My Top 10 Mexican fighters from 1980-present

First topic message reminder :

Includes those of Mexican heritage as well as the official variety

1. Oscar dela Hoya
2. Julio cesar Chavez
3. Ricardo Lopez
4. Salvador Sanchez
5. Juan Manuel Marquez
6. Marco Antonio Barrera
7. Erik Morales
8. Johnny Tapia
9. Humberto Sota
10. Chiquita Gonzalez.......*** Replaces Guerrero who deserves honorable mention

Just my list............All subjective..

I'm aware of their respective weights haz.

In their first fight, it was Oscar who moved up in weight to take jcc's light welter belt, a weight Chavez had been at for 6 years or so. I don't think size was an issue. Thats why we have weight divisions not height divisions.

I think Oscar peaked early, Chavez a little later. Hence I'm giving you prime Chavez at lightweight if you wish, against a young Oscar... The one who splattered Hernandez. Theoretically, Chavez is closer to prime than a young skinny Oscar. They are legitimately the same weight. Who wins?

milkyboy wrote:I'm aware of their respective weights haz.

In their first fight, it was Oscar who moved up in weight to take jcc's light welter belt, a weight Chavez had been at for 6 years or so. I don't think size was an issue. Thats why we have weight divisions not height divisions.

I think Oscar peaked early, Chavez a little later. Hence I'm giving you prime Chavez at lightweight if you wish, against a young Oscar... The one who splattered Hernandez. Theoretically, Chavez is closer to prime than a young skinny Oscar. They are legitimately the same weight. Who wins?

Same weight fleetingly but not naturally. Chavez had a long career - he maxed out there. Oscar campaigned - comfortably - a stone heavier.

Chavez the better fighter.

I actually think that Chavez is decent value for a place just inside an all-time top twenty, pound for pound. I've come across as being harsh on him in the past, I guess, and as the aforementioned article posted by Haz shows, he was bested in his own era / prime years by Whitaker, overall. But seeing as Pea makes my top dozen pound for pounders in history, then I'd struggle to leave Chavez out of a top twenty.

I don't necessarily agree that Whitaker handled their mutual opponents all that more impressively than Julio, really. Uncle Roger gave them both problems (well, second time out against Julio, anyway), but it was Whitaker who was decked by him and who had to settle for a decision a little narrower than he was used to. Chavez got Roger early when they first boxed and, while admittedly being given the run around for a few rounds next time out, absolutely dominated him once he'd tired out Roger's legs and got close enough to expose Mayweather's total lack of an inside game.

Haugen? Tough to say, really. They both toyed with him, but in very different ways (Pernell and Julio were polar opposites, after all). Whitaker's performance against Haugen was, for me, his most virtuoso at 135, but then again while Chavez's win over Haugen wasn't as pretty, he did something that nobody else had ever done before in stopping Haugen, having handed him a beating (rather than a boxing lesson) from the basically the opening bell (Haugen floored inside a minute, if I remember correctly).

Fair enough, Whitaker clowned Ramirez in a way that Chavez couldn't and obviously handled Oscar far more impressively, but in general I don't think there's that much of an edge to Pea.

Shouldn't be forgotten that world title longevity goes to Chavez, too. Titles in four weights to Chavez's three, the fact that he was never really outboxed or taken to hell and back in his peak years like Chavez was in his and, most tellingly, the fact that Chavez was a very, very lucky boy to get his 'draw' against Pernell show that Whitaker is deservedly in front, but it ain't a landslide - and that's coming from someone who loves Pea so should, therefore, hate Chavez!

I was always a fan of Oscar, but for me placing him ahead of Chavez is an insult to Julio.

Late to this, but think that Chavez is an all-time top 30 man, personally, while acknowledging that even in his best years, especially at 130, he was capable of turning in the occasional less than convincing performance.

The only other fighter of "Mexican heritage" (if that includes Napoles) that I could possibly place there is Sanchez. The fact that he died at 23 is irrelevant - Sal's list of victims is probably even more impressive than JCC's and far better than anyone else's. Again, I admit that he had his poorish outings as well (Ford and Cowdell are the normal sticks used to beat him), but nobody in this argument has Gomez, Lopez X2 and Nelson in their W column. Essentially, I regard Sanchez's best as better than anyone else's in this argument.

I'm a fan of Oscar, who is a top 50 man, in my book. It's no insult to place him below Sanchez and Chavez and to make him of roughly equal merit to Ricardo Lopez. However, he didn't, in my opinion, dominate his world as thoroughly as my top two did theirs, nor did he win all of his most important fights, however controversial those decisions might have been.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I'm aware of their respective weights haz.

In their first fight, it was Oscar who moved up in weight to take jcc's light welter belt, a weight Chavez had been at for 6 years or so. I don't think size was an issue. Thats why we have weight divisions not height divisions.

I think Oscar peaked early, Chavez a little later. Hence I'm giving you prime Chavez at lightweight if you wish, against a young Oscar... The one who splattered Hernandez. Theoretically, Chavez is closer to prime than a young skinny Oscar. They are legitimately the same weight. Who wins?

Same weight fleetingly but not naturally. Chavez had a long career - he maxed out there. Oscar campaigned - comfortably - a stone heavier.

Chavez the better fighter.

I've already said I have Chavez higher, I'm asking head to head.

They both won their first titles at superfeather with only a year or so between them. Oscar was taller and had the frame to fill out into a larger weight class more comfortably. No argument there. But it's not relevant, unless you don't believe in the concept of weight classes.

You just don't want to answer the question for some reason, haz. Your choice, but the argument renders a significant proportion of all boxing matches as unfair mismatches.

Robinson filled out into middle, so lets ignore his career at welter unless those welters spent half their careers at middle too? Poor old kid gavilan. Robbed by being too small.

Where do you feel hearns maxed out? cruiser? light heavy? super middle? Pick your weight and we'll discount his fights against any career weight fighters below that.

If one fighter ends up naturally at a higher weight than another, the counter is that they were arguably not at full maturity/strength at a lower weight. Somewhere in the distant past they picked weight as the leveller in boxing.

Individual fighters peak at different times, I think Oscar peaked early and was at his best below welter. Just my opinion. How is oscar v jcc not a fair fight at lightweight, if that's jcc's best weight?

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I'm aware of their respective weights haz.

In their first fight, it was Oscar who moved up in weight to take jcc's light welter belt, a weight Chavez had been at for 6 years or so. I don't think size was an issue. Thats why we have weight divisions not height divisions.

I think Oscar peaked early, Chavez a little later. Hence I'm giving you prime Chavez at lightweight if you wish, against a young Oscar... The one who splattered Hernandez. Theoretically, Chavez is closer to prime than a young skinny Oscar. They are legitimately the same weight. Who wins?

Same weight fleetingly but not naturally. Chavez had a long career - he maxed out there. Oscar campaigned - comfortably - a stone heavier.

Chavez the better fighter.

I've already said I have Chavez higher, I'm asking head to head.

They both won their first titles at superfeather with only a year or so between them. Oscar was taller and had the frame to fill out into a larger weight class more comfortably. No argument there. But it's not relevant, unless you don't believe in the concept of weight classes.

You just don't want to answer the question for some reason, haz. Your choice, but the argument renders a significant proportion of all boxing matches as unfair mismatches.

Robinson filled out into middle, so lets ignore his career at welter unless those welters spent half their careers at middle too? Poor old kid gavilan. Robbed by being too small.

Where do you feel hearns maxed out? cruiser? light heavy? super middle? Pick your weight and we'll discount his fights against any career weight fighters below that.

If one fighter ends up naturally at a higher weight than another, the counter is that they were arguably not at full maturity/strength at a lower weight. Somewhere in the distant past they picked weight as the leveller in boxing.

Individual fighters peak at different times, I think Oscar peaked early and was at his best below welter. Just my opinion. How is oscar v jcc not a fair fight at lightweight, if that's jcc's best weight?

 
Oscar was a natural welterweight and a giant at both super feather and lightweight. Chavez was more of a natural lightweight and so -- regardless of the fact we're only talking 17 pounds -- they are two men of entirely different size and stature.
 
Multiple weight divisions, longer rehydration times, conditioners, potions have all helped disrupt what weight divisions were actually designed for -- to ensure men were equally matched in terms of size.
 
Robinson was a natural welterweight who excelled at middleweight because he was the best fighter of all time -- he didn't fill out.
 
Hearns was a physical freak -- probably best suited to 154 lbs (but who had such a strange frame he was able to bulk up to cruiserweight -- he didn't fill out naturally there, though, and didn't look like a natural cruiserweight).
 
If you're looking at an imaginary fight between an Oscar who seemed to have more of a fighting identity at 135 lbs but was still relatively inexperienced and Chavez, who was a well-oiled machine then I think Chavez would overcome physical disadvantages (against a naturally far bigger man) to out tough De la Hoya -- coming on strong late (when Oscar usually tired).

captain carrantuohil wrote:Late to this, but think that Chavez is an all-time top 30 man, personally, while acknowledging that even in his best years, especially at 130, he was capable of turning in the occasional less than convincing performance.

The only other fighter of "Mexican heritage" (if that includes Napoles) that I could possibly place there is Sanchez. The fact that he died at 23 is irrelevant - Sal's list of victims is probably even more impressive than JCC's and far better than anyone else's. Again, I admit that he had his poorish outings as well (Ford and Cowdell are the normal sticks used to beat him), but nobody in this argument has Gomez, Lopez X2 and Nelson in their W column. Essentially, I regard Sanchez's best as better than anyone else's in this argument.

I'm a fan of Oscar, who is a top 50 man, in my book. It's no insult to place him below Sanchez and Chavez and to make him of roughly equal merit to Ricardo Lopez. However, he didn't, in my opinion, dominate his world as thoroughly as my top two did theirs, nor did he win all of his most important fights, however controversial those decisions might have been.

Think that's a fair assessment captain. It's tough with Sanchez. It's a great win column and he packed enough into those years to warrant his high ranking. There's just that frustration of the potential fights ahead and what could have been. As chris will testify to, I've been one in the past to bring up ford, cowdell, nelson being a novice at short notice and Gomez never looking the fighter at feather than he did below it (though granted that might be assisted by what Sanchez did to him).

I was usually raising these when I felt people were giving him a bit of a free pass... Fighting down to his opponents etc. He was a terrific fighter, I would like to have seen him around for a bit longer (i'm sure he would too!) to remove any doubts about his all time standing.

There is always a difficulty ranking fighters who were cut off in their prime for whatever reason as obviously we have no idea how their careers would have progressed or finished up. Take a guy like Ketchel, there is a good chance his next title fight would have been against Langford and as equally as good a chance he is losing that one and possibily by a good margin. Given Stanley’s lifestyle god only knows if he rebuilds from the loss or fades into obscurity. Realise we cannot rank guys on what ifs but still sits a bit uncomfortably conferring greatness on guys whose career is curtailed.

Have said it countless times but how highly would we rank Tyson had he got injured and had to finish his career after Spinks, at that time nobody saw the Douglas loss in the pipeline or the mixed form of the post prison era Mike. For all that though I think Sal perhaps has enough on his ledger at even his young age to deserve a very favourable ranking.

Rowley wrote:There is always a difficulty ranking fighters who were cut off in their prime for whatever reason as obviously we have no idea how their careers would have progressed or finished up. Take a guy like Ketchel, there is a good chance his next title fight would have been against Langford and as equally as good a chance he is losing that one and possibily by a good margin. Given Stanley’s lifestyle god only knows if he rebuilds from the loss or fades into obscurity. Realise we cannot rank guys on what ifs but still sits a bit uncomfortably conferring greatness on guys whose career is curtailed.

Have said it countless times but how highly would we rank Tyson had he got injured and had to finish his career after Spinks, at that time nobody saw the Douglas loss in the pipeline or the mixed form of the post prison era Mike. For all that though I think Sal perhaps has enough on his ledger at even his young age to deserve a very favourable ranking.

Didn't Ketchel beat Langford (or did they draw)?

The fight was a six round no decision fight. Most of the papers had it just about for Ketchel, although some (a minority it has to be said) did call it in Langford’s favour. However Stanley had agreed that he would have a proper title fight with Langford after this. Given this Langford held plenty back as he knew that too good a showing or knocking Ketchel out would scupper the title fight. Most of the paper reports acknowledge Langford was fighting well within himself. He did just enough to generate interest in a title fight without scaring Stanley off.

Spoken like a true Langford luvvie;)

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I'm aware of their respective weights haz.

In their first fight, it was Oscar who moved up in weight to take jcc's light welter belt, a weight Chavez had been at for 6 years or so. I don't think size was an issue. Thats why we have weight divisions not height divisions.

I think Oscar peaked early, Chavez a little later. Hence I'm giving you prime Chavez at lightweight if you wish, against a young Oscar... The one who splattered Hernandez. Theoretically, Chavez is closer to prime than a young skinny Oscar. They are legitimately the same weight. Who wins?

Same weight fleetingly but not naturally. Chavez had a long career - he maxed out there. Oscar campaigned - comfortably - a stone heavier.

Chavez the better fighter.

I've already said I have Chavez higher, I'm asking head to head.

They both won their first titles at superfeather with only a year or so between them. Oscar was taller and had the frame to fill out into a larger weight class more comfortably. No argument there. But it's not relevant, unless you don't believe in the concept of weight classes.

You just don't want to answer the question for some reason, haz. Your choice, but the argument renders a significant proportion of all boxing matches as unfair mismatches.

Robinson filled out into middle, so lets ignore his career at welter unless those welters spent half their careers at middle too? Poor old kid gavilan. Robbed by being too small.

Where do you feel hearns maxed out? cruiser? light heavy? super middle? Pick your weight and we'll discount his fights against any career weight fighters below that.

If one fighter ends up naturally at a higher weight than another, the counter is that they were arguably not at full maturity/strength at a lower weight. Somewhere in the distant past they picked weight as the leveller in boxing.

Individual fighters peak at different times, I think Oscar peaked early and was at his best below welter. Just my opinion. How is oscar v jcc not a fair fight at lightweight, if that's jcc's best weight?

 
Oscar was a natural welterweight and a giant at both super feather and lightweight. Chavez was more of a natural lightweight and so -- regardless of the fact we're only talking 17 pounds -- they are two men of entirely different size and stature.
 
Multiple weight divisions, longer rehydration times, conditioners, potions have all helped disrupt what weight divisions were actually designed for -- to ensure men were equally matched in terms of size.
 
Robinson was a natural welterweight who excelled at middleweight because he was the best fighter of all time -- he didn't fill out.
 
Hearns was a physical freak -- probably best suited to 154 lbs (but who had such a strange frame he was able to bulk up to cruiserweight -- he didn't fill out naturally there, though, and didn't look like a natural cruiserweight).
 
If you're looking at an imaginary fight between an Oscar who seemed to have more of a fighting identity at 135 lbs but was still relatively inexperienced and Chavez, who was a well-oiled machine then I think Chavez would overcome physical disadvantages (against a naturally far bigger man) to out tough De la Hoya -- coming on strong late (when Oscar usually tired).

I don't consider hearns a cruiser haz, just picking a deliberate exaggeration of how bizarre your argument could get. Whichever, I finally got an answer. I think how you see that fight is certainly plausible, though Oscar was tougher than he looked. Don't agree about the physical disadvantages at that weight but lets move on.

Do we discount all of Haglers big wins then Haz because they came against guys better at lower weights?

De La Hoya probably was naturally bigger than Chavez but if they both weigh in within the limit it's a fair fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do we discount all of Haglers big wins then Haz because they came against guys better at lower weights?

De La Hoya probably was naturally bigger than Chavez but if they both weigh in within the limit it's a fair fight.

We don't discount them but they come with a caveat, of course.

De la Hoya was undoubtedly bigger -- and it isn't a fair fight if one man grossly outweighs the other come fight time (which we've discussed recently with regard to the failed experiment that was day before weigh ins).

Did he grossly outweigh him in their two fights haz? Genuinely question, I don't know the fight night weights. My guess is probably in the second fight, but Oscar looked fairly skinny to me in the first fight from memory.

If hagler's best wins are caveated, and his most infamous defeat. His ledger looks a little skinny... Mustapha hamsho anyone? Maybe truss is right about him:whistle:

De la Hoya was very overrated for me. Very well marketed at the early part of his career so he became a money printing machine but lost in the big fights when it mattered. He could only box for half a fight. With same day weigh ins and 15 round fights he would be average.

milkyboy wrote:Did he grossly outweigh him in their two fights haz? Genuinely question, I don't know the fight night weights. My guess is probably in the second fight, but Oscar looked fairly skinny to me in the first fight from memory.

If hagler's best wins are caveated, and his most infamous defeat. His ledger looks a little skinny... Mustapha hamsho anyone? Maybe truss is right about him:whistle:

Truss just doesn't like him because he fought Leonard and Hearns -- two of his favourites. Same reason he hates Duran and Pacquiao.

Hearns is a favourite of mine but I can still see that Hagler was one of the finest middleweights of all time (which is the generally accepted view -- no prizes for originality there). I think Hagler's record stacks up very well against Monzon's (who also fought welterweights in high profile bouts).

Monzon lacked the big names, but you can't argue with the record. Always erred to him with a gun to my head, but hard to split them. Despite my banter on hagler Leonard threads I've always had hagler as one of the great middles. Nailed on top 5, and the margins are pretty tight at the top.

I personally have Greb top, just to throw another name into the mix.

Rowley wrote:I personally have Greb top, just to throw another name into the mix.

I'd go with Greb, Robinson, Monzon and Hagler - not sure in which order but Marvin possibly last of that lot.

I've always had a fairly big margin between Monzon and Hagler. He struggled far less, didn't lose his title to a semi retired welterweight, fought consistently better opposition. Head to head I also can't see past Monzon who had no weaknesses but was also very good in every department.

Rowley wrote:I personally have Greb top, just to throw another name into the mix.

 

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi
Leonard

Monzon

Benvenuti
Benvenuti
Griffith
Moyer
Bouttier
Bogs
Briscoe
Griffith
Bouttier
Napoles
Mundine
Licata
Tonna
Valdez
Valdez

I'm not sure there's a great deal between those title reigns to be honest.

The big difference to me is that Valdez is the most able middleweight either of them faced and Monzon beat him while Hagler lost to a semi retired Leonard outside of his best weight. Then you have the way Monzon dealt with Napoles in contrast to Hagler struggling with Duran as well as Benvenuti being a more respected champion than Minter. These are all little things but over the course of a substantial reign it becomes quite a big thing.

Heard Meg Ryan has had a bit of Mexican in her........She's eleven on the list.