The Top 5 Fighters From the 80s and 90s

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

  1. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    I don't think he can. He knows nothing about Chang or his competition, save what he can gather from Boxrec.

    So he's either going to insult me some more (a typical tactic when you don't have anything substantive to contribute) or he's going to simply say that all little guys or Asian fighters suck (I don't know how relevant that will be, as 2 of Chang's top 3 opponents were Latin American).

     
  2. Remus

    Remus Member

    there is nothing to debate here. this arrogant fella waltzes in here with character references and a bad attitude.

    he makes assumptions i'm basing arguments on racial discrimination against asian fighters probably becasue he is a chang and/or asian fight fan with a massive chip on his shoulder. to insiunate that the comp levels in korea compare to that of mexico or the US is ludicrous.

    the fact that there was no one to fight in the US or sth america is substantial arguement to argue that the DEPTH of talent in or around that division is severly lacking. he may very well have beaten everyone there was to beat but the question remains...just how many of them was there to beat ? that is what i called flawed logic...actually more so wishful thinking.

    bottom line is simple. i may not know much about chang but the fact that you DO know plenty about him does not give you the ability to say "he is better than chavez in the 80's". chang is NOT on par with chavez in the 80's or in any era. his competition level is not on par with chavez and the depth of quality opponents at 108 odd is not there either. thats is why lopez is so heavily penalised in any all-time ranking.

    joonie, you are a pompous and pretentious insecure ass. that is not so much an insult as it is an observation from your aloof condescending posts written by a guy who's probably read plenty of books, watched plenty of videotape but never laced a glove.
     
  3. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I don't know that much about Chang's top wins but I have to say that on paper, they don't look too impressive, particularly the Torres and Chitalda wins.

    Chitalda had what 4 wins when they fought? :confused:

    German Torres was knocked out 3 times early in his career, lost to Zapata, Ursua, and to Chang 3 times. What was so special about him?

    Zapata looks to be the biggest win. He was more consistent, beat Torres, but also got KOd by Ursua.

    When I look at all of their records, I just see that Chang was the King among the litter of that time, a few of which went on to become flyweight "titlists."

    Even Mario Martinez looks like a better victory for Chavez than Chang's win over the 4 fight veteran Chitalda. A few years later, Martinez would go on to lose a disputed decision to a prime "true" all-time named Azumah Nelson.

    Ruben Castillo is another very good victory for Chavez that looks better to me than Chang's victory over Torres or Chitalda.

    Castillo was beating Alexis Arguello for 10 rounds before Arguello caught up to him.

    Castillo gave Salvador Sanchez a very good "close" 15 round fight.

    Castillo gave Laporte a good fight as well. Laporte won a 12 round decision in Puerto Rico.

    Chavez knocked him out in 6 rounds.

    Let's take a look at the rest of Chavez' competition:

    Roger Mayweather: Mayweather was a pretty good fighter in his day. Chavez knocked him out in 2 rounds and later stopped him again after Mayweather had won the WBC Light Welterweight title. Maybe it wasn't as good as the Zapata wins but it was definitely better than the Chitalda win. Again, Chitalda had 4 fights under his belt when he fought Chang.

    Rocky Lockridge: Lockridge lost a split-decision to Eusebio Pedroza, knocked out Mayweather in 1, lost a controversial decision to Wilfredo Gomez in Puerto Rico, and gave Chavez a close fight. Lockridge proved he was more than formidable. I'd rate this victory higher than any of Chang's.

    Juan Laporte: Gave Salvador Sanchez a good close fight, knocked out Lockridge in 2, lost a close fight to Eusebio Pedroza, beat Ruben Castillo, and gave Chavez a close fight. Again, another victory I'd rate over any of Chang's.

    Edwin Rosario: A heavy-handed stalker who was terrorizing the lightweight division. He beat a prime Howard Davis who was damn talented, split a couple with Jose Luis Ramirez, arguably defeated a prime Camacho Sr. (a very good fighter in his prime), made short work of Livingstone Bramble and Juan Nazario before his showdown with Chavez. Another victory I'd rate bigger than any of Chang's wins.

    Jose Luis Ramirez: Went 10 against Arguello, arguably beat Rosario both times, and beat a number of other decent fighters. I'd also rank this victory over all of Chang's. Although one can argue that Zapata was a bigger victory for Chang.

    Meldrick Taylor: Beat a prime Buddy Mcguirt and looked damn impressive on his way up to the top. His handspeed was Sugar Ray Leonardesque although his skills weren't (Who's were? Not many) In his prime, he was still a sight to behold. I'd say this victory was bigger than all of Chang's victories combined.

    Hector Camacho Sr: Camacho had only lost one fight before the Chavez fight and many were picking him to upset the Mexican champion. Camacho was one of the most talented fighters to ever step into the ring at 130. He had defeated Bazooka Limon, Jose Luis Ramirez, Edwin Rosario (though controversial), Boza Edwards, Howard Davis, Ray Mancini, prime Paziena, and Greg Haugen. Chavez gave him the worst beating he'd ever suffer and that includes his fights with Trinidad and De La Hoya. I'd rate this victory higher than any of Chang's victories.

    Greg Haugen: Prior to the Chavez fight, Haugen had defeated a prime Pazienza, was the first man to defeat Camacho, and owned a victory over Ray Mancini. Chavez made short work of him. I too would rank this victory over any of Chang's victories.

    Pernell Whittaker: Chavez clearly lost this fight but was given a gift draw. Keep in mind that Chavez was facing one of the greatest defensive fighters of all-time and a fighter who I rate in my top 15 all-time. Also, Chavez had 85 fights under his belt, was in his early 30s, and was fighting at 145. Unlike Whittaker, he never proved he could be effective above 140.

    Other facts about Chavez:

    He didn't get dropped until he had almost 90 fights under his belt and he wasn't legitamately stopped until he faced De La Hoya at 147 at the age of 36 with over 100 fights under his belt. A testatement of his great chin.

    Going through their resumes, I feel Chavez's resume is superior to Chang's. Couple this with the superior longevity that Chavez displayed throughout his career and not only do I think he's better (huge understatement IMO) than Chang but I feel he's worthy of top 20 all-time great recognition.

    [ December 01, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
     
  4. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Did you even read what I wrote?

    1. Chang did beat all the top fighters from Latin America, including virtually all of the notable Mexican junior flyweights & flyweights of the era, including Alfonso Lopez, Amado Ursua, German Torres & Sendai Montiel. I have no idea why you just keep implying that Chang just fought Koreans or even Asians.

    2. I didn't say that competition in Asia is on par with that found in the U.S. in all weights. I only make that claim in regard to the lower weights, primarily bantamweight or below.

    3. In regard to your "you are a geek" assumption, I may be. But for your information, I actually have a lot of combat training experience. I have black belts in taekwondo (no, not a mall black belt; I've competed when I was younger) & hapkido. I have also boxed--at Church St. Gym in NY.

    Well, it appears that there is no point in discussing this further. All that comes out of you are insults & more insults. And when you do respond to my substantive comments, you do not even seem to understand plain English.

    I am outta here.

     
  5. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    As for the claim of "bad attitude" & what not, for the record, this is the post that got this debate going:

    "the 80's were a chavez era. if you don't have the guy ranked in your top 5 then you aint knoweldgable as much as you are stupid.

    jung koo chang top 5 my ass."
     
  6. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Joonie, we're not all going to agree with one another. Just ignore Remus and continue to debate with the rest of us. You'll learn to like Remus. He's a hard-headed mate. :D
     
  7. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    As I said, I don't mind the disagreements. I have plenty of them at Delphi & Boxingtalk. But there is no reason to post in a forum where the moderator cannot even control personal insults. Sorry.

     
  8. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    In fact, I've probably given this forum a lot more of a chance than, say, I gave CBZ. I left there as soon as I saw this kind of stuff, despite Gordoom's pleas for me to stay. I just have no tolerance for dealing with that kind of crap.

    [ December 01, 2003, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
     
  9. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I think the only fighters in history that defeat a prime Chavez are the slick speedsters (RJJ, Ray Leonard, Sweet Pea), and boxer/maulers with a higher workrate who possessed good chins (Duran, Robinson, Armstrong). Those are just a few of the fighters I'd pick over a prime Chavez p4p. That's how great I think he was in his prime. It's a damn shame that people have forgotten how great he was once upon a time.

    [ December 01, 2003, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
     
  10. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I've already told Remus to chill. As he asked earlier, "Can't we all just get along?" :(

    [ December 01, 2003, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
     
  11. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Well, obviously, it's not doing any good.

    I mean, how hard is it to be respectful to those you are debating with?

     
  12. Remus

    Remus Member

    yes i read what you wrote and i just don't agree with you. in fcat i doubt 99% of people i know or speak with about boxing would agree with you that chang should be comparable to chavez in any way shape or form.

    rebel knows the little guys like chang better than i do and he outlines the case reasonably well. the only little guy i have ever intently followde is lopez who is one of my top 3 fighters of all time. pong is another i love and floow. but i know boxing and i know chavez and i know chavez WAS the 80's. he is CERTAINLY top 5 and i find it hard to accept him outside the top 3.

    i also know that competetion at lower weights like 108 have a lower participation rate and smaller skill vase than heavier divisions from say 126 and up, but partiuclalry the 130-147 divisions where mexicans feature so prominantly, there is an abundance of talent and competition.

    i know plenty about the comp levels becasue i was involved in youth development of boxing for many years which also included asia, (granted not korea). but the simple fact is that chang was a big fish in a small pond. chavez was the big fish in the big sea. it's easy to rule the fish tank...step out in the wide blue yonder and it's a different kettle of sih..so to speak.

    i didn't say he only fought asian fighters i simply stated that he ony fought IN asia.

    look mate, whether you stay or go is up to you. rebz reckons you're aight and wants you to stay and thats enuf for me. but i strongly disagree with your take on this issue. i can be and will be blunt, particularly in the face of what i consider to be a totally outrageous claim. and belive me, after scanning boxingtalk...i'm a hellofalot LESS blunt than most of the boys over there.
     
  13. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Remus, in Joonie's defense, he's not the only one with that opinion. He is obviously in the minority but there are many who don't think very highly of Chavez. I think it's pretty sad considering that I think the guy is a top 20 all-time great. Hey, but this is a boxing forum and we're all going to have differing opinions on various subjects. I can live with that.
     
  14. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Finito is your all-time top 3 fighter?

    So you are going to call me more names if I say Chang was better than Finito (I will make this claim a lot more confidently than Chang v. Chavez issue)?

    I have no idea why you aren't using the same competition argument for Finito.

    Finito's competition was incontestably inferior to Chang's, which even Rebel will acknowledge. Further, Chang beat his competition just as easily as Finito beat his competition in his prime.

    I wish you would be willing to learn about fighters that you don't know about.

    By the way, you could all call us idiots, but there was a thread in Boxingtalk where Chang v. Finito was discussed. All participants had seen both fighters in action. And 6 out of 7 panelists picked Chang to beat Finito. I think that should tell you something about how highly Chang is regarded by those who have seen him in his prime. The guy was simply untouchable in his prime.

    [ December 01, 2003, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
     
  15. Remus

    Remus Member

    the taylor and whittaker fights in particular are big reasons for that and to a lesser degree the Randall TD... but they were NOT in the 80's. they are irrelavnt to this debate.

    anyway, as you said...different strokes for different folks.
     
  16. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    We've had this discussion before. I do agree that Chang's comp was better but that still doesn't mean I would pick Chang over Finito. Maybe I will after I watch more Chang, who knows. I've seen a lot of fighters in my days and Finito looked like perfection to me in his prime. His greatness lies in how easily he defeated world-class fighters. Mind you, he wasn't always facing great opposition but he mowed down everything the 105 pound division had to offer and then left no doubt when he fought Alvarez past his prime above the flyweight limit. [​IMG]

    As I become more familiar with the flyweight competition of the 80s, my perceptions may change. I'm open to edification if it is there to be absorbed.

    [ December 01, 2003, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
     
  17. Remus

    Remus Member

    [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]
     
  18. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I think Taylor would've beaten a lot of fighters on that night. I'm probably in the minority there also.

    As I stated before, Whittaker would've made almost anyone in history look foolish. Look what he did to Hoya years later. LOL

    The Randall fights took place when Chavez was clearly past his prime.

    Whittaker is in my top 15 all-time and Chavez isn't too far behind him.

    [ December 01, 2003, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
     
  19. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    "assessing a fighter historically can sometimes be done without even seeing a guy fight. their records and performances speak for themselves."

    Not necessarily. One important monkey wrench is the presence of "controversial decisions." In particular, boxing in Asia is unfortunately so corrupt that there are extraordinary number of bad decisions, usually for the hometown guy but not always so. As an Australian, you must be familiar with them, as Australia is the location of the possibly the most infamous robbery in professional championship history.

    Let me give you an example. When I 1st started posting in Delphi, I got into a heated exchange with some people who thought Chitalada was a great fighter on the basis of what they saw in Boxrec & what they read in Western press. I retorted that Chitalada was given numerous gifts (Bernal II, Yong-Kang Kim II, Chang II) & that his record was extremely misleading. I took a lot of abuse for that. But when the same guys actually saw the fights themselves, well, they retracted.
     
  20. Remus

    Remus Member

    thats my point...all of those fights were NOT in the 80's. not relevant and cannot be held against jcc when assessing him for that decade.
     

Share This Page