Who was the greatest Mexican boxer of all-time: Salvador Sanchez or JC Chavez?

They both had a common opponent in Juan LaPorte. Did he ever make a comparison in an interview?

 

Out of the two I'd take Sanchez; but IMO Carlos Zarate is the greatest fighter Mexico produced. He doesn't have the huge win column as JCC but he knocked out world class fighters left and right.

 

Chavez is so popular that people mistake him for the original Cesar Chavez, julio cesar chavez is a representative for mexico as a whole oversea's and pretty much the only mexican people know around places like Australia

 

kind of tough to have longevity and consistency when tragedy cuts you down.

Sal I dont mean to be a jerk but Isnt that a kind of copout, and youre answer the easy way out out?

Sanchez beat Gomez, Nelson, he also fought a few tricky customers Patrick Ford comes to mind. I think Sanchez greatest victories were against greater caliber fighters than Chavez ever faced.

 

I dont agree with this notion that JC Chavez had trouble with speedy movers......
.......Meldrick Taylor and Pernell Whitaker were world class great fighters.....nobody is just going to go in there and have a feast with them. These guys are great fighters and anyone would go through a struggle to beat them.

A fighter that has trouble with speedy movers would have trouble with other fighters that are speedy and move, that are not at the elite level.

Can you guys name me non-elite speedy movers that Chavez had trouble with????
......Camacho?
......Lonnie Smith?

......Name me one outside of Taylor and Whitaker?

 

With all due respect, Sanchez indeed had some great victories.
.....but also keep in mind that Nelson had just what, about 12 pro fights when he met Sanchez?
.....and Gomez was moving up in weight when Sanchez beat him.

I think Chavez' wins over Rosario and Taylor are more impressive than Sanchez' wins over Nelson and Gomez.

I hope people dont take it as if I'm bashing on Sanchez.
......I'm just comparing who had the bigger tasks between Sanchez vs Gomez and Nelson, and Chavez over Rosario and Taylor......
....and to me, the more difficult task was Chavez'.
.....add to that that both those fights for Chavez, he was moving up in weight to fight the bigger fighter.

Chavez proved his worth over three weight divisions. Sadly, Sanchez' untimely death deprived us of seeing him outside of 126 lbs!:?

How Sanchez would fare against naturally bigger fighters like Alexis Arguello, we'll never know!

 

You've anwered your own question. We can't go on 'maybe's' and 'what if's'...we can only go on what was.

 

You make good points about Whitaker and Taylor. Terrific fighters who would give anyone trouble. I think Chavez gave Camacho his first loss, but I'd suggest that Camacho would've given Chavez a LOT tougher fight at 130 and even still at 135. Lonnie Smith was a great athlete, but lacking technically. I guess what I meant was that Sanchez was more versatile than Chavez. I'd contrast Chavez with Buddy McGirt. Although Chavez is the better fighter, I think it could be argued that McGirt did better against Whitaker. As I recall, McGirt had a bum shoulder and was stopped late versus Taylor, but was able to box him more than Chavez did. My point is that McGirt boxed these guys and didn't have to utilize a "take 3 to land 1" strategy. Chavez is a great, great fighter, I just don't think he was great from the outside, nor as versatile as Sanchez.

 

I could just as easily make excuses for those wins as you did Sanchez's wins. The Taylor fight was highly controversial and Rosario was arguably past his prime. I have that win on par with Sanchez's win over Gomez, given how impressive and dominant they were.

 

All those victories were great, my response was to quiet RG's contention that Sal somehow had a better caliber of opposition which is outright erroneous.

.....on your assertion about Rosario.....Rosario was coming off blowing away Livingstone Bramble who was considered the top lightweight having twice beaten Ray Mancini.
Chavez was stepping up in weight, and it was a fight for Chavez that people in Chavez own inner circle were worried about if Rosario would turn out to be too strong for Chavez.
The beatdown that Chavez bestowed upon Rosario was nothing short of spectacular.

I cant see where anyone could say Rosario was past prime for Chavez.
His lone losses had been to a good puncher in Ramirez, and a controversial loss in a fight where most felt he beat a prime Camacho.

If anything, Rosario had hit his stride and was prime and peaked vs Chavez coming off his demolition of Bramble.

 

You dont go nearly 100-0 without having great versatility.
Chavez during that span fought all-comers and all different types of styles from boxers to cutsies, to bruisers and punchers.

As been mentioned, Chavez proved his versatility through consistency and longevity.
His record speaks for itself!

"I was suprised at just how good a boxer he really is. He showed me things in the ring that I did'nt even know. Chavez skills as a boxer are very underrated!"---Emmanuel Steward who trained Chavez for his rematch with Frankie Randall

 

I didn't say he wasn't versatile. I said he wasn't as versatile as Sanchez. I'm not sure how that can be argued.

 

............It's not a copout, it's an opinion. While one might very well say Sanchez had certain skills Chavez didn't have, Chavez had others Sanchez didn't, like cutting off the ring and bodypunching. That's a wash as far as I'm concerned. All that's left then is longevity (well, and consistency, but I'll get to that).

Chavez just lasted longer. Not that Sanchez didn't do great things and didn't leave his mark, he did in a big way, but it just suffers in comparison to Chavez.

As far as consistency goes, Sanchez had close calls with a couple guys not on anyone's "featherweight greats" list. It's more to the point to say these were stylistic difficulties rather than "playing to the level of the competition" as I've read some people try to explain. Both Ford and Cowdell boxed and used slippery tactics to confuse Sanchez and build early points leads. He seemed to have trouble with movers, as a natural counterpuncher will. That's not a knock on Sal, I mean he did end up winning those fights, picking the lock and lowering the boom when he had to do it, but not before having to adjust and rally in the later rounds. It's just a styles thing.

Chavez, conversely, had a style less apt to be upset by this kind of thing. If you tied to stand and punch with him, you had real problems, and moving against him didn't seem to work much either because he cut off the ring so well and would have his way sooner than later. Because he never relied on waiting and countering the way Sanchez did, no one was ever allowed to build up any head of steam against him.


Sorry, that's just what I think. :conf

 

Well said Sal!:good

On another note.....I've found it that alot of fans like to take one or two un-notable fights where a great fighter had a struggle with, and harp on it......

.....and you're absolutely right Sal, someone who's bread and butter is the counterpunch game, is more reliant on the aggressiveness of his opponent to look good against.
.....but it does'nt mean that Sanchez for example would lose to a born slickster like say Eusebio Pedroza.
Great fighters when they know what they're up against and know they're on the big stage, are apt to work on those things in the gym, and be ready for it in a fight.

I dont know about you, but I think Sanchez was alot more versatile than the slickster Pedroza, and would beat him in a World Title fight.
Not an easy fight of course, but Sanchez as you said through the long haul of the fight, would find the key.

Out of curiousity Sal, what do you think of a Sanchez-Pedroza matchup and how it would turn up?

 

Both had ATG skills & attributes but as said above, we dont know how Sanchez`s career would have went.

On what we have from both men then you gotta go with JCC, if anyone could have been better MAYBE Sanchez was that man but we will never know so you gotta go with Julio here.