My Top 10 Mexican fighters from 1980-present

hogey wrote:He would have been my number 2 or 3 but he is more an American in my eyes.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Or like have having Pietersen in your England team........Don't stick him a list If you don't want to.......He's staying in mine.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Whatever............It's my list he has Mexican heritage.........end of.......

Not interested in nitpickers........Wait for Hammer he might be interested.

I'm not.

hogey wrote:I can see both sides of it but watching him representing the USA and winning a Gold means i will always see him as American, but certainly cant argue with anyone who puts him on their list.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hogey wrote:I can see both sides of it but watching him representing the USA and winning a Gold means i will always see him as American, but certainly cant argue with anyone who puts him on their list.

He's just being a silly silly billy......Reckon Bob Mee has put him up to it.. 

I have my own opinion on things..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Guilty.......Now let's move on.........

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Having Guerrero in the list to start with is the worst thing about it when Mijares, Arce, Rafa Marquez and Vasquez all comfortably rank higher than him.

hazharrison wrote:I genuinely do - Chavez was the better fighter. Chavez wrecked  Rosario, Camacho and Taylor - he was an almost perfect fighting machine. Mario Martinez, a 44-0 Alberto Cortes, Rodolfo Aguilar, Ruben Castillo, Roger Mayweather, Greg Haugen, Lockridge, Laporte, Ramirez -- Chavez has a cracking record.

Let's face it: Truss would be wetting himself if Mayweather ever reached 86-0.

Here are a couple of pieces I agree with mostly:

http://www.boxingscene.com/measured-against-all-time-julio-cesar-chavez--26126#ixzz2huO1B5nK

"Of all the fighters reviewed to date in this series, Chavez might be the greatest of them all.  Whereas others were measured in terms of whether they earned the moniker “all-time great,” with Chavez the question is long ago decided.  With Chavez, it’s a question of placement with the sports immortals.

He was the total package even if it rarely looked that way.  Chavez wasn’t the fastest.  He didn’t hit the hardest.  But he was an intelligent and ballsy battler at his peak, able to employ sly head movement and keen footwork to bang home his left hook to the body and even more lethal precision right hand.  Chavez was a jack of all trades and, defying cliché, a master of more than one.  

Was he Mexico’s greatest fighter?  The opinion here would be yes but it’s a tough question when one considers other exemplars like Ruben Olivares and Salvador Sanchez.  His longevity and accomplishments exceed a Sanchez whose life ended just as his legend was forming.  Olivares might have been better on his best day, but wasn’t as good for as long.  It’s heady company regardless.  That Chavez was as big a global star as there can be below the Heavyweights doesn’t hurt, nor does his standing as one of the premiere greats at both Jr. Lightweight and Jr. Welterweight.  He remains the standard for fistic excellence in his home country.      

In a broader comparison, he’s not a top ten all-time pound for pound type; inside the top twenty is probably a bit much as well.  Retrospect and the decline of his star show that he wasn’t quite the best of his own time.  He was perceived that way in the late 80s and early 90s, but Whitaker ultimately proved that perception false not only in besting Chavez but also in handling their common opponents with an ease in his style equal to the ease displayed in Chavez’s.  Being behind the great Whitaker historically, and in their time, is no sin and doesn’t bump Chavez that far outside top twenty level consideration depending on who is being asked (and as noted earlier, there are plenty who have no problem with him that high).

While there is not an abundance of Hall of Fame wins on his record, there is a tremendous pool of battle proven talent in a heavily talented era.  Only a few of those talents truly competed between 1984 and 1993.  That LaPorte, Lockridge and Taylor (who was great for at least the night he spent with Chavez) gave him such stiff challenges was a credit to those men more than any knock on Chavez.  Those were all exceptionally talented fighters who would be now what they were then: among the world’s best from 126 to 140 lbs.

Others weren’t so lucky.  Chavez handled Martinez easier than anyone else ever did, was only the second man to stop Ruben Castillo after the great Alexis Arguello years earlier.  He was also only the second to stop Tony Lopez.  He simply ran Rosario over and made a farce of Camacho, pummeling him senseless for most of the bout.  From 1984-98, there was only one year (1991) where Chavez did not face at least one fighter considered among the top three of his resident weight class or a class above it.

And this can never be taken away: it took Whitaker, a fellow legend, over thirteen years, three conquered weight classes, and nearly 90 fights into Chavez’s career, to see him clearly bested.  It took a few more fights to get an official loss on his record.

Chavez’s competed in more title fights (37) than any fighter before or after him, posted a record 31 title fight victories, and won his first twenty five title fights (across three weight classes) consecutively, a mark second only to Heavyweight Joe Louis’s 26 consecutive title fight victories.  Louis’s victories were all for or in defense of an undisputed crown while Chavez’s were not, but Chavez’s marks are impressive nonetheless.  

Chavez is the sort of fighter one can look forward to casting their Hall of Fame ballot for, no less than one of the top 20-50 greats in the sports long history."  

http://www.boxingscene.com/measured-against-all-time-oscar-de-la-hoya--17277

"The problem with rating De La Hoya against the best of all-time is that he suffers in the easiest categories where greatness can be confirmed.  He never cleaned out a weight class and dominated it for a sustained period of time like a Bernard Hopkins or Michael Spinks.  And while he played the pound-for-pound game of working the scales, he lost enough of his biggest fights that he doesn’t rate well with other notable scale jumpers like Thomas Hearns or Henry Armstrong.

In three of the four divisions where he did his best work (Lightweight, Jr. Welterweight, Jr. Middleweight), strong cases can be made that he did not face the single best opponent in the class.  It is hard even to argue against the cases at 140 and 154 lbs.  Factor as well that his overall body of serious work is limited to handfuls of fights in each class and his historical merits in all three are difficult to determine.  He looked like he could have been great at Lightweight and Jr. Welterweight, but speculation is no substitute for results and he doesn’t merit mention with the top ten all-time in any of the three classes.

At Welterweight, there is no doubt that he faced the very best and not just singularly.  De La Hoya fought the five of the six best foes available in Whitaker, Quartey, Carr, Trinidad and Mosley.  He defeated only Carr without doubters at the final bell.  Welterweight might be the toughest top-ten…heck, top twenty-five…to crack in all of Boxing.  It is the home of Robinson, Napoles, Leonard, Griffith, Walcott, Walker.  Oscar didn’t prove to be of that stature.  In battling to parity he is closer to men like Marlon Starling and Simon Brown, former champions with excellent competition and mixed results.  It is not an insult; those were damn good fighters.  It’s just a shade off from the greats.  A win over Margarito, at by then the age of 36, would shake it up a bit but probably still not enough."

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Suits the narrative............Hagler is higher than Mayweather.........

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I genuinely do - Chavez was the better fighter. Chavez wrecked  Rosario, Camacho and Taylor - he was an almost perfect fighting machine. Mario Martinez, a 44-0 Alberto Cortes, Rodolfo Aguilar, Ruben Castillo, Roger Mayweather, Greg Haugen, Lockridge, Laporte, Ramirez -- Chavez has a cracking record.

Let's face it: Truss would be wetting himself if Mayweather ever reached 86-0.

Here are a couple of pieces I agree with mostly:

http://www.boxingscene.com/measured-against-all-time-julio-cesar-chavez--26126#ixzz2huO1B5nK

"Of all the fighters reviewed to date in this series, Chavez might be the greatest of them all.  Whereas others were measured in terms of whether they earned the moniker “all-time great,” with Chavez the question is long ago decided.  With Chavez, it’s a question of placement with the sports immortals.

He was the total package even if it rarely looked that way.  Chavez wasn’t the fastest.  He didn’t hit the hardest.  But he was an intelligent and ballsy battler at his peak, able to employ sly head movement and keen footwork to bang home his left hook to the body and even more lethal precision right hand.  Chavez was a jack of all trades and, defying cliché, a master of more than one.  

Was he Mexico’s greatest fighter?  The opinion here would be yes but it’s a tough question when one considers other exemplars like Ruben Olivares and Salvador Sanchez.  His longevity and accomplishments exceed a Sanchez whose life ended just as his legend was forming.  Olivares might have been better on his best day, but wasn’t as good for as long.  It’s heady company regardless.  That Chavez was as big a global star as there can be below the Heavyweights doesn’t hurt, nor does his standing as one of the premiere greats at both Jr. Lightweight and Jr. Welterweight.  He remains the standard for fistic excellence in his home country.      

In a broader comparison, he’s not a top ten all-time pound for pound type; inside the top twenty is probably a bit much as well.  Retrospect and the decline of his star show that he wasn’t quite the best of his own time.  He was perceived that way in the late 80s and early 90s, but Whitaker ultimately proved that perception false not only in besting Chavez but also in handling their common opponents with an ease in his style equal to the ease displayed in Chavez’s.  Being behind the great Whitaker historically, and in their time, is no sin and doesn’t bump Chavez that far outside top twenty level consideration depending on who is being asked (and as noted earlier, there are plenty who have no problem with him that high).

While there is not an abundance of Hall of Fame wins on his record, there is a tremendous pool of battle proven talent in a heavily talented era.  Only a few of those talents truly competed between 1984 and 1993.  That LaPorte, Lockridge and Taylor (who was great for at least the night he spent with Chavez) gave him such stiff challenges was a credit to those men more than any knock on Chavez.  Those were all exceptionally talented fighters who would be now what they were then: among the world’s best from 126 to 140 lbs.

Others weren’t so lucky.  Chavez handled Martinez easier than anyone else ever did, was only the second man to stop Ruben Castillo after the great Alexis Arguello years earlier.  He was also only the second to stop Tony Lopez.  He simply ran Rosario over and made a farce of Camacho, pummeling him senseless for most of the bout.  From 1984-98, there was only one year (1991) where Chavez did not face at least one fighter considered among the top three of his resident weight class or a class above it.

And this can never be taken away: it took Whitaker, a fellow legend, over thirteen years, three conquered weight classes, and nearly 90 fights into Chavez’s career, to see him clearly bested.  It took a few more fights to get an official loss on his record.

Chavez’s competed in more title fights (37) than any fighter before or after him, posted a record 31 title fight victories, and won his first twenty five title fights (across three weight classes) consecutively, a mark second only to Heavyweight Joe Louis’s 26 consecutive title fight victories.  Louis’s victories were all for or in defense of an undisputed crown while Chavez’s were not, but Chavez’s marks are impressive nonetheless.  

Chavez is the sort of fighter one can look forward to casting their Hall of Fame ballot for, no less than one of the top 20-50 greats in the sports long history."  

http://www.boxingscene.com/measured-against-all-time-oscar-de-la-hoya--17277

"The problem with rating De La Hoya against the best of all-time is that he suffers in the easiest categories where greatness can be confirmed.  He never cleaned out a weight class and dominated it for a sustained period of time like a Bernard Hopkins or Michael Spinks.  And while he played the pound-for-pound game of working the scales, he lost enough of his biggest fights that he doesn’t rate well with other notable scale jumpers like Thomas Hearns or Henry Armstrong.

In three of the four divisions where he did his best work (Lightweight, Jr. Welterweight, Jr. Middleweight), strong cases can be made that he did not face the single best opponent in the class.  It is hard even to argue against the cases at 140 and 154 lbs.  Factor as well that his overall body of serious work is limited to handfuls of fights in each class and his historical merits in all three are difficult to determine.  He looked like he could have been great at Lightweight and Jr. Welterweight, but speculation is no substitute for results and he doesn’t merit mention with the top ten all-time in any of the three classes.

At Welterweight, there is no doubt that he faced the very best and not just singularly.  De La Hoya fought the five of the six best foes available in Whitaker, Quartey, Carr, Trinidad and Mosley.  He defeated only Carr without doubters at the final bell.  Welterweight might be the toughest top-ten…heck, top twenty-five…to crack in all of Boxing.  It is the home of Robinson, Napoles, Leonard, Griffith, Walcott, Walker.  Oscar didn’t prove to be of that stature.  In battling to parity he is closer to men like Marlon Starling and Simon Brown, former champions with excellent competition and mixed results.  It is not an insult; those were damn good fighters.  It’s just a shade off from the greats.  A win over Margarito, at by then the age of 36, would shake it up a bit but probably still not enough."

Both fairly well written and well argued pieces haz. Largely agree with them myself... Fairly obviously as they make some of the same points I did. Main difference is they, in turn, (relative to me) over-rate some of Chavez' opponents and under-rate the strength of the welter/light middle scene that Oscar found himself in.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just answer Milky's post..........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There is an alternative........You leave my thread or respect the "hard" work that went in to it and behave yourself.. 

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the thing with these articles they're only relevant if you agree with them and despite largely agreeing with both they paint a very extreme view of both.

The 147-154lb divisions were both very strong when De La Hoya was competing, probably the strongest it had been for a long time and much stronger than it has been since. The thing with Oscar though is he was just another fighter in the division alongside Mosley and Trinidad. All three of them generally beat the lower tier fighters but against the elite they were less impressive with mixed results.

To suggest Vargas was a shell when he fought De La Hoya isn't quite true, he was still able to run Mosley very close in the first fight before his eye exploded. To me it begs the question of what greatness is, dominating any era or competing in a strong one or even somewhere in between. Oscar like Mosley won his fair share but also lost almost as many top level fights, both are borderline all time greats.

Chavez on the otherside had his fair share of close fights but at his absolute best always got the job done between 130-140lbs, ultimately boxing is a results business. Like Duran he has a lot of filler on his record but winning 31 out of 37 title fights gives a fair indication that he was fighting at a high level very often.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the thing with these articles they're only relevant if you agree with them and despite largely agreeing with both they paint a very extreme view of both.

The 147-154lb divisions were both very strong when De La Hoya was competing, probably the strongest it had been for a long time and much stronger than it has been since. The thing with Oscar though is he was just another fighter in the division alongside Mosley and Trinidad. All three of them generally beat the lower tier fighters but against the elite they were less impressive with mixed results.

To suggest Vargas was a shell when he fought De La Hoya isn't quite true, he was still able to run Mosley very close in the first fight before his eye exploded. To me it begs the question of what greatness is, dominating any era or competing in a strong one or even somewhere in between. Oscar like Mosley won his fair share but also lost almost as many top level fights, both are borderline all time greats.

Chavez on the otherside had his fair share of close fights but at his absolute best always got the job done between 130-140lbs, ultimately boxing is a results business. Like Duran he has a lot of filler on his record but winning 31 out of 37 title fights gives a fair indication that he was fighting at a high level very often.

milkyboy wrote:Haz, if he's comparing him to starling and brown, I think he is under-rating it personally.

Re the Jcc piece, I agree with the thrust of it but, for example, much as I like juan laporte, he was a gatekeeper, and this was after mcguigan had nigh on shut him out. Laporte Chavez was a cracking fight but could have gone either way.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the thing with these articles they're only relevant if you agree with them and despite largely agreeing with both they paint a very extreme view of both.

The 147-154lb divisions were both very strong when De La Hoya was competing, probably the strongest it had been for a long time and much stronger than it has been since. The thing with Oscar though is he was just another fighter in the division alongside Mosley and Trinidad. All three of them generally beat the lower tier fighters but against the elite they were less impressive with mixed results.

To suggest Vargas was a shell when he fought De La Hoya isn't quite true, he was still able to run Mosley very close in the first fight before his eye exploded. To me it begs the question of what greatness is, dominating any era or competing in a strong one or even somewhere in between. Oscar like Mosley won his fair share but also lost almost as many top level fights, both are borderline all time greats.

Chavez on the otherside had his fair share of close fights but at his absolute best always got the job done between 130-140lbs, ultimately boxing is a results business. Like Duran he has a lot of filler on his record but winning 31 out of 37 title fights gives a fair indication that he was fighting at a high level very often.

hazharrison wrote:December 12, 1986: He was only 27 years old, frazzled young the way only prizefighters and rock stars are frazzled young, and already he was facing Skid Row—a place he had known well after arriving in New York City as a child in the mid-1960s from Guayama, Puerto Rico. Three long years after last being called campeón, Juan Laporte was considered nothing more than a rusted hulk ready to be set on cinderblocks and stripped for parts. But Laporte entered his fight against undefeated Julio Cesar Chavez at Madison Square Garden ready to hum like a brand new Camero.

Laporte, as much a Gotham staple as graffiti was in the late 70s and early 80s, turned pro in 1977 under the tutelage of Carlos Eleta and Emile Griffith. But it was a hard road from the beginning. Thirty years ago, there were half as many sanctioning bodies as there are today, and Laporte struggled to win a title at featherweight. Alas, there were no full-time policemen around (they were too busy fighting a rising crime wave) for Laporte to make his championship dream come true. In his first title shot, in December 1980, Laporte dropped a 15-round decision to the smooth Mexican legend Salvador Sanchez at the Sands in Atlantic City. (Not long ago the Sands was spectacularly demolished via controlled explosives.) A year later, Laporte faced deadly Eusebio Pedroza, a man whose mean streak sparked 19 successful title defenses over seven years as dirty as the Fresh Kills landfill.

Finally, in 1982, on his very own stomping grounds at MSG, Laporte stopped undefeated Mario Miranda for the vacant WBC featherweight title and put himself in position for the Big Money. Unfortunately, winning the title also seemed to make Laporte the maddeningly inconsistent fighter he had become by the time he faced Chavez. After losing a non-title bout to journeyman Gerald Hayes, Laporte was passive dropping his title to Wilfredo Gomez in 1984 before thousands of delirious fans in San Juan. Now, it seemed, Laporte fought according to his moods. He was in good spirits, thankfully, when he answered the bell to challenge for the WBC super featherweight title. At 24, Chavez, fifty-something-and-oh and thin as a swizzle stick, was a heavy favorite to smear Laporte like a Twizzler against the curb along Eighth Avenue. Ever since he made his US television debut in 1985 by scorching Roger Mayweather in two rounds on CBS, Chavez was a supernova ready to blow. In fact, Laporte was the last star to shine in his vicinity until Meldrick Taylor nearly eclipsed him in 1990.

Entering the bout with Chavez, Laporte sported a gaudy 17-0 record at the Garden (and its theater, the Felt Forum) and he was determined to keep his unique winning streak alive. “I knew I was ready to fight him anyway he wanted to fight,” Laporte said at the time. “For this fight I was really psyched. It was special to me. I love to fight in Madison Square Garden because I won my Golden Gloves and my championship there.” Laporte came out like a corporate raider and Chavez knew he was in for trouble within a minute of the opening bell. It was twelve rounds of hell, Laporte inspired for the first time in years, and Chavez, still developing, fighting off the assault with grim determination. By the mid-rounds, that lethal left hook Chavez threw with such precision and force had slowed Laporte down considerably, until the Puerto Rican veteran staged a violent late rally that made some believe he had done enough to win. Add the fact that Chavez lost a point in the 9th for low blows, and you had all the ingredients necessary for mysterious gumbo scorecards. Yes, even Chavez seemed unsure about the result. “It was a very close fight,” he later admitted. “I would not have complained if he had won the decision.” The final tally saw Chavez winning by 114-113, 115-114, and an improbable 117-112.

“I feel a little down because I thought I won and didn’t get it,” a downcast Laporte said after the decision was announced. “But it’s been a long time since I had a fight like that, and I’m proud of it.” Still, pride had left him battered and bruised. This is how fighters end up looking into rear view mirrors—through two bloodshot eyes—marking time at red lights, and then pulling away and leaving the future behind them. Laporte would fight on until 1999, going 13-10 down the last long crooked roads of his career.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:December 12, 1986: He was only 27 years old, frazzled young the way only prizefighters and rock stars are frazzled young, and already he was facing Skid Row—a place he had known well after arriving in New York City as a child in the mid-1960s from Guayama, Puerto Rico. Three long years after last being called campeón, Juan Laporte was considered nothing more than a rusted hulk ready to be set on cinderblocks and stripped for parts. But Laporte entered his fight against undefeated Julio Cesar Chavez at Madison Square Garden ready to hum like a brand new Camero.

Laporte, as much a Gotham staple as graffiti was in the late 70s and early 80s, turned pro in 1977 under the tutelage of Carlos Eleta and Emile Griffith. But it was a hard road from the beginning. Thirty years ago, there were half as many sanctioning bodies as there are today, and Laporte struggled to win a title at featherweight. Alas, there were no full-time policemen around (they were too busy fighting a rising crime wave) for Laporte to make his championship dream come true. In his first title shot, in December 1980, Laporte dropped a 15-round decision to the smooth Mexican legend Salvador Sanchez at the Sands in Atlantic City. (Not long ago the Sands was spectacularly demolished via controlled explosives.) A year later, Laporte faced deadly Eusebio Pedroza, a man whose mean streak sparked 19 successful title defenses over seven years as dirty as the Fresh Kills landfill.

Finally, in 1982, on his very own stomping grounds at MSG, Laporte stopped undefeated Mario Miranda for the vacant WBC featherweight title and put himself in position for the Big Money. Unfortunately, winning the title also seemed to make Laporte the maddeningly inconsistent fighter he had become by the time he faced Chavez. After losing a non-title bout to journeyman Gerald Hayes, Laporte was passive dropping his title to Wilfredo Gomez in 1984 before thousands of delirious fans in San Juan. Now, it seemed, Laporte fought according to his moods. He was in good spirits, thankfully, when he answered the bell to challenge for the WBC super featherweight title. At 24, Chavez, fifty-something-and-oh and thin as a swizzle stick, was a heavy favorite to smear Laporte like a Twizzler against the curb along Eighth Avenue. Ever since he made his US television debut in 1985 by scorching Roger Mayweather in two rounds on CBS, Chavez was a supernova ready to blow. In fact, Laporte was the last star to shine in his vicinity until Meldrick Taylor nearly eclipsed him in 1990.

Entering the bout with Chavez, Laporte sported a gaudy 17-0 record at the Garden (and its theater, the Felt Forum) and he was determined to keep his unique winning streak alive. “I knew I was ready to fight him anyway he wanted to fight,” Laporte said at the time. “For this fight I was really psyched. It was special to me. I love to fight in Madison Square Garden because I won my Golden Gloves and my championship there.” Laporte came out like a corporate raider and Chavez knew he was in for trouble within a minute of the opening bell. It was twelve rounds of hell, Laporte inspired for the first time in years, and Chavez, still developing, fighting off the assault with grim determination. By the mid-rounds, that lethal left hook Chavez threw with such precision and force had slowed Laporte down considerably, until the Puerto Rican veteran staged a violent late rally that made some believe he had done enough to win. Add the fact that Chavez lost a point in the 9th for low blows, and you had all the ingredients necessary for mysterious gumbo scorecards. Yes, even Chavez seemed unsure about the result. “It was a very close fight,” he later admitted. “I would not have complained if he had won the decision.” The final tally saw Chavez winning by 114-113, 115-114, and an improbable 117-112.

“I feel a little down because I thought I won and didn’t get it,” a downcast Laporte said after the decision was announced. “But it’s been a long time since I had a fight like that, and I’m proud of it.” Still, pride had left him battered and bruised. This is how fighters end up looking into rear view mirrors—through two bloodshot eyes—marking time at red lights, and then pulling away and leaving the future behind them. Laporte would fight on until 1999, going 13-10 down the last long crooked roads of his career.

I saw most of Laporte's career first hand as opposed to Bob Mee and Haz reading articles about him........

and I can definitely say he was a "good honest fighter"............

Maybe download a few good articles about Mayweather sometime........

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Vargas, Mayorga, Mosley, Wright, De La Hoya, Campas and Castillejo, that's just about the strongest the division has ever been. It's easy to dismiss them but when they were fighting each other pretty regularly it was difficult for anyone to get a stranglehold on the division.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I must have imagined De La Hoya losing his title to Mosley and fighting Mayorga later on then, Vargas had lost once by the time they fought he was hardly shot.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Haz, if he's comparing him to starling and brown, I think he is under-rating it personally.

Re the Jcc piece, I agree with the thrust of it but, for example, much as I like juan laporte, he was a gatekeeper, and this was after mcguigan had nigh on shut him out. Laporte Chavez was a cracking fight but could have gone either way.

He isn't comparing eras. He's comparing Oscar's mixed results with theirs in their era.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's questionable whether Trinidad ruined Reid, he gave him a severe hammering but with his eyelid problem it was going to happen sooner rather than later.

I've watched Vargas fights with Mosley and De La Hoya quite recently Haz and to me he didn't look like a shot fighter. He was competitive in the first half of the fight before he started to tire something he had always done, the amount of weight he had to lose to make weight effected his stamina quite badly.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Reid was a ticking timebomb and had to get a move on with his career, Trinidad destroyed him psychologically more than physically. I just don't see Vargas as being shot, simply put a shot fighter does not compete with Mosley and De La Hoya, think you're placing too much emphasise on the Trinidad aspect here.

hazharrison wrote:If they were the same size Chavez kills him - Oscar was too big.