Is Canelo Greater than Chavez ? If he never fights Benavidez

[MikeyMike100]

If Canelo had beaten Mayweather then an argument could have been made on who was greater but he didn't so no he isn't greater than Chavez.

Both at their pinnacle and highest, shining moment, Chavez beat Taylor whereas Canelo lost to Floyd (Canelo was drained from the catchweight but again this was due to mismanagement).

Chavez pinnacle was against Whitaker and he really lost badly

[Get em up]

Lol what are they gonna do? Revoke his citizenship.

No but they could call him Gringo instead of Canelo. I'm seriously disappointed that he isn't fighting Benavidez and they should be too.

[Get em up]

Why do you care about Benavidez needing to make his own way? Dont you want to see the best fight the best. Canelo is the unidputed Super Middleweight champ and Benavidez is the most deserving of a title shot

He deserves his shot 10 fold more than Berlanga and Mungia. Hell as you said the best should fight the best and no one at 168 deserves it more.

[garfios]

I don't need to check their resumes, I actually lived it.

Nelson in his prime? How could you possibly justify that?

You're talking about domestic British level fighters and bad decisions when Sanchez arguably lost to Pat Cowdell which is the equivalent of Canelo arguably losing to Rocky Fielding or someone of that nature.

Pat did better than expected, but he didn't win that fight, and yes, Azumah (had fewer fights, but he was ready and has made his bones in the amateurs, and was one year older than Sanchez, so I believe he wasn't handicapped, both young and hungry. The fight that I think he lost was against Escobar, and he got a draw. If you're comparing Sanchez resume to canelos, and you think he's ahead of him, you have low standards for what an ATG, especially in the balls department should be, but that is what you think, so I'm not going to start a war here. I did live that too and to me that was one of the better eras in boxing, the 70's were excellent too. And yes, ginger's resume is full of old men, undersized journeymen and domestic level British fighters, time is already showing what kind of boxers canelo has fought. And please, Morales, Barrera, Finito, Marquez, Chavez, Puas, Canto, all of them fought the best of their divisions and sometimes multiple times, maybe you can tell that to some kids, but how would you respond if they ask you, why didn't fought benavidez? Or why did he wait out ggg? And why so much controversy?

[IronDanHamza]

Pat did better than expected, but he didn't win that fight, and yes, Azumah (had fewer fights, but he was ready and has made his bones in the amateurs) was one year older than Sanchez, so I believe he wasn't handicapped, both young and hungry. The fight that I think he lost was against Escobar, and he got a draw. If you're comparing Sanchez resume to canelos, and you think he's ahead of him, you have low standards for what an ATG, especially in the balls department should be, but that is what you think, so I'm not going to start a war here. I did live that too and to me that was one of the better eras in boxing, the 70's were excellent too. And yes, ginger's resume is full of old men, undersized journeymen and domestic level British fighters, time is already showing what kind of boxers canelo has fought. And please, Morales, Barrera, Finito, Marquez, Chavez, Puas, Canto, all of them fought the best of their divisions and sometimes multiple times, maybe you can tell that to some kids, but how would you respond if they ask you, why didn't fought benavidez? Or why did he wait out ggg? And why so much controversy?

You could easily argue Cowdell won that fight.

That version of Azumah Nelson, taking the fight on one weeks notice, was not in his prime. That's just a fact.

Canelo's resume is objectively better. I don't see how that's even an argument.

[SteveM]

No it's not.

Even if it was, (which it's not) Canelo's quantity is vast in comparison.

quantity is irrelevant unless its wins over quality. An then you need to take into account context, as you did with Sanchez and Nelson but how you avoided with Canelo waiting out Golovkin down at 155, avoiding Andrade, struggling against Lara (who has done what exactly ) , being totally dominated by Bivol and refusing a rematch at 168, and now avoiding Benavidez. Yes I agree Canelo is past prime - he is an old 33 - but he should give up a belt or two - his biggest 'crime' is stalling divisions - just get off the pot already

[IronDanHamza]

quantity is irrelevant unless its wins over quality. An then you need to take into account context, as you did with Sanchez and Nelson but how you avoided with Canelo waiting out Golovkin down at 155, avoiding Andrade, struggling against Lara (who has done what exactly ) , being totally dominated by Bivol and refusing a rematch at 168, and now avoiding Benavidez. Yes I agree Canelo is past prime - he is an old 33 - but he should give up a belt or two - his biggest 'crime' is stalling divisions - just get off the pot already

Except Canelo has a list of quality wins so that point doesn't make sense.

Avoid where? I wasn't asked. Canelo's win over Golovkin 2 is much better than Sanchez' over Nelson.

[El_Mero]

He's not greater the JCC right now. Fighting David won't get him there either

[billeau2]

Pat did better than expected, but he didn't win that fight, and yes, Azumah (had fewer fights, but he was ready and has made his bones in the amateurs) was one year older than Sanchez, so I believe he wasn't handicapped, both young and hungry. The fight that I think he lost was against Escobar, and he got a draw. If you're comparing Sanchez resume to canelos, and you think he's ahead of him, you have low standards for what an ATG, especially in the balls department should be, but that is what you think, so I'm not going to start a war here. I did live that too and to me that was one of the better eras in boxing, the 70's were excellent too. And yes, ginger's resume is full of old men, undersized journeymen and domestic level British fighters, time is already showing what kind of boxers canelo has fought. And please, Morales, Barrera, Finito, Marquez, Chavez, Puas, Canto, all of them fought the best of their divisions and sometimes multiple times, maybe you can tell that to some kids, but how would you respond if they ask you, why didn't fought benavidez? Or why did he wait out ggg? And why so much controversy?

Some of the things you mentioned are intangibles. Things like the era, the grit vis-à-vis the balls, things of that nature. This is why canelo's era has to pass. Some Eras in boxing are stronger, weaker, sometimes a Weight class is stronger, Etc.

you under rate canelo's level of opposition. And I also am an old head LOL. I think Chavez is overrated personally but I would never let that bias my ranking of him because I know I feel this way about him. I'm also very fond of Sanchez, ditto! My point is you don't seem very fond of Canelo LOL. Anytime anybody is of the opinion that a great fighter always fought all anything, great opponents , old opponents , Etc is biased in my opinion.

[SteveM]

Except Canelo has a list of quality wins so that point doesn't make sense.

Avoid where? I wasn't asked. Canelo's win over Golovkin 2 is much better than Sanchez' over Nelson.

that's where the context comes in to it - I'm not a Canelo hater - the guy has challenged himself more than any other currently active fighter - but at the same time his best wins were contentious or against aged opponents or lighter weights - contentious = Golovkin and Lara - aged = Kovalev and Golovkin and Cotto. Plant and Trout were solid wins