So I don't think any knowledgeable boxing fan would consider Chavez to be as good/great as Duran, but how big would you say is the gap between them prime-for-prime?
Compare Duran's performance against Palomino and Chavez's performance against Rosario, both were like a force of nature.
Not to be a stan, but I think the gap is pretty big. Not astronomical, but I disagree with Flo that there isn't much separation. There's a pretty big separation in resume and fighting ability. Chavez beat the very poor man's Ray Leonard by the skin of his teeth. Duran beat the real thing. REED made the valid point that Duran was more athletic/fluid, but it's deeper than that. Duran had a higher skill-set, and sharper mind, ON TOP of having more talent. Talent is definitely the biggest separator, though.
Yeah I think Duran pretty clear. Chavez was sharp fundamentally, but Duran had that dynamic factor to him when it came to the speed, cat like reflexes, athleticism, and yes, POWER. In a fight, Chavez would be competitive and hold his own but he’d be a step behind alot of the time.
Duran v Chavez at lightweight is a great matchup and while I’d favour Duran, I think Chavez would have been the best lightweight he’d have fought (Buchanan being the only real argument against that). I’d be interested to see how Duran would have approached it. Would he have fought in the pocket and relied on his defensive nuances to slip what Chavez was throwing and counter him inside? Pretty interesting thought as Chavez’s inside game was his biggest strength. Or would he have stayed outside and relied on superior boxing ability and timing?
