Life On Mars?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Rep Power: 60
Total Points: 214,808,672,891,841.59
Ok, now, there was nothing in my post denigrating Chavez. I'm simply pointing out how stacked a top-20 to top-50 really is. For some reason it seems to fashionable to see a ranking of fighter someone likes as "dissing" said fighter by not ranking them in a bracket suitably high enough for that fan's liking. The truth is, there's a lot of competition for those top-20, top-50, top-100 slots. Are you going to denigrate the accomplishments and abilities of those fighters you drop? That's a pretty stacked list I gave. Everyone of those fighters has a legit claim for top-20 to top-50 status. Given how great those fighters are how is it somehow shameful to Chavez for any of those names to be ranked ahead of him?
Originally Posted by danthepoetman
Poet, Chavez was one of the two best fighters in the world for close to 10 years. A 4 division champion (letís make it two for what things were like in the past). He also was the most active champion of his era by far, and went 86 fights without a defeat. He was one of the best body punchers ever and is very probably the best Mexican fighter ever. He has beaten amongst many others Ruben Castillo, Roger Mayweather, Juan Laporte, Rocky Lockridge, Sammy Fuentes, Rafael Limon, Mario Martinez, Greg Haugen, Hector Camacho, Edwin Rosario, Jose Luis Ramirez, Meldrick Taylor (yes! he did!). Do I think he should fit in there? Öyeah! I do.
In my opinion, Chavez should be ranked at the bottom of a top 20. For argumentís sake, I could accept to see him at 25 or maybe even at 30, but I think itís ridiculous to give in for that present fashion in denigrating the accomplishment of that great champion. Thatís one thing I donít like with us, boxing fans, at times: I find weíre a bit too fast on criticizing people who have given us so much passion at such a high price. I suggest we donít do that for Julio Cesar Chavez, and not anymore for any great champion.