Who is your favorite fighter of all-time and what is your favorite fight of him?

Man there is not a person in the world including Chavez and stevie wonder that had that fight even or for Chavez. Chavez clearly took a ass whipping, and he knew it, his body language as the fight drew near showed he was simply frusterated because he knew he lost. AS for my favorite...Leonard. His loss with Duran, and his victory over Hearns...are my two favorites. Well mr now it all....Me and 2 judges that count Did. So chavez & stevie can kiss my ass.

After watching the fight again I scored it 114-114 with rounds (1,2,5,6,9,12) for Chavez and (3,4,7,8,10,11) for whitaker. With a couple of notes...... 1 Hitting on the thigh for chavez (low) 3 times 2 Low blows by Whitaker in rounds 6,8,10,11, some rounds where he hit em twice. Notice the same rounds he was hitting low where the ones he won? 3 Headbutt by whitaker that produced small cut on Chavez's nose in round 12 4 One round Whitaker pushed Joe Cortez..... He could have taken a point. 5 my favorite.... When Micheal Angelo finishes singing the national Anthem he says "VAMOS CHAVEZ" hahahaha that was funny. Post thought.... If Chavez wouldn't have been chasing Whitaker there would have been no fight. And if they were not both Champs all those low blows would have warranted a deduction of points, but I know how the Champ sometimes gets a lil favoritism..... Whitaker was defending his welterweight belt. Man there is not a person in the world including Chavez and stevie wonder that had that fight even or for Chavez. Chavez clearly took a ass whipping, and he knew it, his body language as the fight drew near showed he was simply frusterated because he knew he lost. AS for my favorite...Leonard. His loss with Duran, and his victory over Hearns...are my two favorites.

You do make a lot of good points old friend, unlike the other guy, and I can respect that, but.....Plan B or "running" as I say, did work because when going toe to toe he wasn't doing too good. Both men fouled but sweet peas low blows where fucking flaygrant (or how ever you spell that shit) . Who was it that said "In boxing anything goes as long as the ref doesn't catch you"? But God damn he straight used his nuts as a pear! And giving Whitaker "8 ROUNDS at LEAST"!!!!!! That just shows Bias, when the Texan judge only had him winning by 1 round 115-113. By the end of the first 6 rounds I only had whitaker winning 2 rounds, 3 and 4, and then coming strong in the last 6 rounds winning 7, 8, 10 and 11 . Now what you said about cleaner and more significant punches.... I score ROUNDS in that manner and whatever the sum of those points are is what they are. I've seen fights where , like chavez taylor, Chavez had beat Taylor to a pulp yet was losing the rounds. So I understand that point of view. It all goes back to what I was saying about the old way..... Let them go at it until 1 quits!!!! hahaha If Taylor chavez would have gone another round Taylor would have gotten ko'd and the points wouldn't have mattered. In this case it is hard to tell who could have won that fight, Whitaker was luring him into walking into those power punches but chavez was also landing, And who could say with whitakers power if he could hurt Chavez, like the commentators where saying "IF whitaker had power, Maybe Chavez wouldn't have finished" . So that is in fact an issue, did Chavez not mind getting hit with pea's "POWER PUNCHES" as long as he could get his? I'd love to see the way you have the rounds scored. Whitaker did pick up a lot of steam towards the end of the fight. And Pushing the ref could get you discualified can't it? No doubt, it's good to get in some conversation about a classic fight like this with someone who actually wants to break down the fight. I have always said that I had Whitaker winning 9-3 or something to that effect, but I couldn't give specific rounds unless I went back and watched the fight. I know he virtually swept the middle and late rounds...really heating up after the first couple of rounds were in the books. Pretty much I gave Chavez an early round, a middle round and a late round based on him bearing down on Whitaker with bodyshots and the occasional right hand upstairs. I just never saw Chavez sustain an effective attack. Maybe that fooled me into giving Whitaker an extra round or something, but I think I was right for the most part. Chavez was never able to keep effective pressure on Whitaker for more than a few brief instances at a time. He'd land a punch, miss a few, and then he'd eat a counter and Whitaker would get away and go back to the jab. It became a "rinse and repeat" type of thing after ahwile. Chavez just had no answers at range or inside. The punches he did land were much different than in the Taylor fight as far as piling up damage is concerned. Whitaker was such a crafty defensive fighter. He knew how to take steam off Chavez' punches with subtle moves. He knew how to position his body and how to move to turn punches which would be effective otherwise into glancing shots. It'd be nice if some fights had the 15 round limit back, just so we could really see who was meant to triumph, but I don't think this fight we're discussing qualifies. Whitaker had the legs to move for 3 more rounds and he had the smarts to continue throwing hands with Chavez for as long as needed. If there's one thing we know about Whitaker now which wasn't conventional wisdom around the time of the Chavez fight, it's that he was a tough motherfucker. That's why he's my favorite fighter of all-time. He was a supremely skilled man with quite possibly the best defense of all-time, but he was also very tough, proud and somewhat ruthless.

Diego Corrales vs. Jose Luis Castillo (May 7, 2005) A night I will never forget Same here...

Right now favorite fighter is Pacman. Favorite fight was Marquez 2 and Morales 2. He is fighting the top fighters in the game today and winning.

I was going to read this big block of text but then I've already wasted enough time on this. My offer still stands....if you can find a single boxing writer who thought Chavez won that fight you can have all my points. You are Lame. How are you gonna say you've wasted enough time on this, yet keep at it trying to get me to look for something that I never said in the first place. This is a case of SELF OWNAGE!!!!

You do make a lot of good points old friend, unlike the other guy, and I can respect that, but.....Plan B or "running" as I say, did work because when going toe to toe he wasn't doing too good. Both men fouled but sweet peas low blows where fucking flaygrant (or how ever you spell that shit) . Who was it that said "In boxing anything goes as long as the ref doesn't catch you"? But God damn he straight used his nuts as a pear! And giving Whitaker "8 ROUNDS at LEAST"!!!!!! That just shows Bias, when the Texan judge only had him winning by 1 round 115-113. By the end of the first 6 rounds I only had whitaker winning 2 rounds, 3 and 4, and then coming strong in the last 6 rounds winning 7, 8, 10 and 11 . Now what you said about cleaner and more significant punches.... I score ROUNDS in that manner and whatever the sum of those points are is what they are. I've seen fights where , like chavez taylor, Chavez had beat Taylor to a pulp yet was losing the rounds. So I understand that point of view. It all goes back to what I was saying about the old way..... Let them go at it until 1 quits!!!! hahaha If Taylor chavez would have gone another round Taylor would have gotten ko'd and the points wouldn't have mattered. In this case it is hard to tell who could have won that fight, Whitaker was luring him into walking into those power punches but chavez was also landing, And who could say with whitakers power if he could hurt Chavez, like the commentators where saying "IF whitaker had power, Maybe Chavez wouldn't have finished" . So that is in fact an issue, did Chavez not mind getting hit with pea's "POWER PUNCHES" as long as he could get his? I'd love to see the way you have the rounds scored. Whitaker did pick up a lot of steam towards the end of the fight. And Pushing the ref could get you discualified can't it? I was going to read this big block of text but then I've already wasted enough time on this. My offer still stands....if you can find a single boxing writer who thought Chavez won that fight you can have all my points.

Aaron Pryor and his fight against Antonio Cervantes where he was dropped in the first but came back to Knock Antonio out. My user title is dedicated to him. Why didn't I put him in my sig? I still ask myself that question.

I usually try not to hear the commentators when watching fight's, I like making my own scores without influence. I can't stand Merchant or Ledderman anyways. Sometimes I can be BIAS but it's rare....I'm known for my extreme dislike of fighters like Whitaker, Wright, Magic Man, and Sometimes Mayweather, to name a few. I like talking or debating about boxing and can accept peoples points when justified. THIS IS WHY I JOINED! to have intelligent debates with people ........and sometimes get a little ignorant lol. So thanks OLDGRINGO for being grown and doing this shit right.

Alfonso, Whitaker schooled Chavez in the most pure form of boxing, hit and don't get hit. He took the most celebrated fighter of that time and stripped him of everything he was known for. Like Haugen and Ramirez before him, Chavez was reduced to a tough fighter looking to get lucky against a master boxer. Whitaker controlled him with the jab, outfoxed him inside and had Chavez walking into power punches on several occasions. He landed the cleaner, more significant scoring punches in the fight. The telling aspect of this that you are missing is "effectiveness". If Chavez was coming forward the whole fight and it was taking Pernell way out of his comfort zone, to the point where Pea wasn't throwing back or was falling apart, that would be effective. This wasn't the case though. He was coming forward but he wasn't forcing Whitaker to change and he certainly wasn't hurting him, therefore he was not effective. Calling Whitaker's defensive approach in that fight "running" is overdoing it. Pernell made Chavez miss while standing in front of him in many spots, ultimately moving backward to establish a comfortable range to punch. It was FAR from some of the notable fights where one fighter has "ran" from the other or has used a substantial amount of movement (Arce/Ler, Whitaker/Diaz, Dirrell/Stevens). When Whitaker was using his legs, he had Chavez walking into punches and constantly eating the double jab. Whitaker was not one to run around the whole fight, pot-shotting his opponents from the outside. Look at his fights with Jorge Paez, Buddy McGirt and JC Vazquez. He often made bigger, stronger opponents miss while he was standing right in front of them. Did it with them crazy reflexes. More sensationalizing. He was beating him like he stole something huh? What you call running, I call moving to plan B. Plan B worked like a charm too because Whitaker won at least 8 rounds in that fight. As for the low blow stuff, both men were fouling during that fight. They both had a bit of a mean streak, so it was natural that a few rough tactics were going to factor in. Whitaker landed low, Chavez landed low, Whitaker hit on the break, Chavez hit on the break. I can remember Chavez landing on Whitaker's legs and hips and shit on many occasions with full force behind em. Not like some 'Nard hip punches in clinches....I'm talking power punches. You do make a lot of good points old friend, unlike the other guy, and I can respect that, but.....Plan B or "running" as I say, did work because when going toe to toe he wasn't doing too good. Both men fouled but sweet peas low blows where fucking flaygrant (or how ever you spell that shit) . Who was it that said "In boxing anything goes as long as the ref doesn't catch you"? But God damn he straight used his nuts as a pear! And giving Whitaker "8 ROUNDS at LEAST"!!!!!! That just shows Bias, when the Texan judge only had him winning by 1 round 115-113. By the end of the first 6 rounds I only had whitaker winning 2 rounds, 3 and 4, and then coming strong in the last 6 rounds winning 7, 8, 10 and 11 . Now what you said about cleaner and more significant punches.... I score ROUNDS in that manner and whatever the sum of those points are is what they are. I've seen fights where , like chavez taylor, Chavez had beat Taylor to a pulp yet was losing the rounds. So I understand that point of view. It all goes back to what I was saying about the old way..... Let them go at it until 1 quits!!!! hahaha If Taylor chavez would have gone another round Taylor would have gotten ko'd and the points wouldn't have mattered. In this case it is hard to tell who could have won that fight, Whitaker was luring him into walking into those power punches but chavez was also landing, And who could say with whitakers power if he could hurt Chavez, like the commentators where saying "IF whitaker had power, Maybe Chavez wouldn't have finished" . So that is in fact an issue, did Chavez not mind getting hit with pea's "POWER PUNCHES" as long as he could get his? I'd love to see the way you have the rounds scored. Whitaker did pick up a lot of steam towards the end of the fight. And Pushing the ref could get you discualified can't it?

Mike Tyson and his second fight agains Bruno

Alfonso, Whitaker schooled Chavez in the most pure form of boxing, hit and don't get hit. He took the most celebrated fighter of that time and stripped him of everything he was known for. Like Haugen and Ramirez before him, Chavez was reduced to a tough fighter looking to get lucky against a master boxer. Whitaker controlled him with the jab, outfoxed him inside and had Chavez walking into power punches on several occasions. He landed the cleaner, more significant scoring punches in the fight. The telling aspect of this that you are missing is "effectiveness". If Chavez was coming forward the whole fight and it was taking Pernell way out of his comfort zone, to the point where Pea wasn't throwing back or was falling apart, that would be effective. This wasn't the case though. He was coming forward but he wasn't forcing Whitaker to change and he certainly wasn't hurting him, therefore he was not effective. Calling Whitaker's defensive approach in that fight "running" is overdoing it. Pernell made Chavez miss while standing in front of him in many spots, ultimately moving backward to establish a comfortable range to punch. It was FAR from some of the notable fights where one fighter has "ran" from the other or has used a substantial amount of movement (Arce/Ler, Whitaker/Diaz, Dirrell/Stevens). When Whitaker was using his legs, he had Chavez walking into punches and constantly eating the double jab. Whitaker was not one to run around the whole fight, pot-shotting his opponents from the outside. Look at his fights with Jorge Paez, Buddy McGirt and JC Vazquez. He often made bigger, stronger opponents miss while he was standing right in front of them. Did it with them crazy reflexes. More sensationalizing. He was beating him like he stole something huh? What you call running, I call moving to plan B. Plan B worked like a charm too because Whitaker won at least 8 rounds in that fight. As for the low blow stuff, both men were fouling during that fight. They both had a bit of a mean streak, so it was natural that a few rough tactics were going to factor in. Whitaker landed low, Chavez landed low, Whitaker hit on the break, Chavez hit on the break. I can remember Chavez landing on Whitaker's legs and hips and shit on many occasions with full force behind em. Not like some 'Nard hip punches in clinches....I'm talking power punches. some solid shit right here

Alfonso, Whitaker schooled Chavez in the most pure form of boxing, hit and don't get hit. He took the most celebrated fighter of that time and stripped him of everything he was known for. Like Haugen and Ramirez before him, Chavez was reduced to a tough fighter looking to get lucky against a master boxer. Whitaker controlled him with the jab, outfoxed him inside and had Chavez walking into power punches on several occasions. He landed the cleaner, more significant scoring punches in the fight. I think the whole "Ring Generalship" thing is BULLSHIT. If 1 runs the other follows because if they both run then it's a no contest! How the fuck can anyone explain this..... If you are going forwards you are the aggresor, right.... But if you go backwards then your " BOXING" or counter puching and leading the pace and so how the fuck can you win an arguement that has 2 views yet both are good? You have to be BIAS. The telling aspect of this that you are missing is "effectiveness". If Chavez was coming forward the whole fight and it was taking Pernell way out of his comfort zone, to the point where Pea wasn't throwing back or was falling apart, that would be effective. This wasn't the case though. He was coming forward but he wasn't forcing Whitaker to change and he certainly wasn't hurting him, therefore he was not effective. Calling Whitaker's defensive approach in that fight "running" is overdoing it. Pernell made Chavez miss while standing in front of him in many spots, ultimately moving backward to establish a comfortable range to punch. It was FAR from some of the notable fights where one fighter has "ran" from the other or has used a substantial amount of movement (Arce/Ler, Whitaker/Diaz, Dirrell/Stevens). When Whitaker was using his legs, he had Chavez walking into punches and constantly eating the double jab. Whitaker was not one to run around the whole fight, pot-shotting his opponents from the outside. Look at his fights with Jorge Paez, Buddy McGirt and JC Vazquez. He often made bigger, stronger opponents miss while he was standing right in front of them. Did it with them crazy reflexes. I just don't see Whitaker "DOMINATING" like you say, watch that shit again...the first 2 rounds Whitaker stood toe to toe with Chavez and was getting beat like he stole somthing, so he resorted to running. More sensationalizing. He was beating him like he stole something huh? What you call running, I call moving to plan B. Plan B worked like a charm too because Whitaker won at least 8 rounds in that fight. I wish I knew how to use my programs and edit videos n shit but I'd show you how many times he threw low blows, and yeah chavez would make faces ...I would too If I got socked in the Nuts! To quote Steve Albert that was commenting the fight " Woah... that one was down near Culiacan!!!!" . That was about the 5th one the commentators mentioned. Watch the fight and tell me if them low blows didn't influence the outcome of the rounds they happened in As for the low blow stuff, both men were fouling during that fight. They both had a bit of a mean streak, so it was natural that a few rough tactics were going to factor in. Whitaker landed low, Chavez landed low, Whitaker hit on the break, Chavez hit on the break. I can remember Chavez landing on Whitaker's legs and hips and shit on many occasions with full force behind em. Not like some 'Nard hip punches in clinches....I'm talking power punches.

Azumah Nelson Nelson vs. Fenech II A simply masterful performance.

This sums it up well... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2786103&type=story Between the 10th and 11th rounds, things had become so desperate for Chavez that his cornerman lifted his 3-year-old son onto the apron in an effort to exhort him. But it was no use, as Whitaker controlled the ring. The battle in the trenches -- and everywhere else -- belonged to Whitaker.

It was a close fight You have to be BIAS I see a connection

Man I love Chavez, and I agree with you that there is nothing better than old school throw back boxing. Just toe to toe, man to man. But Whitaker schooled JCC! When Julio Cesar Chavez is being hurt by body shots, you know he has lost the fight :P. The only thing more sickening than the desicion were the helacious body shots Pernell was landing http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/slotff/box_g_chavez_whitaker_sq_300.jpg I wish I knew how to use my programs and edit videos n shit but I'd show you how many times he threw low blows, and yeah chavez would make faces ...I would too If I got socked in the Nuts! To quote Steve Albert that was commenting the fight " Woah... that one was down near Culiacan!!!!" . That was about the 5th one the commentators mentioned. Watch the fight and tell me if them low blows didn't influence the outcome of the rounds they happened in. It was a close fight but by no way a schooling or punking of Chavez. I think the whole "Ring Generalship" thing is BULLSHIT. If 1 runs the other follows because if they both run then it's a no contest! How the fuck can anyone explain this..... If you are going forwards you are the aggresor, right.... But if you go backwards then your " BOXING" or counter puching and leading the pace and so how the fuck can you win an arguement that has 2 views yet both are good? You have to be BIAS. tell me this ...2 guys fight, 4 ways the pace is set. Fighter A going forward fighter B going forward, Fighter A going forward Fighter B going Backward, Fighter A going Backward fighter B going forward, and Both going Backwards (a no contest).If you can't go forwards how can you control the fight?????? By running you yeild to aggresion.

Lennox. Either the Tommy Morrison fight or Rahman rematch.

Lennox Lewis....Lewis vs Bruno...Lewis showed heart and came back to beat Bruno.

sugar ray L. vs duran,hearns & hagler all were classic battle prime odlh vs. Quartey was awesome :boxing: