Classic case of picking apart ANY resume. And if it isn't the resume, it's the perfomance. You can't be everything to everyone.
Don't take a dump on Chavez from your slightly worn out office chair and feel like you've brought forward some gem of wisdom. Chavez and others who are incredible talents sometimes have extended lists of C level fighters. But look at the their peak years. Rosario? Really good win.
Pep got similar criticism. Guess what though? He would school pretty much ANY featherweight EVER in the history of gloved boxing, but guess what....better say that he fought a bunch of cabbies (untrue oversimplification anyway). If a soft puncher like Pep can come back from a KO loss to cleanly beat a monster in a peak Sandy Sadler, for an entire fight and win when he was already sliding and past his peak, then that is a goddamn great boxer.
Chavez is an aggressive, high intensity fighter that presses his opponents. Do you all know these guys fade by about 30? Look at when all the big names turned up? Anything after 30 for a guy like JCC or Chocolatito (Greb, too), is borrowed time.
Chavez is sooo good that he probably doesn't give a floppy fuck if we are arguing about top 50. Here we are, talking about a retired old man who many of us weren't old enough to watch and fully appreciate. I think the conversation speaks indirect volumes to his greatness.
Top 50 is so goddamn subjective that everyone will argue. I am having an argument right now about the top ten empires in the past 10,000 years but there are some disputes. Alexander the Great never truly got tested. The Persian Empire was fading and he never really fought a true threat like Carthage in the West, and Rome was an under-developed prospect at the time so the match couldn't be made. Alexander the Great is the worse than a bucket of shit when it comes to leadership.
The internet is cruel.
