In the grand scheme of things, Is the fight on May 2nd really the biggest in the last 25 years ?

I will mention I'm thoroughly looking forward to the fight and will be watching (and paying PPV) come May 2nd. The hype has already reached fever pitch but everything is immensely over-hyped these days (You just have to look at those spoilt brats of the EPL and football in general) so in the grand scheme how big is this fight not as a "PPV numbers" so it must be a huge event but if we strip it back on a Boxing only level, remember Floyd is what 38 and Pacman 36/37ish. Ok so some fights in the last 25 years which have been as big/better (boxing matchups) than the upcoming superfight, in no particular order.

November 1994
James Toney vs Roy Jones Jnr..
Two men were considered to be two of the top fighters in the sport at the time sporting unbeaten records.

September 1999
Oscar de La Hoya vs Felix Trinidad
again two unbeaten foes in their prime both excelling in their divisions.

September 1993
Julio Cesar Chavez vs Pernell Whitaker
Again the two top men in the sport , Chavez on a 80+ fight winning streak usually stopping these opponents in the process against the extremely skilful Whitaker.

September 2001
Felix Trinidad vs Bernard Hopkins
Hopkins 12 consecutive defences against the rampaging unbeaten knockout artist and P4P king Felix Trinidad

Any others ?

Cheers, Rodders

I think this fight is bigger than those listed. Floyd and Manny transcend boxing. I wouldn't say they're household names in the way Tyson was for example, but for sports fans who don't follow boxing, they'll be well known and widely known to the general public. For that reason I think it's the biggest fight since probably Tyson Holyfield I

I imagine the biggest will always be Ali v Frazier 1........

Tyson - Holy wasn't a huge sell Mate....Holy was considered washed up as I recall....Second fight was big though..

Oscar v Floyd is the biggest modern one.............2.4 million buys..

I'd say in the last twenty-five years the only fights that could match it would be the Holyfield-Tyson ones. Although it broke all these records and the like, for some reason I just never felt (and never have felt since) that De la Hoya-Mayweather was anywhere near as big, anticipated or significant as the Holyfied-Tyson scraps, or the upcoming one between Manny and Floyd. Holy-Tyson might have 'only' done 1.99m buys compared to 2.45m for Oscar-Floyd, but the Tyson factor, the fact that it was the Heavyweights, the fact that people had been yearning for the fight for about seven years by that point - it just seemed to carry more weight.

I was a kid back in 1996/97, mind you, and Tyson broke my heart by hammering my then hero Bruno in one of the first big boxing events I can vividly remember, so I got swept up in hoping someone could beat the snot out of him in return. Maybe that clouds my judgement!

Truss is right in pointing out that not many were expecting Holyfield-Tyson to be much of a fight, whereas Manny against Floyd is expected to at least be competitive (albeit to varying degrees in people's estimations) despite their ages. In pure boxing terms the upcoming fight is the more legitimate as it still pits the pound for pound best against someone still very high in that particular tree and they're very much the greatest fighters of the last decade. Probably enough to overcome the Heavyweight and household name factor of the Holyfield-Tyson fights and as such I'd probably say that yes, this is the biggest fight in the last quarter of a century.

Lewis-Tyson was a big one.

One of the last fights that was really in the mainstream press and talked about by non boxng fans

88Chris05 wrote:I'd say in the last twenty-five years the only fights that could match it would be the Holyfield-Tyson ones. Although it broke all these records and the like, for some reason I just never felt (and never have felt since) that De la Hoya-Mayweather was anywhere near as big, anticipated or significant as the Holyfied-Tyson scraps, or the upcoming one between Manny and Floyd. Holy-Tyson might have 'only' done 1.99m buys compared to 2.45m for Oscar-Floyd, but the Tyson factor, the fact that it was the Heavyweights, the fact that people had been yearning for the fight for about seven years by that point -  it just seemed to carry more weight.

I was a kid back in 1996/97, mind you, and Tyson broke my heart by hammering my then hero Bruno in one of the first big boxing events I can vividly remember, so I got swept up in hoping someone could beat the snot out of him in return. Maybe that clouds my judgement!

Truss is right in pointing out that not many were expecting Holyfield-Tyson to be much of a fight, whereas Manny against Floyd is expected to at least be competitive (albeit to varying degrees in people's estimations) despite their ages. In pure boxing terms the upcoming fight is the more legitimate as it still pits the pound for pound best against someone still very high in that particular tree and they're very much the greatest fighters of the last decade. Probably enough to overcome the Heavyweight and household name factor of the Holyfield-Tyson fights and as such I'd probably say that yes, this is the biggest fight in the last quarter of a century.

Holy - Tyson 1 got the same PPVs as Tyson - McNeeley.............1.5 million.............

Lewis - Tyson was bigger............

Shows you what a star Tyson was...........

Probably never see his like again.............

Hhhmm, might be the rematch that got 1.99m buys then, Truss. Makes sense that it would jump up from the first fight in light of Holyfield rolling back the years like that. Either way, for whatever reason I still count it as a bigger part of boxing history and being more anticipated than Floyd-Oscar.

On second thoughts, there's a chance that the 1.99m buys figure going around in my head could have related to Tyson-Lewis in 2002....But that would be a bit of a joke as surely nobody could be as excited over that fight as they were about these others?

Lewis - Tyson is the third biggest of the modern era...........

I imagine the press conference helped..

Lewis and Tyson is the biggest ppv outside of Floyd v Oscar and Canelo!

Tyson Lewis is the most hype I have ever seen surrounding a fight. The only time everyone I spoke to planned to stay up for it.

Most eagerly anticipated fights for me in my lifetime have been.............

1. Hagler v Hearns...........
2. Curry v Mccrory..........
3. Mayweather v Manny....(I'll pay $100)

Lewis v Tyson never caught my imagination......and whilst I respected Chavez his style didn't do a lot for me....Same with Toney..........

Tyson vs Holyfield 2

Tyson vs Bruno 2

Mayweather v De la Hoya

Mayweather vs Canelo I think was huge!

Now of course I think the anticipation of these 2 dwarves the above for me even if it is late.

It's bigger than any of the fights listed but i'd say overall it's the least significant of them all, it isn't pitting the sports two against each other slap bang in their prime.

I think the meaning and interpretation of the article has went over the head.. In terms of looking at it as a boxing only fight not a marketing frenzy.. would you say its a better matchup than

Jones Jnr vs Toney, Chavez vs Whitaker, Trinidad vs DelaHoya ??

Cheers, Rodders

It all depends on hindsight Rodney, when Chavez fought Whitaker, it was between the top two but only one of them was a name, the other was someone people didn't like to and the rest didn't know. It's the same for Jones against Toney, neither were huge names or draws nor was Hopkins who was expected to roll over for Tito.

Looking back we can say they were better match ups but were they thought of as that at the time, no they weren't for me, we're also looking at things from further inside the circle than most.

Element of truth Hammersmith, both matchups were in the mythical P4P No 1 and 2 in world so pretty meaningful and both far more in their prime than the upcoming fighters.

Cheers, Rodders

Chavez won his first world title in early 84...........Fighting Whittaker 9/10 years in late 93 hardly denotes being near his prime....

He lost to Randall four months later.....

Nice try though...

In terms of importance, I'd say De la Hoya vs Trinidad was the biggest (if we're not talking money/PPV sales).

Lewis vs Holyfield was important.

A superfight should be two great fighters meeting in their primes at their best weight.

I'll just stress, I'm not talking about which was the biggest fight in terms of hype, money, PPV sales.

Rodney wrote:I think the meaning and interpretation of the article has went over the head.. In terms of looking at it as a boxing only fight not a marketing frenzy.. would you say its a better matchup than

Jones Jnr vs Toney, Chavez vs Whitaker, Trinidad vs DelaHoya ??

Cheers, Rodders

Trinidad vs De la Hoya.

hazharrison wrote:

Lewis vs Holyfield was important.

A superfight should be two great fighters meeting in their primes at their best weight..

Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Lewis. He probably wasn't even in his prime vs Tyson.

If you had of mentioned Holyfield vs Bowe then fair enough!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chavez won his first world title in early 84...........Fighting Whittaker 9/10 years in late 93 hardly denotes being near his prime....

He lost to Randall four months later.....

Nice try though...

Chavez was what about 85-0 going into that fight and not just winning by back foot defensive masterclass just doing enough he was taking fighters out, I guess he was passed his best when he slapped the living daylights out of Camacho a year earlier..

Yeah I agree De La Hoya vs Trinidad as a boxing matchup was bigger than the one coming up.

Cheers, Rodders

AdamT wrote:Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Bowe. He probably wasn't even in his prime vs Tyson.

If you had of mentioned Holyfield vs Bowe then fair enough!

He lost to Bowe in 92.. so when the hell was he in his prime ??

Cheers, Rodders

Rodney wrote:

AdamT wrote:Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Bowe. He probably wasn't even in his prime vs Tyson.

If you had of mentioned Holyfield vs Bowe then fair enough!

He lost to Bowe in 92.. so when the hell was he in his prime ??

Cheers, Rodders

When he fought Bowe he was in his prime. Bowe was just better!

I think you'll only know for sure how it stands on a purely boxing point of view afterwards. If one of them turns up looking visibily shot then all the articles/columns and thoughts will be about how X was finished, it was just a money grab and should have happened years ago. Then it will be talked about for the wrong reasons.

If it's a fairly closeish fight then I think it'll be THE biggest bout of our generation, it's been talked about for so long and dragged on that I can see it turning into a trilogy of fights.

Rodney wrote:

AdamT wrote:Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Bowe. He probably wasn't even in his prime vs Tyson.

If you had of mentioned Holyfield vs Bowe then fair enough!

He lost to Bowe in 92.. so when the hell was he in his prime ??

Cheers, Rodders

He lost twice to Bowe........and he was coming off a heavy knockout loss...

Leave it out FFS........It wasn't a prime Holy you know it and I know it..

I'm confused mate the comment "Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Bowe"

Did you mean Lewis ?

Cheers, Rodders

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rodney wrote:

AdamT wrote:Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Bowe. He probably wasn't even in his prime vs Tyson.

If you had of mentioned Holyfield vs Bowe then fair enough!

He lost to Bowe in 92.. so when the hell was he in his prime ??

Cheers, Rodders

He lost twice to Bowe........and he was coming off a heavy knockout loss...

Leave it out FFS........It wasn't a prime Holy you know it and I know it..

Same applies for Manny then (agree?)

Cheers, Rodders

Rodney wrote:I'm confused mate the comment "Sorry Haz but Holyfield was not in his prime vs Bowe"

Did you mean Lewis ?

Cheers, Rodders

Sorry just read the comment, I meant Lewis!

Holy was 37 against Lewis...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holy was 37 against Lewis...

and ?? Manny will be a few months shy of 37 come fight night..

Cheers, Rodders

Rodney wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chavez won his first world title in early 84...........Fighting Whittaker 9/10 years in late 93 hardly denotes being near his prime....

He lost to Randall four months later.....

Nice try though...

Chavez was what about 85-0 going into that fight and not just winning by back foot defensive masterclass just doing enough he was taking fighters out, I guess he was passed his best when he slapped the living daylights out of Camacho a year earlier..

Yeah I agree De La Hoya vs Trinidad as a boxing matchup was bigger than the one coming up.

Cheers, Rodders

He loses to Whittaker and then loses to Randall four months later..........

But he's in his prime because he's unbeaten at the time..........

I guess when Walcott got robbed against Louis after his winning streak.................Louis was prime too...........

Ah right, sorry Rodders.

In terms of it being a pure match up I think it still edges out Hopkins-Trinidad and Jones-Toney. In 2001 Hopkins wasn't regarded as a great fighter yet. As for Jones-Toney, well Toney had established himself in many people's eyes as a pound for pound candidate by 1994, but rather than being a showdown of two greats or legends in the making it was more seen as a time to sink or swim moment for Jones. Everyone knew he was good, but this was his first taste of the big time and seen as the fight where he showed whether or not he was worth the hype. He didn't gatecrash anyone's pound for pound list until after dominating Toney.

As a pure boxing match up you could argue it's not quite as good as Chavez-Whitaker as both of those guys were still unbeaten (discounting the Ramirez 'verdict' when Pea first boxed him) and pretty much seen across the boards as pound for pound one and two, the same way Manny and Floyd were three or four years back. You could still make an argument that both had moved ever so slightly past their best by September 1993, Chavez more so, and that neither were at their best at Welter, albeit the weight had no real bearing on the fight itself - so not absolutely perfect. But still closer to that utopia that a 2010 meeting between Floyd and Manny would have been than their eventual fight this year will be. Turns out that Whitaker pretty much diffused Chavez and made it a top performance rather than top fight, which was always a possibility with their respective styles. Manny-Floyd probably comes with the same caveat now. In turn, that dampens some of the hype over the upcoming bout.

On the other hand, De la Hoya-Trinidad should have been a barnstormer by rights. Hindsight is always 20:20 and as we know it turned out to be a stinker which, along with the dubious decision, means it lost a lot of its lustre straight away. But in the build up to it, you could argue that the hype over the actual fight and action itself was understandably the highest of any of these fights listed.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rodney wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chavez won his first world title in early 84...........Fighting Whittaker 9/10 years in late 93 hardly denotes being near his prime....

He lost to Randall four months later.....

Nice try though...

Chavez was what about 85-0 going into that fight and not just winning by back foot defensive masterclass just doing enough he was taking fighters out, I guess he was passed his best when he slapped the living daylights out of Camacho a year earlier..

Yeah I agree De La Hoya vs Trinidad as a boxing matchup was bigger than the one coming up.

Cheers, Rodders

He loses to Whittaker and then loses to Randall four months later..........

But he's in his prime because he's unbeaten at the time..........

I guess when Walcott got robbed against Louis after his winning streak.................Louis was prime too...........

You're looking at the aftermath , leading up to that fight Chavez vs Whitaker in boxing terms is simply a bigger/better matchup than Floyd/Manny.

Cheers, Rodders

I know that we are generally talking globally on this thread, but the biggest fight in terms of general public interest in the UK, as opposed to fight fan interest, must have been Eubank V Benn 2. 17million tuned in, - that was around 1 in four of the entire population. Can't think of bigger fight than that.

In terms of meaningful fights with guys in their prime its hard to look past Oscar v Tito and jones toney. It's only the credence given to heavyweights that brings the others into the equation.

Bit like Leonard hagler, the reputations and length of time in the public consciousness is what gives this its lustre, irrespective of the timing.

I agree Holyfield was a shade past his absolute best - but he wasn't far removed from it. They'd both looked pedestrian in the fights prior to it but Holyfield had put on a masterclass before Bean.

Quite why Lewis-Holyfield being termed improtant merited a load of emojis from chuckles is beyond me?

Fine if you want to throw that one out (I'm all for high standards!).

How about these:

1. Ray Leonard-Wilfred Benitez (1979)

2. Salvador Sanchez-Wilfredo Gomez (1981)

3. Ray Leonard-Thomas Hearns (1981)

4. Marvin Hagler-Thomas Hearns (1985)

5. Julio Cesar Chavez-Meldrick Taylor (1990)

6. Riddick Bowe-Evander Holyfield (1992)

7. Michael Carbajal-Chiquita Gonzalez (1993)

8. Roy Jones-James Toney (1994)

9. Felix Trinidad-Oscar De la Hoya (1999)

10. Erik Morales-Marco Antonio Barrera (2000)

11. Shane Mosley-Oscar De la Hoya (2000)

12. Marco Antonio Barrera-Erik Morales II (2002)

13. Manny Pacquiao-Marco Antonio Barrera (2003)

14. Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez (2004)

horizontalhero wrote:I know that we are generally talking globally on this thread, but the biggest fight in terms of general public interest in the UK, as opposed to fight fan interest, must have been Eubank V Benn 2. 17million tuned in, - that was around 1 in four of the entire population. Can't think of bigger fight than that.

20 million watched McGuigan vs Pedroza on BBC1

yes, but that was in 1985- 29 years ago

Hold on.....is it not 1988?

Chavez was certainly still in or around his prime years when he fought Whitaker, Rodney. As you say, he was still looking impressive and pretty damn nasty against Camacho and Haugen, both of which took place in the twelve months before he boxed Pernell. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who'd really extended him in the three and a half years since the Taylor fight and he was still half of the boxing public's choice as being pound for pound king at the time.

That said, you can still be in or around your best years while having still passed your absolute peak, if that makes sense. I'd say that probably describes Chavez in September 1993. Still a superb fighter but maybe not quite the absolute monster who took Rosario apart or took years off Meldrick's career. Hard to tell how much the Randall fight should be used to gauge where he was before he effectively lost to Whitaker, because despite getting a draw on the offical record, Chavez had to deal with the fact that he'd been properly outclassed without any equivocation for the first time in the aftermath. For a previously unbeaten fighter who always got his way eventually, even when guys had posed him problems, that must have blunted him to some degree - we've seen it with plenty of other guys who lost after having long, long winning streaks. Being made to look so average in front of 65,000 of his supporters might well have left him damaged goods mentally to some degree for the Randall bout.

Not to mention that Randall was a quality boxer anyway, a proper technician who could fight on the inside. Good boxers with movement or speed (Uncle Roger in the rematch, Taylor, Lockridge etc) as well as tough guys who could hold their own inside and even push Chavez back (Laporte) had shown that they could trouble Julio - but just like Whitaker, Randall could combine the two and would likely always have been a horrible opponent for Chavez at any stage. But after those two chasings he got from Randall (how he got the decision in the rematch I'll never know), Chavez's best days were definitely gone for good, think we'll all agree on that.

You could argue that Whitaker was at the back end of his prime by September 1993, too, although to a lesser degree than Chavez as he'd had the less punishing career. If you look at Pea's subsequent fights once he'd boxed Chavez, it's only really the McGirt rematch and, to a lesser extent given the size and power difference, the Vasquez fight which you could put in the same real masterclass bracket that he used to produce almost every time before he became a Welter.

I won't disagree with any of that Chris, its plausible something similar happens (a loss or slip in standard) to one of the combatants after the May fight and for the fans to pour cold water on the match-up. My argument is leading up to the Chavez-Whitaker fight boxing fans were split and it really was a huge fight, nowadays ordinary fights are hyped to the high heavens, I just don't agree in Boxing (not marketing not how many is watching) terms than Floyd vs Manny is the biggest match-up in the last 25 years.

Cheers, Rodders

88Chris05 wrote:Chavez was certainly still in or around his prime years when he fought Whitaker, Rodney. As you say, he was still looking impressive and pretty damn nasty against Camacho and Haugen, both of which took place in the twelve months before he boxed Pernell. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who'd really extended him in the three and a half years since the Taylor fight and he was still half of the boxing public's choice as being pound for pound king at the time.

That said, you can still be in or around your best years while having still passed your absolute peak, if that makes sense. I'd say that probably describes Chavez in September 1993. Still a superb fighter but maybe not quite the absolute monster who took Rosario apart or took years off Meldrick's career. Hard to tell how much the Randall fight should be used to gauge where he was before he effectively lost to Whitaker, because despite getting a draw on the offical record, Chavez had to deal with the fact that he'd been properly outclassed without any equivocation for the first time in the aftermath. For a previously unbeaten fighter who always got his way eventually, even when guys had posed him problems, that must have blunted him to some degree - we've seen it with plenty of other guys who lost after having long, long winning streaks. Being made to look so average in front of 65,000 of his supporters might well have left him damaged goods mentally to some degree for the Randall bout.

Not to mention that Randall was a quality boxer anyway, a proper technician who could fight on the inside. Good boxers with movement or speed (Uncle Roger in the rematch, Taylor, Lockridge etc) as well as tough guys who could hold their own inside and even push Chavez back (Laporte) had shown that they could trouble Julio - but just like Whitaker, Randall could combine the two and would likely always have been a horrible opponent for Chavez at any stage. But after those two chasings he got from Randall (how he got the decision in the rematch I'll never know), Chavez's best days were definitely gone for good, think we'll all agree on that.

You could argue that Whitaker was at the back end of his prime by September 1993, too, although to a lesser degree than Chavez as he'd had the less punishing career. If you look at Pea's subsequent fights once he'd boxed Chavez, it's only really the McGirt rematch and, to a lesser extent given the size and power difference, the Vasquez fight which you could put in the same real masterclass bracket that he used to produce almost every time before he became a Welter.

Yeah but Chavez was never a welterweight. That's where it drops out of the super fight category - one guy was above his best weight.

Rodney wrote:I won't disagree with any of that Chris, its plausible something similar happens (a loss or slip in standard)  to one of the combatants after the May fight and for the fans to pour cold water on the match-up. My argument is leading up to the Chavez-Whitaker fight  boxing fans were split and it really was a huge fight, nowadays ordinary fights are hyped to the high heavens, I just don't agree in Boxing (not marketing not how many is watching) terms than Floyd vs Manny is the biggest match-up in the last 25 years.

Cheers, Rodders

It isn't.

Trinidad and De la Hoya were both 26, both unbeaten, both in their primes and both at their best weight.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Chavez was certainly still in or around his prime years when he fought Whitaker, Rodney. As you say, he was still looking impressive and pretty damn nasty against Camacho and Haugen, both of which took place in the twelve months before he boxed Pernell. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who'd really extended him in the three and a half years since the Taylor fight and he was still half of the boxing public's choice as being pound for pound king at the time.

That said, you can still be in or around your best years while having still passed your absolute peak, if that makes sense. I'd say that probably describes Chavez in September 1993. Still a superb fighter but maybe not quite the absolute monster who took Rosario apart or took years off Meldrick's career. Hard to tell how much the Randall fight should be used to gauge where he was before he effectively lost to Whitaker, because despite getting a draw on the offical record, Chavez had to deal with the fact that he'd been properly outclassed without any equivocation for the first time in the aftermath. For a previously unbeaten fighter who always got his way eventually, even when guys had posed him problems, that must have blunted him to some degree - we've seen it with plenty of other guys who lost after having long, long winning streaks. Being made to look so average in front of 65,000 of his supporters might well have left him damaged goods mentally to some degree for the Randall bout.

Not to mention that Randall was a quality boxer anyway, a proper technician who could fight on the inside. Good boxers with movement or speed (Uncle Roger in the rematch, Taylor, Lockridge etc) as well as tough guys who could hold their own inside and even push Chavez back (Laporte) had shown that they could trouble Julio - but just like Whitaker, Randall could combine the two and would likely always have been a horrible opponent for Chavez at any stage. But after those two chasings he got from Randall (how he got the decision in the rematch I'll never know), Chavez's best days were definitely gone for good, think we'll all agree on that.

You could argue that Whitaker was at the back end of his prime by September 1993, too, although to a lesser degree than Chavez as he'd had the less punishing career. If you look at Pea's subsequent fights once he'd boxed Chavez, it's only really the McGirt rematch and, to a lesser extent given the size and power difference, the Vasquez fight which you could put in the same real masterclass bracket that he used to produce almost every time before he became a Welter.

Yeah but Chavez was never a welterweight. That's where it drops out of the super fight category - one guy was above his best weight.

Remember Boxing Monthly adopting some similar strategy regards whats certified as a "Superfight" in the lead up to Tito vs Oscar

Cheers, Rodders

Rodney wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Chavez was certainly still in or around his prime years when he fought Whitaker, Rodney. As you say, he was still looking impressive and pretty damn nasty against Camacho and Haugen, both of which took place in the twelve months before he boxed Pernell. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who'd really extended him in the three and a half years since the Taylor fight and he was still half of the boxing public's choice as being pound for pound king at the time.

That said, you can still be in or around your best years while having still passed your absolute peak, if that makes sense. I'd say that probably describes Chavez in September 1993. Still a superb fighter but maybe not quite the absolute monster who took Rosario apart or took years off Meldrick's career. Hard to tell how much the Randall fight should be used to gauge where he was before he effectively lost to Whitaker, because despite getting a draw on the offical record, Chavez had to deal with the fact that he'd been properly outclassed without any equivocation for the first time in the aftermath. For a previously unbeaten fighter who always got his way eventually, even when guys had posed him problems, that must have blunted him to some degree - we've seen it with plenty of other guys who lost after having long, long winning streaks. Being made to look so average in front of 65,000 of his supporters might well have left him damaged goods mentally to some degree for the Randall bout.

Not to mention that Randall was a quality boxer anyway, a proper technician who could fight on the inside. Good boxers with movement or speed (Uncle Roger in the rematch, Taylor, Lockridge etc) as well as tough guys who could hold their own inside and even push Chavez back (Laporte) had shown that they could trouble Julio - but just like Whitaker, Randall could combine the two and would likely always have been a horrible opponent for Chavez at any stage. But after those two chasings he got from Randall (how he got the decision in the rematch I'll never know), Chavez's best days were definitely gone for good, think we'll all agree on that.

You could argue that Whitaker was at the back end of his prime by September 1993, too, although to a lesser degree than Chavez as he'd had the less punishing career. If you look at Pea's subsequent fights once he'd boxed Chavez, it's only really the McGirt rematch and, to a lesser extent given the size and power difference, the Vasquez fight which you could put in the same real masterclass bracket that he used to produce almost every time before he became a Welter.

Yeah but Chavez was never a welterweight. That's where it drops out of the super fight category - one guy was above his best weight.

Remember Boxing Monthly adopting some similar strategy regards whats certified as a "Superfight" in the lead up to Tito vs Oscar

Cheers, Rodders

Yep. It was a Steve Farhood column.

Well both were above their best weight really, Haz. Whitaker was an excellent Welter, but an out of this world Lightweight. The Pernell fight was Chavez's first fight at Welter (albeit he was only 142 and Whitaker 145) and he didn't try his hand there again until he challenged Oscar in a 1998 rematch, by which point he was badly, badly faded. Welterweight certainly favoured Whitaker more as an individual, but watching the actual fight and taking in to account their styles and the fact that both had moved up from lower weights to get there, I don't think it really had any bearing on how things went, as I said. They were comparable in size (both at their absolute best as Lightweights), but Whitaker's style and ability was always going to give him a better chance of competing higher up the weight scale than Chavez's.

Put them at 135 and 140 and I think Whitaker still has his way with Chavez. Obviously I can't recall the time leading up to the fight, but I've read and seen plenty of stuff from the build up as well as watching / scoring the fight about six or seven times, and weight was an issue which never really cropped up at all in the discussions about it. I guess it's another hindsight thing - Whitaker had still been a Lightweight less than two years beforehand, and many at the time probably didn't expect him to defend the Welter title for as long as he did. Understandable that in later years people point to the weight a little more, but as I said, it was still a superfight in terms of how meaningful a match up it was.

88Chris05 wrote:Well both were above their best weight really, Haz. Whitaker was an excellent Welter, but an out of this world Lightweight. The Pernell fight was Chavez's first fight at Welter (albeit he was only 142 and Whitaker 145) and he didn't try his hand there again until he challenged Oscar in a 1998 rematch, by which point he was badly, badly faded. Welterweight certainly favoured Whitaker more as an individual, but watching the actual fight and taking in to account their styles and the fact that both had moved up from lower weights to get there, I don't think it really had any bearing on how things went, as I said. They were comparable in size (both at their absolute best as Lightweights), but Whitaker's style and ability was always going to give him a better chance of competing higher up the weight scale than Chavez's.

Put them at 135 and 140 and I think Whitaker still has his way with Chavez. Obviously I can't recall the time leading up to the fight, but I've read and seen plenty of stuff from the build up as well as watching / scoring the fight about six or seven times, and weight was an issue which never really cropped up at all in the discussions about it. I guess it's another hindsight thing - Whitaker had still been a Lightweight less than two years beforehand, and many at the time probably didn't expect him to defend the Welter title for as long as he did. Understandable that in later years people point to the weight a little more, but as I said, it was still a superfight in terms of how meaningful a match up it was.

I agree - Whitaker was too slippery, even for Chavez.

Whitaker was still great at 147, though. Chavez was a light welter and no more (which precludes it from the strict criteria some have applied here).

88Chris05 wrote:Well both were above their best weight really, Haz. Whitaker was an excellent Welter, but an out of this world Lightweight. The Pernell fight was Chavez's first fight at Welter (albeit he was only 142 and Whitaker 145) and he didn't try his hand there again until he challenged Oscar in a 1998 rematch, by which point he was badly, badly faded. Welterweight certainly favoured Whitaker more as an individual, but watching the actual fight and taking in to account their styles and the fact that both had moved up from lower weights to get there, I don't think it really had any bearing on how things went, as I said. They were comparable in size (both at their absolute best as Lightweights), but Whitaker's style and ability was always going to give him a better chance of competing higher up the weight scale than Chavez's.

Put them at 135 and 140 and I think Whitaker still has his way with Chavez. Obviously I can't recall the time leading up to the fight, but I've read and seen plenty of stuff from the build up as well as watching / scoring the fight about six or seven times, and weight was an issue which never really cropped up at all in the discussions about it. I guess it's another hindsight thing - Whitaker had still been a Lightweight less than two years beforehand, and many at the time probably didn't expect him to defend the Welter title for as long as he did. Understandable that in later years people point to the weight a little more, but as I said, it was still a superfight in terms of how meaningful a match up it was.

So Whittaker/Chavez was above their best weights........Disagree that Chavez was prime..........In his thirties and been ten years a champion already...

Holy was 37

Hagler was past his prime against Hearns........

You could say Ali's legs had started to go when he fought Frazier...

According to Haz's criteria not sure there has ever been a superfight !!