Who was more skilled: Mike Tyson or Julio Cesar Chavez

My post was long as it was BoB. If I'd 'made my case', it would have gone on forever.

I notice when you make your case, you simply say 'there's hours of it on film, go and watch it'. When I cite actual examples, you tell me to do my homework rather than refute. So you lack the specifics you accuse me of lacking.

You might recall the primes of these two ran parallel. I do. And Tyson was rated higher P4P than JCC who only overtook him in the rankings when Mike began to slip. He was P4P no 1 in the boxing magazines. And yet it seems JCC was so far ahead in almost every facet of the game that there was no debate, according to you. So all those experts at the time, across the boxing landscape, all missed what you have since seen 'on the hours of film'. Or maybe you might have overstated a few things here.

I know where my money is.

 

So you start with an attempted insult saying "im a fanboy" of an ATG, HOF boxing Legend. Lol!
Then you make a lame excuse how Tyson is comparibale because in Tysons peak form he was at Chavez's extended career level. Lol! What a joke!
Then you make another lame claim that Chavez's counter punching knockouts are not real counter punching knockoouts because it wasn't Tyson? What? Lol!
Then after all of this nonsense you say im a clown and you dont wish to continue? Lol!
Im not surprised you want to run with your tail between you legs in this debate.
As a matter of fact thiis is typical from posters like you.

 

It wasn't an attempt at an insult, it was an insult. You'd not only be a fanboy calling the Whitaker fight a legitimate draw, you'd be an idiot who doesn't know how to score fights. The fact Chavez is an ATG doesn't mean you can't be a biased fanboy. Now if you admit the Whitaker fight being a draw was bogus I will take back everything I said.

I never said Chavez's counter punching knockouts weren't real counter punching knockouts. You made that up. You're now literally making up points to argue against. So yes, in addition to being a fanboy and an idiot, you are also a clown who doesn't know how to debate in the first place.

 

This makes no sense. The thread is asking who had a better skill set which is Chavez. Your saying that during a short specific time the "experts" had Tyson as the P4P best?
Ofcourse they did he was a heavyweight! And that was short lived!

 

Ok. The Whitaker draw was bogus. Now take it all back and eat it.

 

'Better skill set' according to you. I have pointed out that, from early 87-90 (three years. That's not a short time) experts rated Tyson no 1, pound for pound.

His 'being a heavyweight' had nothing to do with it whatsoever. It was p4p rankings which JCC took over the no 1 spot when experts felt he was better, p4p, than Tyson.

And they were experts. No inverted commas. 'Experts' tend to be keyboard warriors who fire off aggressive insults at the first sign of being challenged.

These experts were rating Tyson on what they saw at the time not revisionism when he declined at a disappointingly young age. But even though he fell off young, he'd impressed a lot of people in those three years. And as I have said, three years was long enough a prime for other heavyweights to have built a legacy. Let's judge Tyson equally.

 

Hmmm a hard one, Chavez had better fundamentals while Tyson had better speed and combinations.

 

Tyson got schooled far worse against Douglas than Chavez did against Whitaker and Douglas wasn't even half the boxer Sweet Pea was.

 

Excellent post, Eddie.

I agree with pretty much all of your takes on the individual skillsets & attributes.

The only minor thing I'd add, not to contradict what you posted, just to expand on it, relates to endurance. Whilst I agree, that technically speaking, Tyson arguably endured greater punishment in the individual fights you cite, than JCC did in any individual fight, I think JCC was better at enduring substantial punishment and continuing to push relentlessly, and effectively, for the win. Admittedly, that's endurance allied with stamina (the advantage for which you've already agreed is JCC's, and by a substantial margin, imo) and heart (which I acknowledge wasn't listed), so, as I said, doesn't contradict anything you wrote in your excellent post, but is still relevant to how their attributes combine to materially impact their overall effectiveness as fighters, imo.

 

I pick Chavez, and he was my favorite ever, but I think people are being a little unfair to Tyson, maybe because some primarily saw him fight in the 90s (?).

When he had the peekaboo defense and the combos, he was a human wrecking ball of speed, power, defense and punches in bunches from all angles, constantly coming at you in a perpetual, well-educated fury.

 

Tyson's skill set was grounded in his physicality,
and was the primary reason he went from a
slick boxer-puncher, to a walk in puncher as he
aged.
Emanuel Steward said years ago he thought
Tyson would have a spectacular but short career
because his boxing style depended so much on
his physical ability.
Of course Mr. Steward was correct.
Chavez's skill set was grounded in technique expertise.
While not as spectacular as prime Tyson was, he
was far more consistent for a much longer period.
Tyson for a short period LOOKED like the greatest
heavyweight in history, but as he aged, he became
just a walk in puncher, a slightly better version of
Shavers or Lyle.
Chavez on the other hand was incredibility consistent
against some of the best talent of the 80's early 90's.
His domination of fighters like Camacho, and Rasario
are Legendary. The type of scalps Tyson's opponents doesn't come
close to matching.
Chavez was better skilled, and did it against better opposition.

 

Thanks Greg. I love Chavez so didn't want to argue against him but sometimes people downplay Tyson's achievements to a ridiculous extent, as if to counter some of the hyperbole around him. To say Chavez outperforms Mike across the board - and that there can be no argument - is imo plain daft .

You're right about endurance being allied to mental strength and fighting through adversity to find a way to win. JCC had that in spades over Tyson. I wouldn't use 'heart' as a criterion though to give JCC the upper hand here. Mike had that in spades and, while he couldn't turn around a bad situation, he went out on his shield for the most part and had to be beaten down. The sight of him trying to put his gumshield in is a poignant reminder of just how much heart he had. He hadn't trained, he didn't care but he wanted to get back up while there was strength in his body. That, to me, is heart.

Anyway, good post back
.

 

Julio Cesar Chavez is more skilled. Mike Tyson is more athletic.

 

Nice post Flash. Sensible and measured. Both men were great in their own ways.

 

Ok I take back the insults but you basically just admitted Tyson was better at cutting off the ring. Unless you can point to a fight where someone just boxed circles around Tyson the way Whitaker gracefully circled around and shut down Chavez. Let start there.