Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manju
With JC Superstar back in the news as a 1st timer on the HOF ballet, I’d like to make the case against him. I think he deserves HOF status to be sure, but perhaps not on the first ballet. Here’s why.
The upper-echelon of the cream of the crop should be reserved for those who successfully fought other potential HOFers in their prime, i.e. those in similar weight-classes and on the 1b-4-1b lists of the day. If no such fighters were available, then of course the candidate should not be punished. But if they were and the boxer in question did not fight them, then that should be considered a demerit (unless its apparent the other fighter was doing the dodging). It is here that JCC falls short.
Let’s look at his best available completion.
1. Sweet Pea. He was the best fighter of the era and was of similar size to JCC. Chavez lost decisively. I know he benefited from the judges generosity, but history is another judge. Just as important, he never fought Pernell again. Suspicious.
2. Meldrick Taylor. JCC’s shining moment, imo. He showed his deceptive power, his chin, and won the fight morally (ie Meldrick was a beaten man). In a just world Taylor would’ve gotten the decision and then gotten KOed in an immediate rematch. But in what became a pattern, there was no immediate rematch (though I’m uncertain if JCC really did the dodging here) and the 2nd fight happened when Taylor was shot. So, JCCs best performance against a fellow great is arguably a loss.
3. Frankie Randall. Randall was not a lb-4-lber but he makes the list by virtue of being the first to officially beat Chavez. He was beating him again in the rematch when Chavez quit and got a gift. The 3rd match was not held until Randall was shot. Severe discredit is due here. Another decisive loss for Chavez.
4. ODLH. JCC is forgiven here b/c he was past his prime. But he was not that past his prime and he got whupped. Chavez appeared to quit in the 2nd fight. Another patern.
5. Azumah Nelson: Nelson was of similar size to JCC, was a great boxer-brawler, a 1b-4-1ber, and they never fought.
6. Buddy McGirt: like Nelson, similar size, great boxer, was considered formidable after schooling the great Simon Brown, but never got a shot at Chavez
7. Simon Brown: slightly bigger than the other guys but still within range of JCC. Never fought.
8, 9, and 10 : Norris, Trinidad, and Starling: JCC can be forgiven for not fighting these bigger guys. But he needed something on his resume, they were available, and they weren’t that much bigger.
So there you have it. These 10 boxers were better than any boxer JCC defeated. Those include Haugen (who had already lost to Paz twice and Camacho), Ramirez (already lost to Haugen) Roger Mayweather, Lockerage, and Camacho (all of whom had suffered loses prior). They were good fighters, and JCC dominated them. But they were not the best available.
Against the best available, JCC either lost, quit, was gifted, or did not fight.
Good post, and one you're sure to get raked over the coals for. I agree... HOF'er for sure, just not 1st ballot. MY point is that people go "goo-goo eyed" over the record, and neglect to see it for what it's worth. 107 wins... oh wow! Big, fukking deal. First 40-some fights were against a bunch of tomato cans in Mexico. Sound familiar? Oh yeah... that's how he's grooming his OWN coddled son. But back to JCC Sr.... I don't buy into this "well he didn't have an amateur career" bullshet argument. So how exactly does that translate into being able to accumulate dozens of victories over dead bodies to fatten a pro record? Sounds grossly unfair to me. A lot of the great boxers from this generation are fighting other great fighters early on in their careers. I'm talking into their 15th fight, and by the 20th for sure.
The great JCC began regularly fighting fighters of high caliber around his 45th fight. So everything before that was just " filling" in the 100-win pie. How's this for a stat? The cumulative winning percentage of his opponents after his 44th fight was 46 percent. Forty-six frigging percent!! In other words, they had more losses than wins. Forty-six percent may be a terrific batting average in baseball, but it means you're nothing more than a street bum, in boxing. Even after he won his first championship and moved into the elite level, his record was sprinkled with it's share of "4-3" and "5-8" fighters. Hell, he even made time for a few debutantes ("0-0" records), and a "1-12" palooka.
Oh, and if someone wants to criticize me for using BoxRec as my statistical source, please provide a credible alternative and I'll gladly do the same research.
I have vivid memories of JCC as he moved toward his 100th victory. After his fight with Randall, which he CLEARLY lost by a country mile... he was graceless and classless. Obsessed with his record, much like he's raising Junior to be.
HOF'er, unfortunately yes. 1st ballot? Not in MY book.
No amateur career pretty much means a lot of on the job training. Really it ain't that hard to figure out. Fools pay to much attention to the early part of Chavez's career. It was on the job training. For people to expect someone with little to no amateur experience to get in there with "great fighters" early in there career is just moronic. Straight stupid. All these so-called great fighters today fighting other so-called great fighters early in there careers are all fighters with tons of amateur experience.
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Without a doubt. I noticed most of the hate towards him comes from the PR's. Which is understandable I guess. The man did wreck the great Edwin Rosario and completely embarrassed Hector "Not So Macho" Camacho
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manju
With JC Superstar back in the news as a 1st timer on the HOF ballet, I’d like to make the case against him. I think he deserves HOF status to be sure, but perhaps not on the first ballet. Here’s why.
The upper-echelon of the cream of the crop should be reserved for those who successfully fought other potential HOFers in their prime, i.e. those in similar weight-classes and on the 1b-4-1b lists of the day. If no such fighters were available, then of course the candidate should not be punished. But if they were and the boxer in question did not fight them, then that should be considered a demerit (unless its apparent the other fighter was doing the dodging). It is here that JCC falls short.
Let’s look at his best available completion.
1. Sweet Pea. He was the best fighter of the era and was of similar size to JCC. Chavez lost decisively. I know he benefited from the judges generosity, but history is another judge. Just as important, he never fought Pernell again. Suspicious.
2. Meldrick Taylor. JCC’s shining moment, imo. He showed his deceptive power, his chin, and won the fight morally (ie Meldrick was a beaten man). In a just world Taylor would’ve gotten the decision and then gotten KOed in an immediate rematch. But in what became a pattern, there was no immediate rematch (though I’m uncertain if JCC really did the dodging here) and the 2nd fight happened when Taylor was shot. So, JCCs best performance against a fellow great is arguably a loss.
3. Frankie Randall. Randall was not a lb-4-lber but he makes the list by virtue of being the first to officially beat Chavez. He was beating him again in the rematch when Chavez quit and got a gift. The 3rd match was not held until Randall was shot. Severe discredit is due here. Another decisive loss for Chavez.
4. ODLH. JCC is forgiven here b/c he was past his prime. But he was not that past his prime and he got whupped. Chavez appeared to quit in the 2nd fight. Another patern.
5. Azumah Nelson: Nelson was of similar size to JCC, was a great boxer-brawler, a 1b-4-1ber, and they never fought.
6. Buddy McGirt: like Nelson, similar size, great boxer, was considered formidable after schooling the great Simon Brown, but never got a shot at Chavez
7. Simon Brown: slightly bigger than the other guys but still within range of JCC. Never fought.
8, 9, and 10 : Norris, Trinidad, and Starling: JCC can be forgiven for not fighting these bigger guys. But he needed something on his resume, they were available, and they weren’t that much bigger.
So there you have it. These 10 boxers were better than any boxer JCC defeated. Those include Haugen (who had already lost to Paz twice and Camacho), Ramirez (already lost to Haugen) Roger Mayweather, Lockerage, and Camacho (all of whom had suffered loses prior). They were good fighters, and JCC dominated them. But they were not the best available.
Against the best available, JCC either lost, quit, was gifted, or did not fight.
Good post, and one you're sure to get raked over the coals for. I agree... HOF'er for sure, just not 1st ballot. MY point is that people go "goo-goo eyed" over the record, and neglect to see it for what it's worth. 107 wins... oh wow! Big, fukking deal. First 40-some fights were against a bunch of tomato cans in Mexico. Sound familiar? Oh yeah... that's how he's grooming his OWN coddled son. But back to JCC Sr.... I don't buy into this "well he didn't have an amateur career" bullshet argument. So how exactly does that translate into being able to accumulate dozens of victories over dead bodies to fatten a pro record? Sounds grossly unfair to me. A lot of the great boxers from this generation are fighting other great fighters early on in their careers. I'm talking into their 15th fight, and by the 20th for sure.
The great JCC began regularly fighting fighters of high caliber around his 45th fight. So everything before that was just " filling" in the 100-win pie. How's this for a stat? The cumulative winning percentage of his opponents after his 44th fight was 46 percent. Forty-six frigging percent!! In other words, they had more losses than wins. Forty-six percent may be a terrific batting average in baseball, but it means you're nothing more than a street bum, in boxing. Even after he won his first championship and moved into the elite level, his record was sprinkled with it's share of "4-3" and "5-8" fighters. Hell, he even made time for a few debutantes ("0-0" records), and a "1-12" palooka.
Oh, and if someone wants to criticize me for using BoxRec as my statistical source, please provide a credible alternative and I'll gladly do the same research.
I have vivid memories of JCC as he moved toward his 100th victory. After his fight with Randall, which he CLEARLY lost by a country mile... he was graceless and classless. Obsessed with his record, much like he's raising Junior to be.
HOF'er, unfortunately yes. 1st ballot? Not in MY book.
No amateur career pretty much means a lot of on the job training. Really it ain't that hard to figure out. Fools pay to much attention to the early part of Chavez's career. It was on the job training. For people to expect someone with little to no amateur experience to get in there with "great fighters" early in there career is just moronic. Straight stupid. All these so-called great fighters today fighting other so-called great fighters early in there careers are all fighters with tons of amateur experience.
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Without a doubt. I noticed most of the hate towards him comes from the PR's. Which is understandable I guess. The man did wreck the great Edwin Rosario and completely embarrassed Hector "Not So Macho" Camacho
I was never a fan of Camacho's, and Edwin Rosario was over-confident and under-trained for that fight. He was a waste of talent. No... my dislike for JCC isn't based on those two encounters. And for the record, I've always been a big fan of CLASSY Mexican fighters, such as MAB and the great "Finito" Lopez.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manju
With JC Superstar back in the news as a 1st timer on the HOF ballet, I’d like to make the case against him. I think he deserves HOF status to be sure, but perhaps not on the first ballet. Here’s why.
The upper-echelon of the cream of the crop should be reserved for those who successfully fought other potential HOFers in their prime, i.e. those in similar weight-classes and on the 1b-4-1b lists of the day. If no such fighters were available, then of course the candidate should not be punished. But if they were and the boxer in question did not fight them, then that should be considered a demerit (unless its apparent the other fighter was doing the dodging). It is here that JCC falls short.
Let’s look at his best available completion.
1. Sweet Pea. He was the best fighter of the era and was of similar size to JCC. Chavez lost decisively. I know he benefited from the judges generosity, but history is another judge. Just as important, he never fought Pernell again. Suspicious.
2. Meldrick Taylor. JCC’s shining moment, imo. He showed his deceptive power, his chin, and won the fight morally (ie Meldrick was a beaten man). In a just world Taylor would’ve gotten the decision and then gotten KOed in an immediate rematch. But in what became a pattern, there was no immediate rematch (though I’m uncertain if JCC really did the dodging here) and the 2nd fight happened when Taylor was shot. So, JCCs best performance against a fellow great is arguably a loss.
3. Frankie Randall. Randall was not a lb-4-lber but he makes the list by virtue of being the first to officially beat Chavez. He was beating him again in the rematch when Chavez quit and got a gift. The 3rd match was not held until Randall was shot. Severe discredit is due here. Another decisive loss for Chavez.
4. ODLH. JCC is forgiven here b/c he was past his prime. But he was not that past his prime and he got whupped. Chavez appeared to quit in the 2nd fight. Another patern.
5. Azumah Nelson: Nelson was of similar size to JCC, was a great boxer-brawler, a 1b-4-1ber, and they never fought.
6. Buddy McGirt: like Nelson, similar size, great boxer, was considered formidable after schooling the great Simon Brown, but never got a shot at Chavez
7. Simon Brown: slightly bigger than the other guys but still within range of JCC. Never fought.
8, 9, and 10 : Norris, Trinidad, and Starling: JCC can be forgiven for not fighting these bigger guys. But he needed something on his resume, they were available, and they weren’t that much bigger.
So there you have it. These 10 boxers were better than any boxer JCC defeated. Those include Haugen (who had already lost to Paz twice and Camacho), Ramirez (already lost to Haugen) Roger Mayweather, Lockerage, and Camacho (all of whom had suffered loses prior). They were good fighters, and JCC dominated them. But they were not the best available.
Against the best available, JCC either lost, quit, was gifted, or did not fight.
Good post, and one you're sure to get raked over the coals for. I agree... HOF'er for sure, just not 1st ballot. MY point is that people go "goo-goo eyed" over the record, and neglect to see it for what it's worth. 107 wins... oh wow! Big, fukking deal. First 40-some fights were against a bunch of tomato cans in Mexico. Sound familiar? Oh yeah... that's how he's grooming his OWN coddled son. But back to JCC Sr.... I don't buy into this "well he didn't have an amateur career" bullshet argument. So how exactly does that translate into being able to accumulate dozens of victories over dead bodies to fatten a pro record? Sounds grossly unfair to me. A lot of the great boxers from this generation are fighting other great fighters early on in their careers. I'm talking into their 15th fight, and by the 20th for sure.
The great JCC began regularly fighting fighters of high caliber around his 45th fight. So everything before that was just " filling" in the 100-win pie. How's this for a stat? The cumulative winning percentage of his opponents after his 44th fight was 46 percent. Forty-six frigging percent!! In other words, they had more losses than wins. Forty-six percent may be a terrific batting average in baseball, but it means you're nothing more than a street bum, in boxing. Even after he won his first championship and moved into the elite level, his record was sprinkled with it's share of "4-3" and "5-8" fighters. Hell, he even made time for a few debutantes ("0-0" records), and a "1-12" palooka.
Oh, and if someone wants to criticize me for using BoxRec as my statistical source, please provide a credible alternative and I'll gladly do the same research.
I have vivid memories of JCC as he moved toward his 100th victory. After his fight with Randall, which he CLEARLY lost by a country mile... he was graceless and classless. Obsessed with his record, much like he's raising Junior to be.
HOF'er, unfortunately yes. 1st ballot? Not in MY book.
No amateur career pretty much means a lot of on the job training. Really it ain't that hard to figure out. Fools pay to much attention to the early part of Chavez's career. It was on the job training. For people to expect someone with little to no amateur experience to get in there with "great fighters" early in there career is just moronic. Straight stupid. All these so-called great fighters today fighting other so-called great fighters early in there careers are all fighters with tons of amateur experience.
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Without a doubt. I noticed most of the hate towards him comes from the PR's. Which is understandable I guess. The man did wreck the great Edwin Rosario and completely embarrassed Hector "Not So Macho" Camacho
I was never a fan of Camacho's, and Edwin Rosario was over-confident and under-trained for that fight. He was a waste of talent. No... my dislike for JCC isn't based on those two encounters. And for the record, I've always been a big fan of CLASSY Mexican fighters, such as MAB and the great "Finito" Lopez.
I wouldn't call MAB classy at all.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manju
With JC Superstar back in the news as a 1st timer on the HOF ballet, I’d like to make the case against him. I think he deserves HOF status to be sure, but perhaps not on the first ballet. Here’s why.
The upper-echelon of the cream of the crop should be reserved for those who successfully fought other potential HOFers in their prime, i.e. those in similar weight-classes and on the 1b-4-1b lists of the day. If no such fighters were available, then of course the candidate should not be punished. But if they were and the boxer in question did not fight them, then that should be considered a demerit (unless its apparent the other fighter was doing the dodging). It is here that JCC falls short.
Let’s look at his best available completion.
1. Sweet Pea. He was the best fighter of the era and was of similar size to JCC. Chavez lost decisively. I know he benefited from the judges generosity, but history is another judge. Just as important, he never fought Pernell again. Suspicious.
2. Meldrick Taylor. JCC’s shining moment, imo. He showed his deceptive power, his chin, and won the fight morally (ie Meldrick was a beaten man). In a just world Taylor would’ve gotten the decision and then gotten KOed in an immediate rematch. But in what became a pattern, there was no immediate rematch (though I’m uncertain if JCC really did the dodging here) and the 2nd fight happened when Taylor was shot. So, JCCs best performance against a fellow great is arguably a loss.
3. Frankie Randall. Randall was not a lb-4-lber but he makes the list by virtue of being the first to officially beat Chavez. He was beating him again in the rematch when Chavez quit and got a gift. The 3rd match was not held until Randall was shot. Severe discredit is due here. Another decisive loss for Chavez.
4. ODLH. JCC is forgiven here b/c he was past his prime. But he was not that past his prime and he got whupped. Chavez appeared to quit in the 2nd fight. Another patern.
5. Azumah Nelson: Nelson was of similar size to JCC, was a great boxer-brawler, a 1b-4-1ber, and they never fought.
6. Buddy McGirt: like Nelson, similar size, great boxer, was considered formidable after schooling the great Simon Brown, but never got a shot at Chavez
7. Simon Brown: slightly bigger than the other guys but still within range of JCC. Never fought.
8, 9, and 10 : Norris, Trinidad, and Starling: JCC can be forgiven for not fighting these bigger guys. But he needed something on his resume, they were available, and they weren’t that much bigger.
So there you have it. These 10 boxers were better than any boxer JCC defeated. Those include Haugen (who had already lost to Paz twice and Camacho), Ramirez (already lost to Haugen) Roger Mayweather, Lockerage, and Camacho (all of whom had suffered loses prior). They were good fighters, and JCC dominated them. But they were not the best available.
Against the best available, JCC either lost, quit, was gifted, or did not fight.
Good post, and one you're sure to get raked over the coals for. I agree... HOF'er for sure, just not 1st ballot. MY point is that people go "goo-goo eyed" over the record, and neglect to see it for what it's worth. 107 wins... oh wow! Big, fukking deal. First 40-some fights were against a bunch of tomato cans in Mexico. Sound familiar? Oh yeah... that's how he's grooming his OWN coddled son. But back to JCC Sr.... I don't buy into this "well he didn't have an amateur career" bullshet argument. So how exactly does that translate into being able to accumulate dozens of victories over dead bodies to fatten a pro record? Sounds grossly unfair to me. A lot of the great boxers from this generation are fighting other great fighters early on in their careers. I'm talking into their 15th fight, and by the 20th for sure.
The great JCC began regularly fighting fighters of high caliber around his 45th fight. So everything before that was just " filling" in the 100-win pie. How's this for a stat? The cumulative winning percentage of his opponents after his 44th fight was 46 percent. Forty-six frigging percent!! In other words, they had more losses than wins. Forty-six percent may be a terrific batting average in baseball, but it means you're nothing more than a street bum, in boxing. Even after he won his first championship and moved into the elite level, his record was sprinkled with it's share of "4-3" and "5-8" fighters. Hell, he even made time for a few debutantes ("0-0" records), and a "1-12" palooka.
Oh, and if someone wants to criticize me for using BoxRec as my statistical source, please provide a credible alternative and I'll gladly do the same research.
I have vivid memories of JCC as he moved toward his 100th victory. After his fight with Randall, which he CLEARLY lost by a country mile... he was graceless and classless. Obsessed with his record, much like he's raising Junior to be.
HOF'er, unfortunately yes. 1st ballot? Not in MY book.
No amateur career pretty much means a lot of on the job training. Really it ain't that hard to figure out. Fools pay to much attention to the early part of Chavez's career. It was on the job training. For people to expect someone with little to no amateur experience to get in there with "great fighters" early in there career is just moronic. Straight stupid. All these so-called great fighters today fighting other so-called great fighters early in there careers are all fighters with tons of amateur experience.
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Without a doubt. I noticed most of the hate towards him comes from the PR's. Which is understandable I guess. The man did wreck the great Edwin Rosario and completely embarrassed Hector "Not So Macho" Camacho
I was never a fan of Camacho's, and Edwin Rosario was over-confident and under-trained for that fight. He was a waste of talent. No... my dislike for JCC isn't based on those two encounters. And for the record, I've always been a big fan of CLASSY Mexican fighters, such as MAB and the great "Finito" Lopez.
I wouldn't call MAB classy at all.
Aside from his feud with Morales, which by the way I think Eric fueled more than MAB did... and his running Hamed into the cornerpost (for which I'm eternally grateful for)... what in MAB's career make you believe he's not classy? Just curious.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manju
With JC Superstar back in the news as a 1st timer on the HOF ballet, I’d like to make the case against him. I think he deserves HOF status to be sure, but perhaps not on the first ballet. Here’s why.
The upper-echelon of the cream of the crop should be reserved for those who successfully fought other potential HOFers in their prime, i.e. those in similar weight-classes and on the 1b-4-1b lists of the day. If no such fighters were available, then of course the candidate should not be punished. But if they were and the boxer in question did not fight them, then that should be considered a demerit (unless its apparent the other fighter was doing the dodging). It is here that JCC falls short.
Let’s look at his best available completion.
1. Sweet Pea. He was the best fighter of the era and was of similar size to JCC. Chavez lost decisively. I know he benefited from the judges generosity, but history is another judge. Just as important, he never fought Pernell again. Suspicious.
2. Meldrick Taylor. JCC’s shining moment, imo. He showed his deceptive power, his chin, and won the fight morally (ie Meldrick was a beaten man). In a just world Taylor would’ve gotten the decision and then gotten KOed in an immediate rematch. But in what became a pattern, there was no immediate rematch (though I’m uncertain if JCC really did the dodging here) and the 2nd fight happened when Taylor was shot. So, JCCs best performance against a fellow great is arguably a loss.
3. Frankie Randall. Randall was not a lb-4-lber but he makes the list by virtue of being the first to officially beat Chavez. He was beating him again in the rematch when Chavez quit and got a gift. The 3rd match was not held until Randall was shot. Severe discredit is due here. Another decisive loss for Chavez.
4. ODLH. JCC is forgiven here b/c he was past his prime. But he was not that past his prime and he got whupped. Chavez appeared to quit in the 2nd fight. Another patern.
5. Azumah Nelson: Nelson was of similar size to JCC, was a great boxer-brawler, a 1b-4-1ber, and they never fought.
6. Buddy McGirt: like Nelson, similar size, great boxer, was considered formidable after schooling the great Simon Brown, but never got a shot at Chavez
7. Simon Brown: slightly bigger than the other guys but still within range of JCC. Never fought.
8, 9, and 10 : Norris, Trinidad, and Starling: JCC can be forgiven for not fighting these bigger guys. But he needed something on his resume, they were available, and they weren’t that much bigger.
So there you have it. These 10 boxers were better than any boxer JCC defeated. Those include Haugen (who had already lost to Paz twice and Camacho), Ramirez (already lost to Haugen) Roger Mayweather, Lockerage, and Camacho (all of whom had suffered loses prior). They were good fighters, and JCC dominated them. But they were not the best available.
Against the best available, JCC either lost, quit, was gifted, or did not fight.
Good post, and one you're sure to get raked over the coals for. I agree... HOF'er for sure, just not 1st ballot. MY point is that people go "goo-goo eyed" over the record, and neglect to see it for what it's worth. 107 wins... oh wow! Big, fukking deal. First 40-some fights were against a bunch of tomato cans in Mexico. Sound familiar? Oh yeah... that's how he's grooming his OWN coddled son. But back to JCC Sr.... I don't buy into this "well he didn't have an amateur career" bullshet argument. So how exactly does that translate into being able to accumulate dozens of victories over dead bodies to fatten a pro record? Sounds grossly unfair to me. A lot of the great boxers from this generation are fighting other great fighters early on in their careers. I'm talking into their 15th fight, and by the 20th for sure.
The great JCC began regularly fighting fighters of high caliber around his 45th fight. So everything before that was just " filling" in the 100-win pie. How's this for a stat? The cumulative winning percentage of his opponents after his 44th fight was 46 percent. Forty-six frigging percent!! In other words, they had more losses than wins. Forty-six percent may be a terrific batting average in baseball, but it means you're nothing more than a street bum, in boxing. Even after he won his first championship and moved into the elite level, his record was sprinkled with it's share of "4-3" and "5-8" fighters. Hell, he even made time for a few debutantes ("0-0" records), and a "1-12" palooka.
Oh, and if someone wants to criticize me for using BoxRec as my statistical source, please provide a credible alternative and I'll gladly do the same research.
I have vivid memories of JCC as he moved toward his 100th victory. After his fight with Randall, which he CLEARLY lost by a country mile... he was graceless and classless. Obsessed with his record, much like he's raising Junior to be.
HOF'er, unfortunately yes. 1st ballot? Not in MY book.
No amateur career pretty much means a lot of on the job training. Really it ain't that hard to figure out. Fools pay to much attention to the early part of Chavez's career. It was on the job training. For people to expect someone with little to no amateur experience to get in there with "great fighters" early in there career is just moronic. Straight stupid. All these so-called great fighters today fighting other so-called great fighters early in there careers are all fighters with tons of amateur experience.
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Without a doubt. I noticed most of the hate towards him comes from the PR's. Which is understandable I guess. The man did wreck the great Edwin Rosario and completely embarrassed Hector "Not So Macho" Camacho
I was never a fan of Camacho's, and Edwin Rosario was over-confident and under-trained for that fight. He was a waste of talent. No... my dislike for JCC isn't based on those two encounters. And for the record, I've always been a big fan of CLASSY Mexican fighters, such as MAB and the great "Finito" Lopez.
I wouldn't call MAB classy at all.
Aside from his feud with Morales, which by the way I think Eric fueled more than MAB did... and his running Hamed into the cornerpost (for which I'm eternally grateful for)... what in MAB's career make you believe he's not classy? Just curious.
You haven't washed much of Barrera's career if your asking.
And your opinion don't change the fact it's the reason Chavez is hate so much by PR's
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manju
With JC Superstar back in the news as a 1st timer on the HOF ballet, I’d like to make the case against him. I think he deserves HOF status to be sure, but perhaps not on the first ballet. Here’s why.
The upper-echelon of the cream of the crop should be reserved for those who successfully fought other potential HOFers in their prime, i.e. those in similar weight-classes and on the 1b-4-1b lists of the day. If no such fighters were available, then of course the candidate should not be punished. But if they were and the boxer in question did not fight them, then that should be considered a demerit (unless its apparent the other fighter was doing the dodging). It is here that JCC falls short.
Let’s look at his best available completion.
1. Sweet Pea. He was the best fighter of the era and was of similar size to JCC. Chavez lost decisively. I know he benefited from the judges generosity, but history is another judge. Just as important, he never fought Pernell again. Suspicious.
2. Meldrick Taylor. JCC’s shining moment, imo. He showed his deceptive power, his chin, and won the fight morally (ie Meldrick was a beaten man). In a just world Taylor would’ve gotten the decision and then gotten KOed in an immediate rematch. But in what became a pattern, there was no immediate rematch (though I’m uncertain if JCC really did the dodging here) and the 2nd fight happened when Taylor was shot. So, JCCs best performance against a fellow great is arguably a loss.
3. Frankie Randall. Randall was not a lb-4-lber but he makes the list by virtue of being the first to officially beat Chavez. He was beating him again in the rematch when Chavez quit and got a gift. The 3rd match was not held until Randall was shot. Severe discredit is due here. Another decisive loss for Chavez.
4. ODLH. JCC is forgiven here b/c he was past his prime. But he was not that past his prime and he got whupped. Chavez appeared to quit in the 2nd fight. Another patern.
5. Azumah Nelson: Nelson was of similar size to JCC, was a great boxer-brawler, a 1b-4-1ber, and they never fought.
6. Buddy McGirt: like Nelson, similar size, great boxer, was considered formidable after schooling the great Simon Brown, but never got a shot at Chavez
7. Simon Brown: slightly bigger than the other guys but still within range of JCC. Never fought.
8, 9, and 10 : Norris, Trinidad, and Starling: JCC can be forgiven for not fighting these bigger guys. But he needed something on his resume, they were available, and they weren’t that much bigger.
So there you have it. These 10 boxers were better than any boxer JCC defeated. Those include Haugen (who had already lost to Paz twice and Camacho), Ramirez (already lost to Haugen) Roger Mayweather, Lockerage, and Camacho (all of whom had suffered loses prior). They were good fighters, and JCC dominated them. But they were not the best available.
Against the best available, JCC either lost, quit, was gifted, or did not fight.
Good post, and one you're sure to get raked over the coals for. I agree... HOF'er for sure, just not 1st ballot. MY point is that people go "goo-goo eyed" over the record, and neglect to see it for what it's worth. 107 wins... oh wow! Big, fukking deal. First 40-some fights were against a bunch of tomato cans in Mexico. Sound familiar? Oh yeah... that's how he's grooming his OWN coddled son. But back to JCC Sr.... I don't buy into this "well he didn't have an amateur career" bullshet argument. So how exactly does that translate into being able to accumulate dozens of victories over dead bodies to fatten a pro record? Sounds grossly unfair to me. A lot of the great boxers from this generation are fighting other great fighters early on in their careers. I'm talking into their 15th fight, and by the 20th for sure.
The great JCC began regularly fighting fighters of high caliber around his 45th fight. So everything before that was just " filling" in the 100-win pie. How's this for a stat? The cumulative winning percentage of his opponents after his 44th fight was 46 percent. Forty-six frigging percent!! In other words, they had more losses than wins. Forty-six percent may be a terrific batting average in baseball, but it means you're nothing more than a street bum, in boxing. Even after he won his first championship and moved into the elite level, his record was sprinkled with it's share of "4-3" and "5-8" fighters. Hell, he even made time for a few debutantes ("0-0" records), and a "1-12" palooka.
Oh, and if someone wants to criticize me for using BoxRec as my statistical source, please provide a credible alternative and I'll gladly do the same research.
I have vivid memories of JCC as he moved toward his 100th victory. After his fight with Randall, which he CLEARLY lost by a country mile... he was graceless and classless. Obsessed with his record, much like he's raising Junior to be.
HOF'er, unfortunately yes. 1st ballot? Not in MY book.
No amateur career pretty much means a lot of on the job training. Really it ain't that hard to figure out. Fools pay to much attention to the early part of Chavez's career. It was on the job training. For people to expect someone with little to no amateur experience to get in there with "great fighters" early in there career is just moronic. Straight stupid. All these so-called great fighters today fighting other so-called great fighters early in there careers are all fighters with tons of amateur experience.
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Without a doubt. I noticed most of the hate towards him comes from the PR's. Which is understandable I guess. The man did wreck the great Edwin Rosario and completely embarrassed Hector "Not So Macho" Camacho
I was never a fan of Camacho's, and Edwin Rosario was over-confident and under-trained for that fight. He was a waste of talent. No... my dislike for JCC isn't based on those two encounters. And for the record, I've always been a big fan of CLASSY Mexican fighters, such as MAB and the great "Finito" Lopez.
I wouldn't call MAB classy at all.
Aside from his feud with Morales, which by the way I think Eric fueled more than MAB did... and his running Hamed into the cornerpost (for which I'm eternally grateful for)... what in MAB's career make you believe he's not classy? Just curious.
You haven't washed much of Barrera's career if your asking.
And your opinion don't change the fact it's the reason Chavez is hate so much by PR's
I can't speak for the rest of my countrymen, I can only speak for myself. And matter of fact, I know a lot of Puerto Rican boxing fans who admire JCC. I just happen to dislike him a great deal, that's all. And as for Barrera's career, I've watched plenty of his fights and heard or read many of his interviews. And I insist he comes across better and less bitter than old JCC. Especially when JCC was totally focused on that "magic number". But then I gotta admit... some of my admiration for MAB comes from his total humiliation of Hamed, whom I was hoping would get humiliated by SOMEONE.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
titofan,
name me one fighter alive today who can match what julio cesar chavez sr. did? bet you can't find any because what he did was truly remarkable.
a. 89-0-1 75 KO's before suffering first defeat.
b. 3 division world champion before first defeat.
c. 23 successful title defenses before first defeat.
d. 27 successful title defenses (all-time record).
e. 31-4-2 record in title fights (37) all-time record).
f. 9 years as world champion before first loss. simply incredible!!!
g. 16 successful title defenses at jr. welter. another record.
h. 21 total fights vs. world champions. 15-4-2 record.
oh, and by the way, he may have had his share of fighting taxicab drivers to gain more experience but he NEVER lost to any of them in his prime! with the exception of bazooka limon early to mid career, he never fought washed up fighters, champions or contenders.
kinda hard to admit how great he was that's why i posted some of his accomplishments!
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
name me one fighter alive today who can match what julio cesar chavez sr. did? bet you can't find any because what he did was truly remarkable.
a. 89-0-1 75 KO's before suffering first defeat.
b. 3 division world champion before first defeat.
c. 23 successful title defenses before first defeat.
d. 27 successful title defenses (all-time record).
e. 31-4-2 record in title fights (37) all-time record).
f. 9 years as world champion before first loss. simply incredible!!!
g. 16 successful title defenses at jr. welter. another record.
h. 21 total fights vs. world champions. 15-4-2 record.
oh, and by the way, he may have had his share of fighting taxicab drivers to gain more experience but he NEVER lost to any of them in his prime! with the exception of bazooka limon early to mid career, he never fought washed up fighters, champions or contenders.
kinda hard to admit how great he was that's why i posted some of his accomplishments!
Save your stats, mil... the same ones you trot out every time we get on the subject. I'm not, and haven't been arguing against Julio Cesar's greatness as a fighter. I'm just saying two things: 1) his 100+ wins should NOT BE COMPARED to the records of other fighters, because he fought a bunch of tomato cans well into his 40-some fights. And before you or your homies chime in about JCC not having an amateur career... save it. We're not talking amateur careers here. We're talking about putting "W"s on a professional record. Whether or not you've had an amateur career should not come into the argument here. Why skew a professional record with a bunch of wins against nobodies? It's a pointless argument. You're wrong, and you know it.
Oh... I said two things. The other one is: 2) he's a jerk. A class-A, bonafide, 100% USDA jerk. Totally classless when he got whipped by Frankie Randall, and never giving any credit to anybody. AND... he's bringing Junior along the same way. He's the typical, over-bearing ex-fighter dad.
Those are my points, and nothing your stats say can change that.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
titofan,
i guess mad envy can result in hatred! again, name me one fighter alive today who can compare with his record? name one!
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
i guess mad envy can result in hatred! again, name me one fighter alive today who can compare with his record? name one!
Frankly... you're starting to bore me.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
titofan,
because you have zero answers to my facts! :)
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
because you have zero answers to my facts! :)
Ok I'll write slow and in consideration of your obvious lack of IQ.
I-m n-o-t a-r-g-u-i-n-g a-g-a-i-n-s-t y-o-u-r f-a-c-t-s. I-m j-u-s-t p-u-t-t-i-n-g t-h-o-s-e f-a-c-t-s i-n-t-o p-e-r-s-p-e-c-t-i-v-e.
Oh wait... I used the word "perspective" on you. My bad.
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
titofan,
see, you can never, ever win this argument about chavez sr., because what he did was absolutely, positively, immortal. nice try though! :mad:
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
see, you can never, ever win this argument about chavez sr., because what he did was absolutely, positively, immortal. nice try though! :mad:
Roberto Duran shits all over Julio Cesar Chavez's accomplishments, see cause although Chavez was a great fighter and is considered the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, Duran is the greatest Lightweight of all time and well straight from the horses mouth (Chavez himself says it) THE GREATEST LATINO FIGHTER OF ALL TIME!
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
see, you can never, ever win this argument about chavez sr., because what he did was absolutely, positively, immortal. nice try though! :mad:
Roberto Duran shits all over Julio Cesar Chavez's accomplishments, see cause although Chavez was a great fighter and is considered the greatest Mexican fighter of all time, Duran is the greatest Lightweight of all time and well straight from the horses mouth (Chavez himself says it) THE GREATEST LATINO FIGHTER OF ALL TIME!
and before you try to say it's bullshit, he's recorded saying it in the documentary Champions Forever-Latin Legends of Boxing
