The Case Against Julio Cesar Chavez

[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.

[El Kabong]

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

[Violent Demise]

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

[bchristian620]

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....

[Spicoli]

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.

[Manju]

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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[Master]

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.

[Violent Demise]

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

[TitoFan]

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.

[Julius Rain]

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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[holmcall]

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.

That's fine piece of work.

[milmascaras1]

morales,

where did i make a big deal about chavez having over 100 wins? i might has put it out there to show his overall career record, but i didn't make a great deal about it.

what i did do was show that before his first loss at 89-0-1, he had been a world champion for over nine years. he already had 23 successful world title defenses. how many people in history can claim this? what i did say was he holds the all-time record of 27 successful title defenses, most title fights (37), didn't lose until his 15th year as a pro, most title defenses at jr. welter (16).

and yet you chavez haters write him off as if he was some kind of overrated fighter.

again, name me any fighter alive today (active or retired), who can claim these accomplishments!

[ElTerribleMorales]

morales,

where did i make a big deal about chavez having over 100 wins? i might has put it out there to show his overall career record, but i didn't make a great deal about it.

what i did do was show that before his first loss at 89-0-1, he had been a world champion for over nine years. he already had 23 successful world title defenses. how many people in history can claim this? what i did say was he holds the all-time record of 27 successful title defenses, most title fights (37), didn't lose until his 15th year as a pro, most title defenses at jr. welter (16).

and yet you chavez haters write him off as if he was some kind of overrated fighter.

again, name me any fighter alive today (active or retired), who can claim these accomplishments!

so now a person is a "hater" when they state that a certain fighter is overrated....spoken like a true fanboy