The Top 5 Fighters From the 80s and 90s

Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Rebel, Nov 27, 2003.

  1. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I disagree with you there. I think a lot of people denigrate Chavez as a great fighter because they hated him during his prime. The controversial win over Taylor further punctuated their hatred for him.

    Chavez was a world class fighter for over a decade. During half of that time, not only was he considered the Man in his division, but one of the top 3 fighters in the world. He beat everyone that there was to beat in his weight class. What more could you ask for?

    Say what you will, but during his prime, his greatness was often doubted. I recall people picking fighters like Rosario, Camacho, Haugen, and Taylor to defeat him. Like Joe Louis, Monzon, and Larry Holmes, he might've not beaten a true prime great but he chopped down a plethora of quality world class fighters one after the other for the better part of a decade spanning three weight classes. You can't take that away from him.

    I rate Louis, Monzon, and Holmes highly therefore Chavez must rank highly as well. Chavez was the greatest Mexican fighter of all-time and it's a shame that today many fight fans don't see it.

    [ November 30, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
  2. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    We've had this debate at Boxingtalk. We have a different rating criterion & Chavez doesn't fare well under those. I think a number of Mexican fighters were better than Chavez as well, including Sanchez & Zarate.

  3. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    It just pisses me off that the guy is calling me stupid because I don't rate Chavez as high as he does & then takes a pot shot at Chang for no reason, when he knows jackshit about Chang--esp. when the guys who rated him high have forgotten more boxing than he will ever know in his lifetime.

    [ November 30, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
  4. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Remus is a cool dude Joonie. You'll find that out soon enough.

    I've watched tons of Chavez, Sanchez, and Zarate, and Chavez stood out as the greater fighter. His body of work and longevity speaks for itself.

    If you rate Monzon highly then Chavez must rate high too. Monzon never beat a prime great but he was damn dominant against world class quality fighters.
  5. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Again, our differences reflect our differences in rating methodology & tastes. Sanchez & Zarate had relatively short careers compared to Chavez. But I think they were better at their peak. Sanchez dismantling Gomez & beating Nelson or Zarate running rough-shod over Zamora is far more impressive than any of Chavez's top performances. Gomez, Nelson & Zamora were better than any fighters that Chavez beat (Meldrick included). By the way, again, I think I am consistent. I rate some other guys who achieved longevity lower comparatively as well, guys like Archie Moore & Zaragoza [​IMG] But you know that.

  6. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I would've taken Chavez to dismantle Gomez, Nelson, and Zamora. [​IMG]
  7. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Pound-per-pound? It's real tough to do those type of match-ups, as I have said. I don't speculate on fights between guys with wide disparity in weight. I think Nelson is the only legitimate fantasy match-up subject here for Chavez.

  8. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    He knows jackshit about Chang & what the fuck is "Chang, my ass" comment for? Especially when I do not myself rate him as a top 5 fighter from the decade.

    But since he is utterly ignorant, let me be concise: Chang fought arguably the best competition of any junior flyweight/flyweight since at least Canto. And he lost 1 fight in his prime, a controversial decision to Zapata, a fight where he went in with a severe foot injury. Otherwise, not only did he beat everyone in front of him, Zapata (return match), Chitalada, Torres, Tokashiki, et al., but no one really even came close to beating him. He looked as unbeatable as Finito did against his opposition except Chang faced far superior opposition.

    [ November 30, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
  9. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Well you know that I agree with you that Chang is a HOFer although I disagree with the "partier" argument which cuts his prime short. It's not just with Chang but with others who argue their faves were no longer prime in their early 20s due to partying. Tyson fans are the worst. :D

    [ November 30, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
  10. Remus

    Remus Member

    lets break it down here shall we ? if you disagree then YOU justify it. you justify how the fuck chang is a greater fighter than cahvez was in the '80's.

    jung-WHO chang and chavez started their careers at roughly the same time.

    the records:
    jung-WHO: 38-1
    JCC: 68-0, (meldrick taylor and associated controversy does not come into the 80's)

    ADVANTAGE: CHAVEZ by a country mile.

    the circuits:

    JCC fights in arguabley the toughest boxing circuit on Earth and then follows it up by going to the most skilled boxing platform on Earth being the USA and dominates there winning titles in 3 divisions.

    chang fights only in asia, only in one division and only ONCE in his whole career did he travel out of his native Korea.

    ADVANTAGE: JCC pisses on chang

    Comp levels:

    both cut their teeth on cannon fodder but as aforementioned, mexico and the USA Vs Korea...aahh dahhh...obvious where the greater opposition levels are don't ya think ?


    EDITED becasue i was being a mean nasty boogie man.

    [ December 01, 2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Remus ]
  11. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Okay, because of Angel's request, I will at least play the fool one more time & assume that you are willing to listen.

    First of all, I never claimed that Chang was a better fighter than Chavez. Neither Chang or Chavez are on my top 5 80s fighters lists. I was instead merely objecting to your claim that anyone who doesn't have Chavez must be idiots.

    So if you want to get a comprehensive explanation on why Chang was better than Chavez, you should ask the Boxingtalk/Delphi posters who posted their lists. You can find them easily; they are all prolific posters there: Boswelled, Saldivar & Gensu (Gensu only posts at Delphi).

    However, I do think that a reasonable case can be made that Chang was at least as good as Chavez. I will even use the same criterion you used to compare.


    Chavez: 68-0

    Chang: He was 37-1 before he retired the 1st time. One can easily say that his record was 38-0, since the 1st Zapata fight was a gift.

    In my opinion, they were both undefeated in their prime. You may say that still Chavez's record is superior because he has almost twice as many wins. But I think these type of pure numerical analysis is meaningless, as Samson Dutch Boy would be the greatest fighter ever under that criterion. Analysis of record must be supplemented with analysis of competition, plus analysis of what happened in the key fights.


    You claim that Chavez has the clear edge (in more graphic & tasteless language) because he fought in America, whereas Chang fought in Asia. This just betrays either or both 1. your ignorance of the lower weights and/or 2. your prejudice against Asian fighters. We are not talking about heavyweights. If Chang were a heavyweight & fought only in Asia, then your claim would stick better. But traditionally Asia & Latin America had the deepest competition in terms of flyweights. Who was the last great American flyweight? Fidel LaBarba. And he has been retired for the last 70 years! Is there an American fighter during Chang's prime who was worth fighting? The answer is a resounding "NO"!


    I don't know how much you know about the junior flyweight & flyweight circuit in the early & mid 80s, but Chang incontestably fought the best competition among flyweight greats at least since Canto. He beat 2 guys who are considered borderline all-time flyweight greats in Zapata & Chitalada. German Torres was arguably better than Carbajal; it was his bad fortune to run into both Chang & Zapata in his prime. Altogether, Chang beat 5 former or future flyweight titlists & 4 junior flyweight titlists. In my opinion, Chang has the edge in competition for 2 reasons. The 3 best fighters Chang beat: Zapata, Chitalada & Torres were better than the 3 best fighters Chavez beat: Rosario, Lopez & LaPorte. Further, Chang beat his best competition far more easily than Chavez beat his best competition. The Zapata return was a blow-out, 2 of the 3 Torres fights were shut-outs where Torres barely hung on in the end & the 1st Chitalada fight was a shut-out until Chitalada intentionally butted & blinded Chang. In contrast, with the exception of the Rosario fight, Chavez didn't beat his best competition as easily.

    [ December 01, 2003, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
  12. Remus

    Remus Member

    if you can't TAKE it...don't dish it out Joonie.

    I am going to refrain from taking you to pieces out of respect for rebz.
  13. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    1. I didn't insult you; you did. I never call people names unless I am sufficiently provoked.

    2. "Play the fool" in this context simply means that I trust Angel in spite of what has already happened here & believe his assurances that people would be respectful in their debates with me here.

    Again, I don't have anything to prove here. Respected boxing writers come to me for information on Asian boxers. In every boxing forum I post in, I am respected for what I bring to the table. I have not only seen more Asian boxing than anyone this side of the Pacific, but I also know many fighters personally (let me tell you something: I am a lawyer & Chi's camp has approached me about helping them out in possible future match-ups with Marquez or other American fighters). I am here to impart what I know about Asian boxing but if you are not going to respect me, there is no reason for me to waste my time.

    [ December 01, 2003, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
  14. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Joonie, you know I disagree with you so here goes. I think you short change Chavez in a lot of areas.

    1. The man was 85+ before he suffered the first blemish on his record. I put great emphasis on longevity. Not many fighters have gone that many fights before losing. Keep in mind that he wasn't padding his record in Europe somewhere. He was fighting the best the world had to offer.

    2. IMO Chavez's best wins came against Mayweather, Laporte, Lockridge, Rosario, Ramirez, Taylor, Haugen, and Camacho. He beat the top fighters in and around his weight class.

    I think Chang and other lesser flyweight greats are lucky in that they didn't have to fight speedster African-Americans like Meldrick Taylor, a tough fight for anyone.

    You brought up Samson Dutch Boy, but can you honestly say he fought the best that his weight class had to offer?

    3. You already know I disagree with you about a fighter's prime being cut short due to the "partying" argument.

    4. Going by your criteria, Chang is a greater fighter than Monzon, Holmes, and Louis. Do you rate him higher than those 3 also?

    [ December 01, 2003, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
  15. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Angel, come on. I have never argued that Chang was a better fighter than Chavez; Boswelled, Saldivar & Gensu did. But this guy is making Chang sounds like he was some Asian bum that I am elevating for no reason. That ain't so. What I am merely saying is that his analysis of Chang v. Chavez according to his criteria is flawed.

  16. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    "2. IMO Chavez's best wins came against Mayweather, Laporte, Lockridge, Rosario, Ramirez, Taylor, Haugen, and Camacho. He beat the top fighters in and around his weight class."

    I am ignoring a lot of guys you mention simply because this is a debate about 80s.
  17. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    One thing I can't understand is how some people have Sanchez ranked in their top 20 yet tear down Chavez by saying that he got a gift against Taylor and struggled against Laporte and Lockridge. LOL

    I seriously think many of those individuals are blinded by hatred that they've always harbored towards Chavez.

    If you objectively take a look at both fighters, you'll see that Chavez was greater. Sanchez only had 2 major wins, didn't have the longevity, and he struggled against many good but not great opponents. Sanchez is allowed to struggle with Ruben Castillo (Chavez blew him out in a few rounds) but Chavez isn't allowed to struggle a bit with Laporte? LOL

    BTW, I had Chavez winning both the Laporte and Lockridge fights convincingly.

    If you followed Chavez's career from the time he was 45-0, you'd know he was truly a great fighter. Watching him tear apart one world-class opponent after another spanning three weight classes, was truly special. No one else threw a left hook to the body like that man. He received a gift draw against Whittaker after almost 85 fights, in his early 30s, at 145, but so what? We all know Whittaker beat him and I rate Whittaker as one of the best fighter's of all-time.

    [ December 01, 2003, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
  18. Remus

    Remus Member

    i could give a fuck who asks you what. like i said, don;t dish it out if you can;t take it mate.

    if you wanna bring it bring it.
  19. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    I am not interested in getting into insult-fests.

    You asked me to give arguments as to why Chang is on par with Chavez. So I did so under your criteria.

  20. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Just debate the topic. [​IMG]

Share This Page