Greater fighter: Julio Cesar Chavez or Alexis Arguello?

I say Arguello, by a thick, curly hair. Now you vote.

 

By what criteria could Arguello possibly be better?

 

Career-wise it has to be Chavez by at least two chest and one back hairs

 

I think you could make a pretty good case for either, even head to head.

 

By the criteria you usually judge one career better than another.

 

What's the ethnic origin of these hairs? I hope they're thin, south east Asian hairs. Otherwise I call your judgement into question.

 

Chavez pretty clearly

 

A resume comparison isn't close, at all. And if you watch Arguello and believe he is a better fighter than JCC, well:Chainsaw:

 

Both 3 division champions.

To me Arguello has the edge at 130 & 135 in terms of work done. A slight edge. Which obviously leaves aside his work at 126 which makes the slight edge from lightweight down a significant one. Leaving Chavez' greater work at 140 to make up the difference, which predominantly consists of the Taylor win, Camacho and the return win over Randal. Frankly the Camacho fight is the only one without an astrix beside it. Conversely if ever a fighter gains enormous credit for a loss it's Arguello in that first fight with Pryor. So to me 140 doesn't quite tip the balance back.

The tune up loss to Vilomar Fernandez counts against Alexis (as the severe struggles Chavez had with *LaPorte & Taylor* count against him), but I haven't seen that fight, don't know the circumstances behind it. And the history of boxing shows that great fighters are more likely to slip up in non-title fights that they take for granted than at any other time.

It's close, you could easily make a case either way, but I feel like Arguello got more done & in generally better style. Alexis for me.

 

solid screenname subtitle.

 

Your dismissiveness of anyone with a different opinion to you is trait you should work on, mate.

 

Yawn.

 

your trolling/loss of touch with reality is frightening. This is a very stupid take.

 

Well, instead of just going from thread to thread accusing people of losing touch with reality, why don't you make a post with some actual reference to what's being discussed. Refute my post. Maybe I'm wrong, it'd be good to have things/contexts I haven't considered pointed out, that'd be interesting. Other than just to pass time and get a laugh thats why Im here. I just pulled the opinion out my ass there & thought it might be germane to some chat.

This new safari and it's auto spell check/correct feature is a mess.

 

marty jawskabowski would have a bear of a time deciding what occurs in a chavez-pacquiao bout

 

The question is who was better at boxing, not who built up a flashier record aided by Don King. My answer is Arguello.

 

What U're Requesting from Jaws is Some FINESSE, Brother Hut...Unfortunately, Ike DIDN'T Wire Jaws that Way...U've Probably had BOWEL MOVEMENTS that Contained More Finesse than Jaws Posseses...




REED:dancingBaby:

 

I just meant who had the greater career, not who was a better 'boxer' in the stylistic sense. I was just being a little silly with the wording.

 

A little contribution to a thread would be sufficient. Share some of this flint-scalpel intelligence he's always advertising to us.

 

Imagine if I made a thread saying Larry Holmes resume was better than Ali's, after all, Holmes went undefeated before getting robbed twice against spinks then retired.

Well now of course, Lennox surely had a better resume than both of them, after all he beat Tyson/Holyfield/Klitschko, and only lost twice to fluke Ko's that were both brutally avenged.

Not to mention Bob Fitzsimmons was better than Sugar Ray Robinson. Sure he'd get barbecued in 2 rounds by Rico hoye, but he fought when guys were tough and KO'd philidelphia Jack o'Brian, widely consider the greatest fighter ever.

This is a stupid fucking take, this isn't even a close comparison, and its Kid Dynamite status to bolster Arguello's resume against chavez'.

 

I personally think if there's any dodgy comparison being made it's you with these ones. But again.....fell free to demonstrate why I'm wrong rather than just saying I'm stupid. I'm not especially hard headed on this one I'll happily admit if you're right and you'd be contributing to me being less stupid & ill informed for next time. If Arguello's career was better it's definitely by a very small margin.

 

"as the severe struggles Chavez had with Lockbridge, LaPorte & Taylor count against him"

First, Taylor would've been far and away the best fighter Arguello had a victory over.

Second and more importantly, the Laporte and Lockridge fights are on youtube. Do yourself a favor and actually watch the fights rather than boxrec warrior claims of him struggling.

 

Ya, ya. Had 'em on vhs back when you had to use your paper round money to see fights. I had him winning both fights. Hard fights though (Laporte frankly could have gone either way or been a draw, and if you say otherwise you're lying). And as an aside I strongly suspect Arguello would have rendered both unconscious at 130.

 

No. You apparently have never seen either fight. Do yourelf a favor. Claiming Chavez struggled with Lockridge is more ridiculous than this thread.

 

OK I'll say/concede this: Chavez has a big advantage in title fight wins that I hadn't really considered. 30 vs 19 by my count.

However, by the other quick count in my boxrec war, the wins over world champions come out even at 9 each and with more of Arguello's wins against guys who were champs in the weight he beat them within closer periods to the time he beat them. With Randal probably only ever amounting to a champ because Chavez lost to him. Also more of Arguello's wins are impressive.

Meanwhile, many of Chavez' title wins are against guys with padded records, numerically, relative to the level they reached in the sport, which probably lead to them being overrated.

I don't wanna overstate the case, I think it's close and I think Chavez is great, but certainly Arguello's resume is underrated, Chavez' overrated a tad (probably due to being excellently managed). To say the comparison is as Ali's ledger to Holmes' is way off target, imo. Maybe Chavez' resume is better, maybe, but if you want me to think it's by a whole lot, you better say something better than that I'm stupid or haven't seen fights I saw 10 years ago.

 

there isn't an ounce of decent logic in this post at all.

"Sure on the merits Chavez had a better resume, but I think his opponents records were padded, which therefore make them overrated, and his wins weren't as impressive"

This is going to go nowhere. No respectable person would agree with you.

 

OK, struggle is too strong, you're quite right.

Wanna add something constructive to a discussion now? Any thread will do.

 

OK cool, bye. I'll throw the topic back open to the many people on the forum with a normal understanding of the spirit of a discussion forum.

 

Ruben Olivares?

 

I think Taylor is a better Junior Welterweight than Olivares was featherweight.