weak-willed and a quitter on top of being another lazy bum in the gym - which is why he burned out even quicker. Chan-hee retired at 25, and he looked cooked at 23 even. Yet he basically pitched a shutout against a guy whom some consider the best flyweight ever in Canto by out-boxing the boxing maestro. He also destroyed Guty Espadas - who was a heavy-fisted, respected champion.

Lest you think it's just the Koreans who can't keep up, Gushiken - who was considered the best at the weight until Zapata and Chang emerged - also retired at 25.

Your misapprehension of flyweight career trajectory may have to do with the lack of familiarity with the weight.

2. You are simply factually not correct in your claim that "the best fighters he fought beat him" - except on paper perhaps. The top three fighters he fought were Zapata, Chitalada, and Chiquita. He went officially 2-3 against them; but he should've had the first decision and the second decision against Zapata and Chitalada. That is, he should have gone 4-0 against them. This is why I rail against what I call "BoxRec" warriors. Further, context is king. Chang was injured in the Zapata "loss," and he really should have postponed; the second Chitalada fight occurred as Chang was returning from a retirement, past physical prime, and moving up in weight. Only the Gonzalez loss I consider "legit," but again past prime. I think most knowledgeable folks believe Chang wins that one if the match occurred when both was in prime.

3. I would think Chang's quality of opposition is one of his strongest points - not his weakness. This is why, for instance, he is often put on a different tier than, say, Yuh Myung-woo.

Who did Chang beat? Where do we start? Zapata is arguably a top 5 all-time light flyweight. He was generally considered right behind Gushiken before Chang beat him - and in some quarters regarded even higher.

Chitalada is a borderline top 10 all-time flyweight. And he couldn't even touch Chang before he butted Chang. And no, I don't find the "green" argument persuasive. Chitalada was an advanced, and arguably a "finished" fighter even with few pro fights. He was a world class kickboxer; and his game translated immediately - just as is the case with many former Muay Thai guys who turned to boxing. (And not just Muay Thai guys; Watanabe was no more "green" than Chitalada when he fought Chul-ho Kim and got jobbed in Seoul just 2 years after turning pro.)

It's not that Chang beat Zapata and Chitalada; it's how dominant he looked against them in his wins. They both looked like a tier below - which they may have been, when Chang was in shape.

You may also not know how feared Torres was in those days, but put it this way: The local bookies pretty much unanimously had Chang losing their first fight. I know that the Chang camp thought the mandatory came too fast, just 2nd fight into his title reign. And I do not blame them: Torres may be the biggest puncher I've seen at the weight. He shook people every time his wide hooks hit their mark. But that Torres was nearly pitched a shutout against Chang.

And you are probably over-looking many former and future champions on Chang's ledger when you question his opposition. Heck, South Korean flyweight scene was so stacked that one guy he beat in a "rookie king tournament" (which is an annual tournament held for fighters with no professional fight experience) would go on to become a world champion! - which brings up to the final, albeit, related issue you raise.

4. I am mystified that you want me to name an American fighter that Chang beat. Who the fug cares? Latin American fighters, I can understand - though Chang did beat plenty of Latin American fighters - but American? Do you even realize that there was not a quality post-Pascual Perez American flyweight of note until probably Mark Johnson? America was a total non-factor in the 70s and early to mid-80s in the flyweight scene. That you would actually ask me to name an American fighter Chang beat really makes me wonder if you know the history of the weight.

I am sorry, but this question says volumes. It's like: Someone says Brazil in the Pele years were dominant. Then another guy goes: But, yes, did they beat Bahrain? WTF, really?

The top fighters at Chang's weight at the time were Asian and Latin American - not American. "Yes, but why did he not fight Americans?" retort has force when you deal with protected Asian fighters at higher weights, but it has no force at junior flyweight or flyweight.