Who was more skilled: Mike Tyson or Julio Cesar Chavez

Cheers Eddie. I agree that:

1) Sometimes people can conflate how good Tyson was at his very best, with how great his career was. Tyson should rate higher based on the former than the latter, imo; and
2) The above notwithstanding, Tyson still has an impressive resume, even if most of his best wins were squeezed into a few short years at a comparatively young age.

We agree on far more on this issue than otherwise. If we have different perspectives on who had more "heart" out of Tyson and JCC, that difference is perhaps explicable by our differing interpretations of that term. I agree Tyson was prepared to take an horrific beating just as much as the next fighter, I just think he had somewhat of a bully mentality that meant he could mentally check out of relentless attempts to turnaround a fight he was losing, even though he was prepared to take his beating. I think winning from a losing position is a good indication of having good "heart" and that JCC demonstrated this quality and Tyson did not, though I accept their relative stamina will have also played a part in that.

 

Chavez was more disciplined, could fight off the back foot and didn't abandon body punching past his prime.

 

So let me get this straight, your whole argument is that Tyson was better at cutting off the ring because of a controversial draw inbetween Chavez and Whitaker?

 

Julio Caesar Chavez was more technical, a big hitter with a sensational record until his defeat at the hands of Frankie The Surgeon Randall in 1994. Mike Tyson was also very fast, a dynamite puncher, but Tyson at his peak left no doubt to his victories where Chavez did especially in the title unification title bout against Meldrick Taylor on March 17 1990, TKO 12, leaving a taste of controversy on the lips of observers.

 

You just admitted Whitaker got robbed. He boxed circles around Chavez. It wasn't even close. "Cutting off the ring" means you are able to prevent your opponent from doing that. So if Chavez was better at cutting off the ring than Tyson you should be able to find multiple instances of Tyson looking worse than Chavez did.

 

I think your getting fixated on the Whitaker/Chavez controversy.
You see the 1 thing you are trying to use to make your point is pointless because Chavez doesn't have a pro box career that says 1 fight with 1 draw.
I'm talking about 107w- 86ko -6L- 2d, six world title holder, with 27 title defense's JCC. This is called a track record that is earned with superior skill to any and all including Mike Tyson.
I never said Tyson was not a master at cutting off the ring. My point is that Tyson was a burning comet blasting its way through the ether and into the ground. Tyson was short lived.
In the spectrum of longevity and attrition Chavez destroys the debate and its that simple.
@Eddie Ezzard believes that since Tyson was ranked P4P for a short time then that automatically disregards the longest win streak in boxing history 13 years in Chavez. lol.
I have mad respect for Tyson but JCC matched Tyson in skill when Tyson was at his peak then surpassed Tyson for many years after.
The only comparison these two have is when Tyson was at his peak so was JCC, the difference is JCC kept going.
This is not a real debate

 

Tyson's got to have a little bit of leeway given it's P4P too. The number of truly skilled heavyweights in history is incredibly limited comparative to around 135 and the rest.

 

Tyson had one of the worst flaws a boxer can have, can't fight on the backfoot.

/Thread

 

You're right it isn't a real debate because you keep going on long irrelevant tangents.

You claimed Chavez was better at cutting off the ring than Tyson. So I brought up a fight where Chavez consistently failed to cut off the ring. I kept things very simple for direct comparisons and asked you to show me a fight where Tyson had someone just boxing circles around him. Instead, you babbled about how amazing and long Chavez career was. By your logic, Archie Moore is better at cutting off the ring than Chavez because he had an even longer career.

You're not on my level.

 

Personally don't have an opinion on this debate because it's been awhile since I've watched Tyson or Chavez. However, one point I think that could be made is that Chavez fought Whitaker in his 88th fight while in his fourth weight class. An even bigger point I think is that Whitaker is simply more skilled than anyone Tyson fought. It feels unfair to say Tyson never had any problems cutting off the ring like Chavez had against Whitaker when Tyson never fought someone as skilled as Whitaker.

 

Not only has Eddie not posted anything that suggests he believes the part of your post I've highlighted above, in post #11 on this thread, he posted pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim he believes:

"No question that Julio is the greater fighter. He gets that on consistency and longevity"

 

Do you consider longevity to be a skill? The question isn't "Who is greater/who accomplished more" it's "Who is more skilled"

 

He's the one who claimed Chavez was "way better" than Tyson in almost every category and that it's "not up for debate". He opened the flood gates and now he's trying to backpedal and change the topic. I agree Whitaker is more skilled than Tyson's opponents, but even Tyson's worst opponents hit 5x harder than Whitaker so there's that.

Jumping weight classes is irrelevant when comparing a fighter to a HW. Chavez wasn't a a washed up old man, he was an undefeated world champion at 31. That's the context behind his "88th pro fight".

 

I'm not saying Chavez was washed up, I'm just saying that he wasn't at his absolute best. I was just trying to keep the ball rolling because I do think this is an interesting question and very debatable.

 

The length of his career is not the point. My point is Chavez was more succesful , consistant and for a longer period of time showing how to cut off the ring.
Its also what chavez did after cutting off the ring which was blast his opponents non stop. Almost never did you see Chavez clinch after succesfully cutting off the ring.
What good is cutting off the ring if all you do is clinch after like Tyson was known for.
What did Tyson always do when he cut off the ring, he threw 1 to 3 punches and sometimes none then clinched trying to bend his opponents arms at the elbow.
Chavez puts Tyson to shame at not only cutting off the ring but also beating his opponent down after trapping his opponent.