-
The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
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.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
I think Salvador Sanchez was probably going to end up fighting JC but unfortunately that never happened.
It's a brave post to start, but I respect it and it's an original post as well so big props for that
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Chavez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. It's moronic to say otherwise. The points provided are not even points. It's what happens when one just hates and doesn't really know the sport.
1, Whitaker beat a lot of fighters. No shame losing to him. But not only was Chavez past his prime. He was fighting 2 weight classes above his best.
2, Chavez ruined Taylor. There was no immediate rematch cuz Taylor wasn't even physically clear to fight till 3 months after the first Chavez fight. At which point Taylor elected to move up in weight rather than face Chavez again.
3, Chavez benefited from a moronic WBC rule in the 2nd fight. A rule that was in place way before the fight. That can't be held against him. Randall was shot in the 3rd fight. Ok. Like Chavez wasn't
4, He was 36, fighting against a bigger, stronger opponent above his best weight. He was completely shot. But decided to go toe to toe with Oscar anyway. His corner stopped the fight due to his lip damn near almost falling off.
5, You kidding me? Nelson never wanted Chavez. Nelson didn't move up to Super Featherweight till Chavez moved up to Lightweight. At which point Nelson declined AN OFFER to move up to Lightweight and faced Chavez in order to fight Jesse James Leija
6, Buddy McGirt? Your fucking kidding me. That would of been a tune-up for Chavez
7, Brown and Chavez were never even close to being in the same division at the same time. This is just stupidity to mention.
8, Your a fucking idiot. Norris spent his whole career at 154. Chavez had no business being as high as 147. And when exactly was a fight with Starling or Trinidad doable? Explain
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
First ballot HOFer. Losing to Sweet Pea can't even be called a "blemish". His sytle, heart and courage have been seen before him, but he may be one of the last true warriors. Sad that there were so many vultures around him sucking his blood and money....
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
I've always thought he quit vs Randall. Period. But he made some great adjustments in that fight in boxing Frankie who's belly must have had led in it as he took boo koo body damage. He was stunned early...saw the writing on the wall and when cut happened he milked it. Opted out.
Nelson stylistically stood better chance with JCC I believe. He went for name & network. Cannot be dismissed for going for Pernell where as it pains me to say....he was a puppet on a string. Love Nelson to death....but four,four scraps with Leija at that stage. Ugh.
Chavez vs Norris strikes me same as a much talked about Norris vs Whitaker "p4p" i.e name fight at the time....a loss for guy who had little business that high with a fellow elite.
Call me crazy... I had Haugen over Camacho twice. Touch glove or no touch glove. But yeh that was about setting records against a willing tough who could talk up a fight. But no love for Rosario in contrast? One of his best executions of a game plan. And really...Lockridge did himself proud prior to and post Chavez battle. That was a quality win should not be dismissed.
Chavez had some soft touches and became too enamored (promoter really) with reaching 100 wins in the later days. I think one thing that gets over lookes is he was pretty much a co star to Tyson as far as Showtime network and King were concerned. he was and should be a 1st ballot hall of famer.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
1, Whitaker beat a lot of fighters. No shame losing to him. But not only was Chavez past his prime. He was fighting 2 weight classes above his best.
No shame in losing but we’re determining if he’s the cream of the cream. And I say no. “Past his prime” is argument by assertion. Chavez was undefeated, was regularly KOing the same medium-level opposition he had long made his rep on. Indeed, Haugan and Camacho (who he fought not too long b/f Sweet Pea) were among the best fighters he defeated in his career. Before the fight he was ranked #1 p4p with Sweat Pea at 2. After the fight, it was reversed. So much for the “Past his Prime” excuse.
“2 weight classes above his best” is not as specious an argument but it’s not like he was fighting Tommy Hearns at welter, or even SRL (a natural welter). He was fighting a shorter man who also came up to the welterweight class. So he gets no points for fighting above his prime-weight. His opponent did the same.
2, Chavez ruined Taylor. There was no immediate rematch cuz Taylor wasn't even physically clear to fight till 3 months after the first Chavez fight. At which point Taylor elected to move up in weight rather than face Chavez again.
I acknowledged all this in my post. His performance against a red-hot prime Taylor was his best. But this being his best is problematic, since he was outboxed and should have lost on points. So, he’s a hall of famer, just not an upper-echelon one.
3, Chavez benefited from a moronic WBC rule in the 2nd fight. A rule that was in place way before the fight. That can't be held against him. Randall was shot in the 3rd fight. Ok. Like Chavez wasn't
What is held against him is he lost, lost twice (as you concede) but did not offer the victim an immediate rematch. He failed to avenge, indeed he failed to try to avenge his loss and therefore should be demerited. Both Randal I and II count against him and the 3rd one was irrelevant b/c they both were shot, as you acknowledge.
4, He was 36, fighting against a bigger, stronger opponent above his best weight. He was completely shot. But decided to go toe to toe with Oscar anyway. His corner stopped the fight due to his lip damn near almost falling off.
I acknowledge this. The point of ODLH was that sometimes great fighters have past-their-prime moments that count toward the hall. Hearns beat Hill well past his prime. Sweat Pea had a great performance against the same ODLH. Chavez never had such a moment. No redeeming fight to counter all the dodges and evasions.
5, You kidding me? Nelson never wanted Chavez. Nelson didn't move up to Super Featherweight till Chavez moved up to Lightweight. At which point Nelson declined AN OFFER to move up to Lightweight and faced Chavez in order to fight Jesse James Leija
This sounds far-fetched. Nelson was not known for dodging. In general, you don’t dodge your biggest opportunity and biggest money fight. Everyone wanted Chavez b/c the record made him a legend.
6, Buddy McGirt? Your fucking kidding me. That would of been a tune-up for Chavez
Not physically gifted, but McGirt was a great tactical fighter. Importantly, he was a 1b-4-1b-er of the same size as Chavez and at the same time. His outboxing of Brown occurred in 1991 and catapulted his rep. By 1992, Chavez and Sweet Pea were 1,2 in the rankings with buddy mcgirt and azumah nelson right behind them (like around 5, 7 1b-4-1b) All of them were welters or maybe a ½ a division less at the time. And they were all small welters too. Simon Brown was in the mix then as well.
Every single one of these fighters, all similar size to JCC (except for Brown) and in their prime were better than any fighter Chavez ever defeated, except for Taylor…who he arguably didn’t defeat (in his prime).
7, Brown and Chavez were never even close to being in the same division at the same time. This is just stupidity to mention.
Incorrect, see above.
8, Your a fucking idiot. Norris spent his whole career at 154. Chavez had no business being as high as 147. And when exactly was a fight with Starling or Trinidad doable? Explain
I acknowledge fighting Norris would’ve been a big risk but it was a much talked about fight if JCC wanted to take a shot. That’s my gripe with Chavez. He took it easy. ODLH fought the bigger Hopkins. Trinidad too. Indeed, Pernell fought Trinidad so Chavez could’ve too. The timing wasn’t perfect but it was doable. Trinidad won the welter title in 93, when JCC was light-welter champion and undefeated. I concede Starling.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
JCC is an ATG, he beat superb fighters in Rosario and Ramirez . he also beat great fighters like Taylor and Camacho. He was exciting to watch and his boxing skills were brilliant.
Some of the other fighters you mention were at welter and he was never a welterweight, which he why King would not put him in there with Tito, that would have been a massacre.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Chavez is a great fighter, but I think he gets acclaim more than his career offers. He fought a handful of great guys, but every great has, I think too many get hung up on the fact he almost went 100-0, but a lot of that was padding. No doubt he was a ATG fighter, but way further than my list than he is on others. That being said he is a for sure first ballot. The most significant mexican boxer ever... common.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
There was no way in hades that Norris was going to fight Chavez. Wasn't JCC to decide and King would not cancel out his cash cows. The clamour was for hyped p4p Norris vs Whitaker seemed mostly. Norris fought alot guys coming up in weight but as Hopkins proved Oscar had NO place at middle, Norris would have done same. It was a name affair more so then an actual fight. JCC was In no way, no how a welterweight.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
JCC was In no way, no how a welterweight.
Chavez was not a WW like Pac and PBF aren't. Tito, like SRR and SRL, was a natural welter so Chavez avoiding a fight with him (and certainly Norris above him) is forgivable, as I say in my orginal post. Thats no crime and doesn't deserve a demerit.
However, doing so and doing well would earn extra-credit. Holfyield made a career fighting above his weight, as is PacMan today. Hearns was much bigger than SRL and SRL was bigger than Duran. So serious props to Duran for beating SRL in SRLs territory. JCC lacks such an accomplishment...which would mitigate against the failure to fight some of the top smaller guys.
Sweat Pea, Taylor, Azumah, McGrirt, and Randall were all the proper size for Chavez. They all fought at WW but they came up to that division and were small welters like Chavez. They all were at or around their peak roughly around when JCC was at his.
I consider this group to be the upper-echelon. (ODLH, Tito, Simon Brown, and Norris were too but they were either bigger and/or peaked when JCC was in decline. So they are discounted). At the end of the day, for someone to be a 1st ballet HOF they would have to stand out against the top available fighter of the day, IMO.
These 5 represent that. They also represent the meat of my argument. I believe, for the reasons stated, JCCs peformance against the top 5 was not impressive enough to warrant first ballet honors.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
JCC superstar was never a legitamate welerweight and was too old to fight the fighters you mentioned. His best days were below that weight, you cannot penalise him for that. It is like criticising RJJ for not fighting Lennox Lewis or Hagler for not fighting Spinks.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
JCC superstar was never a legitamate welerweight and was too old to fight the fighters you mentioned. His best days were below that weight, you cannot penalise him for that. It is like criticising RJJ for not fighting Lennox Lewis or Hagler for not fighting Spinks.
JCC hit lightwelter in 1988 and more or less bounced between that and WW for the rest of his career. This was his peak, as he was on the 1b-4-1b lists at that time. Its plausible that he actually peaked earlier but thats getting into fine distinctions. At worst he was beginning the tail end of his peak by 1988.
It is true at 5 71/2 that he was a small welter, like PBF. But so was the aformentioned competition. Using height as a metric, Sweat Pea, McGirt, and Azumah were shorter. Taylor was equal and Randal was an inch and 1/2 taller.
He was not too old to fight these guys. In 1989, JCC was ranked #2 behind Tyson. He was fighting at lightweight-lightWelter-Welter. Pernell and Azumah were also on the 1b-4-1b lists, fighting at lightweight and on the cusp of going to welter. So Chavez had a shot at them at his alledged peak weight.
McGirt was a light-welter in 1988 and made the 1b-4-1b list in 1991 after defeating Brown. Chavez was still undefeated and was ranked #1 after Tyson lost and until his draw with Pernell in 93, after which he got demoted to 2. So McGirt was very doable as well.
Randal marked the end of JCCs peak, but since he was responsible for ending it, he still gets credit for defeating him within his peak. Anything after Randal II, was post-peak Chavez. I would not describe him as shot though.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Chavez made more WORLD TITLE DEFENCES than any other boxer in history (That's if you discount the thai who defended his wbf title six zillion times)
So if he's undeserving first time round I'll eat my hat.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
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.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
I have to admit he was not a graceful loser but he is a champion and just because he was a bad loser does not mean he is a bad person. Just heat of the moment stuff.
-
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
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
morales,
there isn't any doubt roberto duran is the greatest latin fighter of all-time. i never said chavez sr. was. in fact, there have been many great latin fighters in history and chavez is probably only top 5. i've always considered duran the greatest latino ever, no argument from me!
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
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
TitoFan,
Do boxers become Hall of Famers just because they have lots of wins in their resume? It takes more than that and JCC proved to have more than just wins. MilMascaras mentioned those accomplishments.
Quote:
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
Let's say a young guy starts working in the New York Stock Exchange with no education higher than high school working with bunch of guys with not only many years of college preparation but also experience in the market. Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow for that young guy who's selling more and accomplishing so much than all the other guys with 2 or 3 times more experience?
Did JCC beat many nobodies? Sure, but now see his accomplishments. Of course he deserves HOF status.
Quote:
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
There will be lots of reasons why you simply don't like him but that doesn't take away the fact that he has many admirable accomplishments in the ring. I dislike some boxers out there but that doesn't blind me from seeing their skills and accomplishments.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
See my comments below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
Quote:
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
TitoFan,
Do boxers become Hall of Famers just because they have lots of wins in their resume? It takes more than that and JCC proved to have more than just wins. MilMascaras mentioned those accomplishments.
And for the umpteenth time... I haven't argued that JCC doesn't belong in the HOF... have I.
Just not on "god status".
Quote:
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
Let's say a young guy starts working in the New York Stock Exchange with no education higher than high school working with bunch of guys with not only many years of college preparation but also experience in the market. Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow for that young guy who's selling more and accomplishing so much than all the other guys with 2 or 3 times more experience?
Clever, but inappropriate. You can't compare a boxer fighting tomato cans and padding his professional record to a Wall Street upstart with a knack for picking stocks. It doesn't work that way, and comes across as a gigantic reach. But nice try.Did JCC beat many nobodies? Sure, but now see his accomplishments. Of course he deserves HOF status.
Quote:
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
There will be lots of reasons why you simply don't like him but that doesn't take away the fact that he has many admirable accomplishments in the ring. I dislike some boxers out there but that doesn't blind me from seeing their skills and accomplishments.
Again, you fail to see the point. I'm not denying his accomplishments. I'm... oh what's the point? We're just going to keep going round and round. If you can't see that JCC's 100+ wins can't and shouldn't be compared by mere numbers to other HOF fighters because JCC padded his record with over 40 patsies... there's nothing I can say that's gonna change that.
I WILL give you credit for arguing a bit more sensibly than in previous years, tho.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
titofan,
your outrageous denial of chavez' accomplishments borders on lunacy! and for the millionth time, you keep harping about chavez' 40 bums. did you or did you not know that most of the all-time greats also had their big share of bums as well? why are you only targeting chavez' record? look at some of the all-time greats, like joe louis, henry armstrong, rocky marciano, and many, many others...these guys built part of their impressive records on alot of bums with losing records.
here is what i found out of chavez' record, after he won his first world title, he fought one fighter with a losing record. this is far, far less than many of the great fighters of yesteryear. but you seem to be silent on this, i wonder why?
look, you want the truth? i'll give you the god damned truth, the truth of the matter is this, the only reason why you tend to belittle chavez' accomplishments is because he has accomplished more than all your PR champions in history! i'm sorry to tell you the truth but it just had to be said, right here, right now.
i mean the envy you, morales and other PR's have for chavez is just really sad.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
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.
Your hypocrisy is hilarious. Yes Chavez was all that you say. While I don't mind that in a fighter, you wanna dislike him for that, that's fine. You have that right. What's funny is you hold that against Chavez but not Duran. Duran is an ATG fighter. As well as an ATG jerk. I mean the guy wasn't just a sore loser. He was sore winner. Watch the lead up as well as the end of Duran-Leonard 1 for Duran's classy ways.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
your outrageous denial of chavez' accomplishments borders on lunacy! and for the millionth time, you keep harping about chavez' 40 bums. did you or did you not know that most of the all-time greats also had their big share of bums as well? why are you only targeting chavez' record? look at some of the all-time greats, like joe louis, henry armstrong, rocky marciano, and many, many others...these guys built part of their impressive records on alot of bums with losing records.
here is what i found out of chavez' record, after he won his first world title, he fought one fighter with a losing record. this is far, far less than many of the great fighters of yesteryear. but you seem to be silent on this, i wonder why?
look, you want the truth? i'll give you the god damned truth, the truth of the matter is this, the only reason why you tend to belittle chavez' accomplishments is because he has accomplished more than all your PR champions in history! i'm sorry to tell you the truth but it just had to be said, right here, right now.
i mean the envy you, morales and other PR's have for chavez is just really sad.
the way you can't get PR out your mouth says it all, i know you wish you were a part of this great island but well you're not, Titofan and me haven't disputed any of Chavez SR's accomplishments, he's a sure fire HOF'er, but just as OTHER BIGGER NAME FIGHTERS tend to be overrated well Chavez as well is overrated a hell of a lot of times
do i agree with the original post in this thread? no, using that type of deducing you can make ANY GREAT fighter look like shit when all the FACTS prove otherwise
just cause someone does guzzle down YOUR favorite fighters balls doesn't mean that their envious, but you get pissy and have a little bitch fit everytime someone doesn't agree with you, hell the whole Chavez JR thread is proof of that, Jr is utter shit and will only reach B level success, that's MY OPINION, and it's not due to envy it's because the pussy doesn't step it up at all, he fought one of the crappiest Middleweight's in the last 10 yrs (when you can't get by an ancient Campas well you know you're crap), and now he's fighting one of the smallest fighters to come out of The Pretender (and the same dude who was stomped out by Cotto in 5, hell he was even dropped by jabs), you bitch about Donaire always fighting smaller guys, yet you're ok with Chavez Jr doing the same exact thing, actually hold that, Donaire's at least fighting decent guys in Maldonado and Concepcion, unlike Chavez Jr, both guys need to pick it up but at least one guy is in talks of fighting with one of the best Bantams in the world (Montiel) and the other is fighting a bum (Gomez), you're the most biased poster on here who can never see past a fucking flag
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Am I imagining things or has this thread been edited big time ???
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
And for the umpteenth time... I haven't argued that JCC doesn't belong in the HOF... have I.
Quote:
Just not on "god status".
I somehow don’t feel he is given a god status like Manny Pacquiao. All I read in the news is that he was a HOF guy and that was it.
Quote:
Clever, but inappropriate. You can't compare a boxer fighting tomato cans and padding his professional record to a Wall Street upstart with a knack for picking stocks. It doesn't work that way, and comes across as a gigantic reach. But nice try
Then just stop to think about your typical boxer out there. How much experience does he have? Typically, more than 100 amateur fights, golden glove exposure, olympic exposure, and so on. So when a guy with no amateur career what so ever or other kind of exposure goes pro right from the start you are pretty much having an amateur guy with no experience facing guys with double/triple the experience. So if a guy like that has a belt already by fight #50, you are seeing an amateur with barely 50 fights as a champion. A newbie/rookie beating guys who have way more experience/exposure than him. As simple as that.
As for the 100 fights. I am not saying that is an accomplishment. There are guys who have way more fights in their resume but haven’t accomplished squat as JCC. Should it matter if JCC has 500 or 35 fights? What matters are his accomplishments (which MilMascaras mentioned).
Don’t pay attention to how many fights he has, pay attention to his accomplishments and if you agree he does have some admirable accomplishments then, there you go! Now you know why he’s a Hall of Famer.
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
Quote:
And for the umpteenth time... I haven't argued that JCC doesn't belong in the HOF... have I.
Quote:
Just not on "god status".
I somehow don’t feel he is given a god status like Manny Pacquiao. All I read in the news is that he was a HOF guy and that was it.
Quote:
Clever, but inappropriate. You can't compare a boxer fighting tomato cans and padding his professional record to a Wall Street upstart with a knack for picking stocks. It doesn't work that way, and comes across as a gigantic reach. But nice try
Then just stop to think about your typical boxer out there. How much experience does he have? Typically, more than 100 amateur fights, golden glove exposure, olympic exposure, and so on. So when a guy with no amateur career what so ever or other kind of exposure goes pro right from the start you are pretty much having an amateur guy with no experience facing guys with double/triple the experience. So if a guy like that has a belt already by fight #50, you are seeing an amateur with barely 50 fights as a champion. A newbie/rookie beating guys who have way more experience/exposure than him. As simple as that.
As for the 100 fights. I am not saying that is an accomplishment. There are guys who have way more fights in their resume but haven’t accomplished squat as JCC. Should it matter if JCC has 500 or 35 fights? What matters are his accomplishments (which MilMascaras mentioned).
Don’t pay attention to how many fights he has, pay attention to his accomplishments and if you agree he does have some admirable accomplishments then, there you go! Now you know why he’s a Hall of Famer.
that's right, you're not making the 100 wins thing as an accomplishment, milmascaras is, and that's who Titofan called out on that crap, there are plenty of fighters out there who had had little amateur experience and gone on to have solid careers, hell in the days of John L. Sullivan and James J. Corbett there was no such thing as amateur boxing, no one is debating whether he's a hall of famer, don't get why you and mascaras can't process that bit of information
-
Re: The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
titofan,
your outrageous denial of chavez' accomplishments borders on lunacy! and for the millionth time, you keep harping about chavez' 40 bums. did you or did you not know that most of the all-time greats also had their big share of bums as well? why are you only targeting chavez' record? look at some of the all-time greats, like joe louis, henry armstrong, rocky marciano, and many, many others...these guys built part of their impressive records on alot of bums with losing records.
here is what i found out of chavez' record, after he won his first world title, he fought one fighter with a losing record. this is far, far less than many of the great fighters of yesteryear. but you seem to be silent on this, i wonder why?
look, you want the truth? i'll give you the god damned truth, the truth of the matter is this, the only reason why you tend to belittle chavez' accomplishments is because he has accomplished more than all your PR champions in history! i'm sorry to tell you the truth but it just had to be said, right here, right now.
i mean the envy you, morales and other PR's have for chavez is just really sad.
the way you can't get PR out your mouth says it all, i know you wish you were a part of this great island but well you're not, Titofan and me haven't disputed any of Chavez SR's accomplishments, he's a sure fire HOF'er, but just as OTHER BIGGER NAME FIGHTERS tend to be overrated well Chavez as well is overrated a hell of a lot of times
do i agree with the original post in this thread? no, using that type of deducing you can make ANY GREAT fighter look like shit when all the FACTS prove otherwise
just cause someone does guzzle down YOUR favorite fighters balls doesn't mean that their envious, but you get pissy and have a little bitch fit everytime someone doesn't agree with you, hell the whole Chavez JR thread is proof of that, Jr is utter shit and will only reach B level success, that's MY OPINION, and it's not due to envy it's because the pussy doesn't step it up at all, he fought one of the crappiest Middleweight's in the last 10 yrs (when you can't get by an ancient Campas well you know you're crap), and now he's fighting one of the smallest fighters to come out of The Pretender (and the same dude who was stomped out by Cotto in 5, hell he was even dropped by jabs), you bitch about Donaire always fighting smaller guys, yet you're ok with Chavez Jr doing the same exact thing, actually hold that, Donaire's at least fighting decent guys in Maldonado and Concepcion, unlike Chavez Jr, both guys need to pick it up but at least one guy is in talks of fighting with one of the best Bantams in the world (Montiel) and the other is fighting a bum (Gomez), you're the most biased poster on here who can never see past a fucking flag
Donaire had a good amateur career. Chavez Jr didn't. Not to mention Donaire is foolishly place on some p4p lists. More is expected of him as he's suppose to be justifying that standing. He hasn't even come close to doing that. Bad comparison/example
