Chavez vs Whitaker in 1989.

Discussion in 'Mythical Matchups' started by Hut*Hut, Sep 4, 2010.

  1. Hut*Hut

    Hut*Hut The Mackintosh of temazepam

    Basically the question rephrased is - does anyone think Chavez was better enough 4 years prior that the fight would have played differently?

    What would an (accurate) 89 scorecard look like, versus 93?
     
  2. Ugotabe Kidding

    Ugotabe Kidding WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Probably depends on which month of that year it was. On November I'd give him a shot
     
  3. whiskey

    whiskey Czarcasm

    It would probably look pretty much the same, perhaps a little bit closer.

    I think the best Chavez could get against Whitaker would be a legit draw. Pernell was just too clever and slippery for a methodical fighter like Julio to outpoint.
     
  4. Hut*Hut

    Hut*Hut The Mackintosh of temazepam

    So I take it you don't think Julio was any better in 89 than 93 then?
     
  5. Ugotabe Kidding

    Ugotabe Kidding WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Not enough to make a significant difference I think
     
  6. Hut*Hut

    Hut*Hut The Mackintosh of temazepam

    I'd tend to agree, though I think the 4 extra years and the fight being at a more natural weight close things up a bit.
     
  7. whiskey

    whiskey Czarcasm

    I agree.

    I see Chavez doing better against Pernell mostly because he was quicker on his feet and would be able to close in more frequently. Julio would still get beaten to the punch and lose most exchanges, but the southpaw jab wouldn't be able to freeze and make him have to reset quite as often.
     
  8. slystaff

    slystaff Im Banned

    Chavez does better, without a doubt...but objectively Whitaker still wins a close one.
     
  9. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    They were BOTH better in 1989, something thats always lost on Chavez apologists

    Its the same fight, to my eyes
     
    Xplosive likes this.
  10. Jake

    Jake WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    Was going to say the same thing... the biggest difference is that Whitaker adjusted better to higher weights, whereas Chavez clearly hit his ceiling at 140.

    Anyway, most of the class seems to agree that it's a somewhat closer fight (in reality, not in the pre-filled Texas scorecard sense), but with Whitaker still winning in the end
     
  11. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    It pains the Chavez groupies to believe this but.... Pea was just better than the tax evader.
     
  12. cdogg187

    cdogg187 GLADYS

    agree, and I loved Chavez, he was one of my all time favorites
     
  13. Ramonza Soliloquies

    Ramonza Soliloquies "Twinkle Toes" McJack

    When they met, it did favour Whitaker. He did adjust better to the higher weight, as has been said, & he also had the benefit of being acclimated to it, while Chavez was moving up, & though undoubtedly still formidable, had seen better days.

    Put them both at their peak weight, 135lbs, & Chavez was a beast --- Whitaker, a masterclass. In the end, though, Whitaker would've won again.
     
  14. broadwayjoe

    broadwayjoe Undisputed Champion

    agREED. I would take Whitaker over Chavez at 135 or 140.
     
  15. Jel

    Jel WBC Champion

    Was going to post a thread on this but found it here.

    How do you think a win for either fight affects their lightweight legacies?
     
  16. Xplosive

    Xplosive X-MOD Bad Motherfucker

    I still agree with the 2010 X.
     
  17. Jel

    Jel WBC Champion

    Yeah, I have to agree with him too.

    What do you think a win over Chavez at lightweight would do to Whitaker’s all-time standing in the division?
     
  18. puerto rock

    puerto rock WBC Silver Diamond Emeritus Champ

    I agree as well. Sure I could see it being a little closer OBJECTIVELY, but Pea was too smart and too skilled. He’d still be able to make Chavez miss and pay all night with those sharp counters especially when Julio goes to the body.

    Whitaker via UD.
     

Share This Page