Chavez and Pacquiao; drawing comparisons - and who has the better record?

Morning, lads. We need something - anything - other than Eddie Hearn to talk about, so here goes nothing.

To me, Pacquiao's win over Bradley at the weekend should go down as one of the best results of his great, great career. I believe it's his best and most significant win since Cotto back in late 2009, and arguably the first win he's had since then which really adds proper weight to his legacy. I don't want to sound too harsh on Manny or his opponents in the time elapsed between those fights, but for whatever reason none of his victories in between have been all that impressive. Not the case on Saturday. You can't say that the decision was questionable (Marquez, third fight), that Bradley was shot (Mosley, Margarito) or that he didn't come to make a go of it (Clottey). It's actually Pacquiao who is visibly past his peak by a reasonable distance, but who is still good enough to handily decision a prime, unbeaten and very talented fighter in Bradley.

I've drawn comparisons in the past between the Pacquiao-Mayweather situation / rivalry (if you can call it the latter given they've never fought!) and that of Chavez-Whitaker just over two decades back. If you look at the way the careers of the four men here went, there are similarities. From about 1989 to 1993, Chavez and Whitaker were considered almost universally as the two best fighters in the sport pound for pound, with fans, professional fighters and analysts alike arguing back and forth about who was better, with both sides having grounds for their stance. However, when they fought in September 1993, it was almost unanimously accepted that Whitaker proved himself the better man, despite the controversial draw verdict the judges delivered - and at that point on, it was Whitaker who solidified his grip on top spot, whereas Chavez began to gradually slide down people's lists. As Whitaker continued to impress and win in the immediate years after the Chavez fight, the Mexican on the other hand seemed to regress, to the point where there was virtually no clamour for him to rematch Whitaker, even though the first fight had been controversial.

Similarly, in 2010 the boxing world was arguing about who, out of Pacquiao and Mayweather, was the true pound for pound kingpin. Sadly, unlike their early 90s counterparts, the pair of them never met to sort the matter out in the ring. But just as opinion moved from being split pretty much 50:50 to sliding massively in one man's favour in the Chavez-Whitaker story, we also saw it happen in the Pacquiao-Mayweather one. Almost by default (that's not to take away from his repeated brilliance, by the way), Mayweather slowly but surely established himself as the overwhelming consensus pound for pound king between 2011 and 2013 as he kept winning in style, with exemplary performances, while Pacquiao seemed to be sliding. Much like the calls for a Chavez-Whitaker rematch had died down to little more than a whisper by around 1995, the fight we all wanted to see a while back, between Manny and Floyd, now doesn't really get the juices flowing either. Too late and, if recent performances are anything to go by, a sense of inevitability regarding the outcome.

I've spent too long arguing back and forth with the beefster about Floyd and Pernell - so what about Manny and Julio, then?

Typically, I've tended to edge towards Chavez when it comes to giving out a historical ranking pound for pound, and it's always a little tricky to rank fighters who are still active in that respect. But Pacquiao has shown that he's still capable of adding legacy-enhancing wins at an age where Chavez couldn't (mind you, he's only had about two thirds the fights Chavez had at the same age), which has made me cast a bit of a closer eye over their respective career records.

Does Pacquiao have the better one?

As well as the roles they've played in on-going boxing sagas and stories, there are similarities in how the pair of them have gone about their business in their careers. Both have been accused of being one-dimensional, but what a dimension! They've both been good enough to score great wins over men who technically are better pure boxers than them, thanks to their power, toughness and stamina. Both have had their record embellished with slightly questionable and contentious decisions at times, Chavez a little more so, but in general were / have never been reluctant to test themselves to the full and seek out the best. And while they may not be quite as good as their aforementioned rivals in most people's eyes, they were certainly the better value-for-money operators. Chavez's early career wasn't punctured by a couple of knockout losses like Pacquiao's was, but in general the body of their work is similar, I believe.

Pacquiao still doesn't seem to be held in quite the same reverence as Chavez amongst hard-core fans, I'd say, but then again we never do fully appreciate fighters until they're gone, it seems. There has been a bit of an anti-Pacquiao backlash in the last couple of years, to the point where I've seen genuine fans of the sport start to question whether he was ever a true great at all (seems insane to me, but there you go), but his win at the weekend, given the circumstances, is a timely reminder of why we should appreciate him while he's still here. I'm not going to fall on either side of the fence just yet, but safe to say I'm finding it a little harder to make a decision on it than I used to, having given a closer look to each man's achievements.

Pacquiao or Chavez - who has the better résumé for your money? Whose achievements should be looked more fondly upon by history? Over to you, cheers everyone.

I've always liked Chavez but I pick Manny as having the better CV.

There are many top names on Manny's list albeit some leave open for an asterix if people wish to nit pick.

As for Chavez's career it was before my time and I am not as knowledgable to pick apart and critique. Chavez could have many opponents on his win list which are open to critique but I feel past fighters are looked at much more warmly and let off far more than those of the present.

I find it difficult to subjectively review careers from before my time and I am at times biased with present fighters. Chavez's record is superb purely on a numbers basis but when I look at names that stick out I only see a handful. This of course is most likely due to my lack of knowledge and perhaps in 20-30 years time wins against Margarito, Clottey and maybe Bradley may be met with a 'who?' from our grand children (or Rowley's great grand children!)

I also think that in 20+ years the common holes we pick in Manny's big name wins (I.e. Past prime, weight drained etc) will disappear which I'm sure is a privilege many former stars receive now.

Watched Chavez v Camacho yesterday.

Both the same age and both unbeaten but when they met Chavez had already 80 plus fights. Most were no doubt members of the Tijuana pub team

Interesting points, VC. Chavez was more painstakingly consistent than Manny, I guess. Won his first world title fight in 1984 and didn't lose his first (on record, anyway) until a decade later. In general, Pacquiao's KO losses to Singsurat and Torrecampo don't take too much gloss off his overall career for me, but if you're matching him up directly against Chavez then I suppose you can't totally airbrush them out of the equation. Pacquiao was only a baby and was having trouble making weight, of course, but I always thought Chavez looked pretty tight and thin at Super-Feather (and he managed 9 successful title defences there, don't forget), with a couple too many ribs on show as well.

In or around his prime, Chavez probably has fewer low moments than Pacquiapo, but on the other hand there's a good argument to be made that Pacquiao's high points outdo Julio's. If you took their half-dozen best wins, for instance, Manny's are spread over a longer span of time and across more weights. Quality of opposition is a bit debatable....For the half-dozen best wins I'm thinking that maybe Pacquiao has it by a wafer, but there seems virtually nothing in it for me.

Chavez has the better record and had the harder fights.

Did he onetwo? Julio fluffed his record to try to get to 100 wins. He has a few standout wins, Rosario, camacho (albeit it the post-Rosario gunshy version that had already lost to Haugen) Taylor. But he had his squeaky moments against lockridge and laporte, both decent fighters but guys he should have been outclassing.

Great fighter, great record. Doesn't have the defeats pac, picked up along the way, but I'd say manny has a greater number of standout wins.

I don't think Chavez 'fluffed his record' to get to 100 wins, he was just an old school fighter who liked to fight. That alone makes me like him and makes me prefer his record to Pacquiao's.

milkyboy wrote:Did he onetwo? Julio fluffed his record to try to get to 100 wins. He has a few standout wins, Rosario, camacho (albeit it the post-Rosario gunshy version that had already lost to Haugen) Taylor. But he had his squeaky moments against lockridge and laporte, both decent fighters but guys he should have been outclassing.

Great fighter, great record. Doesn't have the defeats pac, picked up along the way, but I'd say manny has a greater number of standout wins.

Morales, Barrera, and ODLH can't be held up very high imo. All were either washed up or weight drained.

Atila wrote:I don't think Chavez 'fluffed his record' to get to 100 wins, he was just an old school fighter who liked to fight. That alone makes me like him and makes me prefer his record to Pacquiao's.

He did target the 100, but clearly he had a stack under his belt first. Whichever, Nothing wrong with it Atila, it's merely a comparative, if manny fought 8 times a year and 6 or 7 of them were old school bum of the months he might have a similar record that's all. Agree, it takes a certain type of fighter to do it and not slip up along the way, so no guarantees that manny could have. Just more a quality over quantity man myself.

Come off it, OneTwo. Pacquiao's first win over Barrera is one of the single best wins any fighters has had in this era!

What was it about Barrera which suggested he was past his best in 2003? His age? Nope. He was only 29. His form going in to the fight? Nope. Took the 0s of Hamed and Morales in the couple of years or so beforehand, was the consensus top man at 126 lb and was rated roundabout number three / four pound for pound by most. His form afterwards? Nope. Was a world champion again within a year at a new weight (beating Morales, who still had a win over Manny to come the following year) and defended it for nearly three years afterwards against some decent competition.

That was a primetime Barrera that Pacquiao faced in 2003, and Manny completely smoked him. Nobody else ever took Barrera apart and dominated him like that. In Barrera's backyard away from home too, no less.

Don't think we can write off his pair of wins over Morales completely, either, or at least the first one. Remember, that came less than a year after Morales had decisioned Pacquiao first time out. Morales had a shocker of a result in the interim against Raheem, in fairness, which does take the shine off a bit, but even so Pacquiao turning the tables so emphatically to the point of becoming the first man to actually stop Morales took a bit of doing.

You're right about De la Hoya, but then again, does anyone here really consider it to be one of Manny's greatest accomplishments? I think most put it in the same kind of bracket as Norris' win over Leonard; a great performance, but in both cases it became clear very early in those fights that despite their favourite tags Ray and Oscar had slipped much, much further than anyone realised - and of course, Oscar also made a bad error of judgement in going back down to Welter after years away, too.

As well as Barrera and Morales, Pacquiao's wins against Marquez (in their second fight), Cotto, Hatton and Bradley would all rank ahead of his win over De la Hoya, for me.

88Chris05 wrote:Come off it, OneTwo. Pacquiao's first win over Barrera is one of the single best wins any fighters has had in this era!

What was it about Barrera which suggested he was past his best in 2003? His age? Nope. He was only 29. His form going in to the fight? Nope. Took the 0s of Hamed and Morales in the couple of years or so beforehand, was the consensus top man at 126 lb and was rated roundabout number three / four pound for pound by most. His form afterwards? Nope. Was a world champion again within a year at a new weight (beating Morales, who still had a win over Manny to come the following year) and defended it for nearly three years afterwards against some decent competition.

That was a primetime Barrera that Pacquiao faced in 2003, and Manny completely smoked him. Nobody else ever took Barrera apart and dominated him like that. In Barrera's backyard away from home too, no less.

Don't think we can write off his pair of wins over Morales completely, either, or at least the first one. Remember, that came less than a year after Morales had decisioned Pacquiao first time out. Morales had a shocker of a result in the interim against Raheem, in fairness, which does take the shine off a bit, but even so Pacquiao turning the tables so emphatically to the point of becoming the first man to actually stop Morales took a bit of doing.

You're right about De la Hoya, but then again, does anyone here really consider it to be one of Manny's greatest accomplishments? I think most put it in the same kind of bracket as Norris' win over Leonard; a great performance, but in both cases it became clear very early in those fights that despite their favourite tags Ray and Oscar had slipped much, much further than anyone realised - and of course, Oscar also made a bad error of judgement in going back down to Welter after years away, too.

As well as Barrera and Morales, Pacquiao's wins against Marquez (in their second fight), Cotto, Hatton and Bradley would all rank ahead of his win over De la Hoya, for me.

Mexican fighters age quicker Chris. Before he met Pacman he had been in so many wars that I am surprised the UN did not intervine. Lets not forget that Barrera was competing in big fights in the 90's when I was still in secondary school and lets not forget the damage Junior Jones dealt him.

Junior Jones didn't exactly derail Barrera the way Chavez and Norris did to Meldrick, did he? The first fight was a pretty sudden turnaround - Barrera was looking well placed, walked on to one massive shot and never recovered. Great, great win for Jones, as was his decision in the rematch, but he didn't exactly grind Barrera in to dust, as Barrera's subsequent career accomplishments show.

Barrera had been in some wars before facing Manny, but he'd been winning them, and he went on to win more afterwards, as well. We're obsessed with analysing wins and trying to put an asterisk next to them these days, particularly when it comes to Manny and Floyd, but I struggle to see any reason to take anything away from Pacquiao's win over Marco here, particularly when you consider just how bad a beating he gave him.

The first Pacman  Barrera fight, as I recall at the time Barrera was having major legal problems outside the ring,not trying to take anything from Pacquiao but a fully focused Barrera is a far more formidable opponent than one with his mind elsewhere.

Chavez won titles at 130 135 and 140 He could have won more but the compertition was much better. I see wins over Limon, Camacho, Mayweather, Rosario, Laporte, and under rated Castilio as better then Manny's record.

Chavez best wins Chris

1) Martinez
2) Cortes
3) Aguilar
4) Ruben Castillo
5) Hector Camacho
6) Terrence Alli
7) Roger Mayweather
8) Meldrick Taylor
9) Greg Haugen
10) Edwin Rosario

So they say, Nico. Thing is, while I'm not saying it's untrue, I generally believe that those kind of excuses should be left outside the ropes once you climb through them.

You can always find excuses for why a fighter wasn't fully prepared mentally if you look hard enough. Froch, for instance, "wasn't right" before Kessler (I), Ward and Groves if he's to be believed. Tyson's problems (divorce, acrimonious split from Rooney / Cayton, lack of focus) had been well-documented for at least eighteen months before the Douglas fight, but suddenly only became a huge issue and a source of excuses when he lost.

Things such as a fighter being clearly washed up, getting a bad injury during a fight etc I can understand being used as an excuse for a bad beating or abject performance, but when other issues on the periphery get dragged in to it I tend to lose interest in what they're saying, really. Might sound harsh, but the other alternative is taking credit away from most big career wins, because you can guarantee that in the majority of cases the loser will always have, "I'm not making excuses, but....." on the tip of his tongue!

88Chris05 wrote:So they say, Nico. Thing is, while I'm not saying it's untrue, I generally believe that those kind of excuses should be left outside the ropes once you climb through them.

You can always find excuses for why a fighter wasn't fully prepared mentally if you look hard enough. Froch, for instance, "wasn't right" before Kessler (I), Ward and Groves if he's to be believed. Tyson's problems (divorce, acrimonious split from Rooney / Cayton, lack of focus) had been well-documented for at least eighteen months before the Douglas fight, but suddenly only became a huge issue and a source of excuses when he lost.

Things such as a fighter being clearly washed up, getting a bad injury during a fight etc I can understand being used as an excuse for a bad beating or abject performance, but when other issues on the periphery get dragged in to it I tend to lose interest in what they're saying, really. Might sound harsh, but the other alternative is taking credit away from most big career wins, because you can guarantee that in the majority of cases the loser will always have, "I'm not making excuses, but....." on the tip of his tongue!

I agree Chris, it would be unproffesional,but 4 years later when you can definitely say Barrera was past his past and Manny peak he couldn't steamroll Barrera then,so we can make what we want of it whether 1st fight was legit excuse or not.

Nico, in the second fight Barrera had no interest in doing anything but surviving until the final bell, no matter how good you are it's difficult to look good against somebody resigned to losing.

It boils down to a straight shoot out between the consistency of Chavez and the explosive highs of Pacquiao, gun to head i'll favour Pacman.

Chavez is one of my all time favourite fighters and that's exactly what he was, a world class fighter with an indominatable will to win but he lacked the flash that Pacquiao possessed. In Chavez's greatest performance against Rosario, he went about it in a very workmanlike way, just grinding him down with constant pressure, switching from the body and head at will. On the other hand you have Pacquiao who could blitz some great fighters with his speed and buzzsaw style, something more spectacular.

As for their records, if we ignore all the crap and there's a fair bit for both of them then Pacquiao has the more eye catching wins; The three Mexican greats, Cotto, Hatton, Bradley, Ledwaba and Sasakul, I don't think he was a huge favourite in any of them and the underdog in at 4 of them. Chavez was a model of consistency beating a host of very good fighters but highlights of Camacho, Taylor, Haugen, Ramirez, Rosario and Laporte don't quite compare.

Both top 25 of all time but have to have Pacquiao that slither higher.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Chavez best wins Chris

1) Martinez
2) Cortes
3) Aguilar
4) Ruben Castillo
5) Hector Camacho
6) Terrence Alli
7) Roger Mayweather
8) Meldrick Taylor
9) Greg Haugen
10) Edwin Rosario

Is this list a case for the defence or prosecution onetwo?

I'm not one to trash records for the hell of it but really, if you're going to pick holes in some of manny's wins, I can't let this go.

1. Martinez, good fighter gave nelson a hard time... But 19 when Jcc fought him (admittedly not the youngest looking 19 year old you'll ever see but not at his physical peak)
2. Cortes had a fine boxrec record against Argentinian corn beef salesmen. Was it a toss up between him and Andy holligan?
3. Aguilar? See no2, but replace 'Argentinian corn
Beef salesmen' with 'Panamanian cigar rollers'
4. Castillo, decent fighter, well past his prime when fed to Jcc.
5. Camacho. A great talent, but bonafide runner since the Rosario fight.
6. Alli. Decent operator rancidly past his sell by.
7. Uncle rog... the canvas back
8. Taylor, possible the fastest hands I've ever seen, great win for Jcc though in controversial manner in a fight he was miles behind in.
9. Haugen. Well it was prime Haugen. His prime wasn't much to write home about.
10. Rosario. Great win, but does history tell us el Chapo was a bit of a flat track bully?

No Ramirez on the list, and that was a good win against a good opponent, even if the stoppage was dodgy. Lopez was a decent win too.
Now, you can rip anyone's record apart, but there is at least some truth in all the points I made. Clottey, margarito and even rios... none of whom are highlighted in manny's best wins, are better opponents close to their best than most on the list above. In fact, larios, diaz and solis are better than half of them.

I think Chavez's half-dozen best wins were Taylor I, Rosario, Camacho, Lockridge, Haugen and Ramirez, personally. On paper, his rematch win over Randall in 1994 was excellent, too, but let's be honest here - he got a gift on the cards, and his actual performance beforehand was nowt to shout about.

Interesting to see how they match up to Pacquiao's elite wins, which I'd say have been Barrera I, Cotto, Marquez II, Bradley, Hatton and Morales I. As I said in the article, both men amongst those wins have a mix of dominant wins where they were on the top of their game, close (but not unfair) decisions in their favour and desperate back and forth tussles, but Manny's wins have spanned a longer period and more weight classes.

One thing I do think Chavez has going in his favour is that he did tend to prove himself a genuine, high-quality champion in all the weights he won titles in, as opposed to Manny's hopping in between them all. Julio struggled a bit at Super-Feather but still made nine defences, and would have unified there had Lockridge not been stiffed against Gomez. Didn't stay at 135 for long, but did do the WBA / WBC double there. And of course held titles of one body or another virtually uninterrupted for seven years at 140.

Still not sure where I'd lean on this one.....

Its horses for courses Chris. Compared to manny, Jcc beat a large amount of decent fighters but relatively few elite ones. When you have lockridge, Haugen and Ramirez in your top 6 wins, you're not talking guys who should be troubling great fighters.

Jcc looked his best at lightweight even though he wasn't there for long. Maybe a bit tight at the weight at super feather and not quite big enough at light welter.