Top 3 Mexican boxers ever?

Hi all. Who do we think are the top three Mexican boxers of all time? Mexico has produced a plethora of fantastic fighters over the years with some names that will live forever. But who are the best? Here are my top three Mexican boxers in no particular order.

Julio Cesar Chavez. Three weight world champion, unbeaten in his first 90 fights and 27 successful title defenses. Murderous body puncher and fantastic ring general whose unrelenting pressure was a joy to watch for a fan but a nightmare for opponents . Always in range but rock hard and ready to punish you seemingly at will in his prime. Beat the likes of La Porte, Rosario, Taylor, Camacho and a host of other top names. Had a contoversial draw with Whitaker and went on too long, losing to De La Hoya twice and Kostya Tszyu amongst others but nothing should distract from his great career and venomous body punching.

Salvador Sanchez. Tragically killed at just 23 years old, but what an amazing fighter and what an amazing record. Only one loss, early in his career, was followed by a stellar list of beaten opponents made all the more incredible by the fact he died so young. Beat the likes of Lopez x 2, Castillo, La Porte and Castanon, but his legacy is cemented by wins over fellow ATG's in Wilfredo Gomez and Azumah Nelson who were both unbeaten prior to facing Sanchez. Salvador had a spiteful punch, but developed into a fantastic ring technician and wonderful counter puncher. Who knows wht he might have gone on to achieve had he not died so young. Even so, deserves a spot in the top 3 for me.

Ricardo Lopez. Don't be fooled by his size, "Finito" Lopez is a true ATG and a wonderful fighter who won world titles at two different weights and retired with only a draw, avenged in his very next fight, as the single blemish on his record. Although the names may not be as familar as others at higher weights, Lopez defeated the best fighters of his era and deserves all the acolades he receives. A rangy box/fighter with tremendous footwork, Lopez also carried a huge punch and solid chin. He was the man to fear at his weight and was pure poetry in motion when in full flight.

So there you have it. My top three Mexican warriors. Close to making the list were obvious names like Olivares, Zarate, Saldivar, MAB, Morales and JMM.

I am sure people will have others who should be in the top 3, and I am interested to see what people come up with.

Don't think anyone can dispute a top two of Chavez and Sanchez, with the latter very possibly going on to secure top spot had his career not been cut so short.

Third spot, for me, is closely contested between Saldivar and Olivares. Both great value for money fighters, and had Olivares hung on for a couple more rounds against Arguello he'd have been a lock for that number three spot. All in all, I'll edge towards Olivares but on any other day I could easily switch that round.

Was Jose Napoles considered for your list? "He's Cuban!" I hear you all scream, but he was an adopted Mexican, took out Mexican citizenship and, if we're including him, then his claim to that number three spot isn't too shabby either.

I'll go with Chavez, Sanchez and Olivares right now, though.

Sal Sanchez and JC Chavez are numero uno and dos for sure.

Can't argue with your Lopez pick either, I think I'd opt for someone else though. I'm tempted to say Barrera, but I need to think on it a bit more.

Have to say your spot on and also have Olivares, Zarate and Saldivar in the chasing pack with Barrera, Morales and Marquez at the lower end of a top ten.

Have to mention Carlos Palomino who was a fantastic Welterweight and often gets forgotten amongst the best of the mexicans, didn't fight in the traditional mexican way which may play a significant role in that and also his predecessor at Jose Napoles, an adopted Mexican.

Unfortunately regarding Sal Sanchez, its a question of how great would he have been. You can't rate someone as the best based on potential. He would have been one of the best without doubt. But as his life was cut short, he cant be.

JCC, Olivarez and Zarate. Lopez is a good shout. MAB and Moralez whilst both very good, are not as good as the others.

azania wrote:Unfortunately regarding Sal Sanchez, its a question of how great would he have been. You can't rate someone as the best based on potential. He would have been one of the best without doubt. But as his life was cut short, he cant be.

JCC, Olivarez and Zarate. Lopez is a good shout. MAB and Moralez whilst both very good, are not as good as the others.

Sanchez isn't rated based purely on his "potential" at all, though. Far from it. Regardless of how short his career was cut, what he did in its duration alone is enough to qualify him as great. Battered the underrated Danny Lopez for the title and then defended, off the top of my head, eight or nine times in the space of roughly two and a half years. Three of the men he beat in his WBC title defences (Nelson, Gomez and La Porte) went on to win it after his death. Death can be a great marketing tool now and then, but not in Sanchez's case. He was great, simple as that. Nailed-on top four Featherweight of all time.

There's a difference between 'could have been great' and 'could have been even greater.' Sanchez belongs to that second category.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Unfortunately regarding Sal Sanchez, its a question of how great would he have been. You can't rate someone as the best based on potential. He would have been one of the best without doubt. But as his life was cut short, he cant be.

JCC, Olivarez and Zarate. Lopez is a good shout. MAB and Moralez whilst both very good, are not as good as the others.

Sanchez isn't rated based purely on his "potential" at all, though. Far from it. Regardless of how short his career was cut, what he did in its duration alone is enough to qualify him as great. Battered the underrated Danny Lopez for the title and then defended, off the top of my head, eight or nine times in the space of roughly two and a half years. Three of the men he beat in his WBC title defences (Nelson, Gomez and La Porte) went on to win it after his death. Death can be a great marketing tool now and then, but not in Sanchez's case. He was great, simple as that. Nailed-on top four Featherweight of all time.

There's a difference between 'could have been great' and 'could have been even greater.' Sanchez belongs to that second category.

Zarate, Olivares and JCC all proved themselves over a number of years. Something SS did not have. Oh, he was better than good. An absolutely superb boxer. I first saw him against Cowdell and thought his good then. I read about his fight against Gomez in Boxing News and thought Gomez would win (caught up inhis KO list and thought SS would be another victim). But SS schooled him and took him out in 8 if I recall correctly. SS could have been one of the best ever. But at 23, with his career tragically cut short and to rate him above Zarate is wrong imo. He could have been but sadly wasn't.

Sanchez is number two without doubt, ignoring his early death he did far more in his career than Zarate and by quite some distance too, 9 defences of his title against stellar opposition is more than enough to mark him out as one of the greats.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Have to say your spot on and also have Olivares, Zarate and Saldivar in the chasing pack with Barrera, Morales and Marquez at the lower end of a top ten.

Have to mention Carlos Palomino who was a fantastic Welterweight and often gets forgotten amongst the best of the mexicans, didn't fight in the traditional mexican way which may play a significant role in that and also his predecessor at Jose Napoles, an adopted Mexican.

Nice to see that I'm not the only one who didn't forget about 'Mantequilla' Napoles, Ghosty. But I think your point regarding Palomino is interesting. Not really a contender for a top three (or, in all honesty, a top ten) spot but as you say a great ring technician all the same, and one who I've always wished had squared off against his fellow unerrated Mexican, the murderous-punching Pipino Cuevas. A real shame that this fight never happened; a fantastic mix of styles (the cool and measured pure boxing of Palomino against the blitzkrieg attack of Cuevas, who had as good a left hook as there's ever been at 147 lb) and they were both dominating Welterweight in the late seventies as I'm sure you know, with Palomino dominating the WBC fights and Cuevas cutting through everyone the WBA put in front of him - until he ran in to a certain Thomas Hearns, of course.

A real shame and, given all of that, a bit of a mystery that it never happened. I personally think that Cuevas' ledger when it comes to their title reigns and wins is a little more impressive, but there's not a lot in it. As I said, definitely two of the most underrated Mexicans of all time, particularly Cuevas. His record looks modest to the eye of the modern fan obsessed with win-loss ratios, but he was still in his teens by the time he picked up the title.

Thought i'd give him a mention nonetheless would possibly have Cuevas in my top ten in the same group as Barrera, Morales and Marqeuz. A very dangerous Welterweight who swept aside all in front but like you said ran into a certain hitman, interesting fight as you can tell by the tactics that Steward knew they needed him out of their quick before he had the chance to detonate his left hand on Hearns.

Think Napoles, Palomino and Cuevas get forgotten because they were Welterweight which isn't generally a very mexican weight class.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sanchez is number two without doubt, ignoring his early death he did far more in his career than Zarate and by quite some distance too, 9 defences of his title against stellar opposition is more than enough to mark him out as one of the greats.

There is always doubt.

Forgot to give props to Ricardo Lopez also.

azania wrote:Zarate, Olivares and JCC all proved themselves over a number of years. Something SS did not have.

I'll take your point regarding Chavez proving himself over many more years (irrelevant though as I have him ahead of Sanchez anyway), and Olivares to a lesser extent. But Zarate? Not sure why you proclaim him to have "proved himself over many years" in a way Sanchez never did. If my memory serves me correctly, Zarate and Sanchez held the WBC titles at Bantamweight and Featherweight respectively for more or less the same amount of time, give or take a few months. Hardly puts Zarate in a different stratosphere using your criteria, particularly considering that the men Sanchez dealt with at Featherweight were generally of higher quality than those who faced Zarate at 118 lb.

Sure, Zarate's whole career went on longer, but he did nothing of great note after losing the title. Don't see how you can rank him ahead of Sanchez due to proving himself over a "number of years" when his best days lasted roughly the same amount of time as Sanchez's.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Zarate, Olivares and JCC all proved themselves over a number of years. Something SS did not have.

I'll take your point regarding Chavez proving himself over many more years (irrelevant though as I have him ahead of Sanchez anyway), and Olivares to a lesser extent. But Zarate? Not sure why you proclaim him to have "proved himself over many years" in a way Sanchez never did. If my memory serves me correctly, Zarate and Sanchez held the WBC titles at Bantamweight and Featherweight respectively for more or less the same amount of time, give or take a few months. Hardly puts Zarate in a different stratosphere using your criteria, particularly considering that the men Sanchez dealt with at Featherweight were generally of higher quality than those who faced Zarate at 118 lb.

Sure, Zarate's whole career went on longer, but he did nothing of note after losing the title. Don't see how you can rank him ahead of Sanchez due to proving himself over a "number of years" when his best days lasted roughly the same amount of time as Sanchez's.

Perhaps I'm biased as I liked Zarate. Its late, but I recall an opponent of his (name starting with Z also) who he destroyed in 4. Great win and a very exciting fighter. When on song he was simply devestating and his defences I believe were a tad better than SS.

Along with the majority, I cannot see past Chavez and Sanchez for the top two spots.

The scrap for third would be akin to a bar brawl in Juarez, as far as I'm concerned, there being a few very good contenders and with very little to choose between them but, with perhaps a touch of nostalgia - unusual for me, I know - I'm going to plump for Olivares, who was an absolute giant among the smaller men, acquitting himself wonderfully well at bantam, ( at which weight he was a murderous puncher, ) and at feather, also.

I certainly wouldn't argue too vigorously with those who see it for Lopez or Barrera, though.

All the right names here, with the sole, and usual, exception of Miguel Canto, for some reason. The poor guy, 14 defences of his flyweight crown and all, is always overlooked - here, in the US and, ridiculously enough, in his home country, where I have actually heard fight fans deride him as a coward. Amazing, really. Canto couldn't punch a hole in butter, unfortunately, and his defensive wizardry never got anyone too excited, but he was a bit of a genius in his own way.
I go with Tino's top 3, by the way.

To my shame, I didn't even consider Canto in my deliberations, captain, which only goes to underscore your point.

Great responses guys, thanks.

Good shouts for Napoles ( should have included him in the chasing pack, my mistake and not why he slipped my radar) Palomino and Cuevas. All terrific fighters and deserve a mention.

Captain, to my shame, I ommitted Canto from the list. In mitigating circumstances, I was thinking about him when I started the thread, but for some reason he fell from my mind. Great little fighter and should have been on the list.

Az, I am not sure why Sanchez is punished in your eyes for not having longevity. His record is incredible and packed with absolute stellar names. He was a boy in terms of age and to do what he did, and with such class, makes him nailed on for the top three in my opinion.

88Chris05 wrote:Don't think anyone can dispute a top two of Chavez and Sanchez, with the latter very possibly going on to secure top spot had his career not been cut so short.

Third spot, for me, is closely contested between Saldivar and Olivares. Both great value for money fighters, and had Olivares hung on for a couple more rounds against Arguello he'd have been a lock for that number three spot. All in all, I'll edge towards Olivares but on any other day I could easily switch that round.

Was Jose Napoles considered for your list? "He's Cuban!" I hear you all scream, but he was an adopted Mexican, took out Mexican citizenship and, if we're including him, then his claim to that number three spot isn't too shabby either.

I'll go with Chavez, Sanchez and Olivares right now, though.

Chris, how close would Lopez be to your top three then?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Don't think anyone can dispute a top two of Chavez and Sanchez, with the latter very possibly going on to secure top spot had his career not been cut so short.

Third spot, for me, is closely contested between Saldivar and Olivares. Both great value for money fighters, and had Olivares hung on for a couple more rounds against Arguello he'd have been a lock for that number three spot. All in all, I'll edge towards Olivares but on any other day I could easily switch that round.

Was Jose Napoles considered for your list? "He's Cuban!" I hear you all scream, but he was an adopted Mexican, took out Mexican citizenship and, if we're including him, then his claim to that number three spot isn't too shabby either.

I'll go with Chavez, Sanchez and Olivares right now, though.

Chris, how close would Lopez be to your top three then?

Not all that far off, Tino. As I said earlier, I'd have Chavez, Sanchez and Olivares as my top three. Saldivar, Zarate and Canto the closest of the chasing pack, with Lopez a shade behind them but ahead of Barrera, Morales and Arizmendi completing the top ten (not including Napoles, for the sake of time and argument). So I'd personally have Lopez in at seven. May seem a little harsh but I'll stress that there are only very fine margins between all my picks, and I wouldn't object at all to anyone having Lopez as high as number three.

Fantastic little fighter, great in any era and had all the skills. Sadly, the fact that the large majority of his best work came in a division which has struggled for recognition outside of the Orient (as a Latin fighter, Lopez was actually an exception to the rule at 105 lb) and where he was, until fairly recently, the only truly outstanding champion to operate in it does hurt his ranking a little bit. Just my take on it though, don't expect all that many to agree.

Feel quite ashamed to have forgotten Canto especially after my recent Flyweight article

88Chris05 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Don't think anyone can dispute a top two of Chavez and Sanchez, with the latter very possibly going on to secure top spot had his career not been cut so short.

Third spot, for me, is closely contested between Saldivar and Olivares. Both great value for money fighters, and had Olivares hung on for a couple more rounds against Arguello he'd have been a lock for that number three spot. All in all, I'll edge towards Olivares but on any other day I could easily switch that round.

Was Jose Napoles considered for your list? "He's Cuban!" I hear you all scream, but he was an adopted Mexican, took out Mexican citizenship and, if we're including him, then his claim to that number three spot isn't too shabby either.

I'll go with Chavez, Sanchez and Olivares right now, though.

Chris, how close would Lopez be to your top three then?

Not all that far off, Tino. As I said earlier, I'd have Chavez, Sanchez and Olivares as my top three. Saldivar, Zarate and Canto the closest of the chasing pack, with Lopez a shade behind them but ahead of Barrera, Morales and Arizmendi completing the top ten (not including Napoles, for the sake of time and argument). So I'd personally have Lopez in at seven. May seem a little harsh but I'll stress that there are only very fine margins between all my picks, and I wouldn't object at all to anyone having Lopez as high as number three.

Fantastic little fighter, great in any era and had all the skills. Sadly, the fact that the large majority of his best work came in a division which has struggled for recognition outside of the Orient (as a Latin fighter, Lopez was actually an exception to the rule at 105 lb) and where he was, until fairly recently, the only truly outstanding champion to operate in it does hurt his ranking a little bit. Just my take on it though, don't expect all that many to agree.

Chris, fair points and you are right about the margins been fine. Almost seems unfair to pick between some of the great Mexicans.

Last question for you. Does his unbeaten record not tempt you to edge him higher than 7th? Marciano is, rightly so as well, lauded for ending with a perfect slate and without that, would probably be much lower in peoples all time heavyweight lists. Lopez finished unbeaten and for me that really helps me feel comfortable with such a lofty rating. I will freely admit, I don't know as much about the Strawweight/Light Flyweights as I should these days but used to follow them more back when Lopez was around and he really did clean out everyone he realistically could.

One more great little Mexican that I should have mentioned is Humberto González. "Chiquita" was a cracking little warrior and had a couple of belters with Carbajal. I know he wouldn't make many top 10 lists but deserves a mention.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Chris, fair points and you are right about the margins been fine. Almost seems unfair to pick between some of the great Mexicans.

Last question for you. Does his unbeaten record not tempt you to edge him higher than 7th? Marciano is, rightly so as well, lauded for ending with a perfect slate and without that, would probably be much lower in peoples all time heavyweight lists. Lopez finished unbeaten and for me that really helps me feel comfortable with such a lofty rating. I will freely admit, I don't know as much about the Strawweight/Light Flyweights as I should these days but used to follow them more back when Lopez was around and he really did clean out everyone he realistically could.

One more great little Mexican that I should have mentioned is Humberto González. "Chiquita" was a cracking little warrior and had a couple of belters with Carbajal. I know he wouldn't make many top 10 lists but deserves a mention.

Interesting question regarding Lopez's unbeaten record, Tino. Personally, though, I think I tend to rank the '0' a little lower in terms of importance than a lot of others do. In this example I can liken Lopez to Joe Calzaghe. The Welshman, like Lopez, finished unbeaten but, again just like Lopez, I rank him 'only' sixth or seventh when it comes to his all-time standing for his own country.

Simply put, I'll always go for who a fighter has actually beaten rather than look at pure statistics. Lopez beat everyone who was there to beat at 105 lb and later on 108 lb, of course, and did so without any of the question marks hanging over Calzaghe to this day. But as I said, Strawweight is a division which was never really fully embraced outside of the Orient during Lopez's career, and the fact that there have only been a couple of other really notable champions at the weight counts against him a little bit.

Like Calzaghe in the British scheme of things, Lopez gets a place in the second half of my top ten Mexicans for his consistency, all-round abilities and the domination of his division. But just as I can't ignore the fact that Lewis, Welsh and Wilde beat much better names than Calzaghe, I likewise can't dismiss the fact that Chavez, Sanchez and Saldivar beat more elite performers than Lopez.

Not Lopez's fault, of course. But hey, we've got to rank them on something!