My Top 10 Mexican fighters from 1980-present

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..

De La Hoya would be 8th out of all of them, definitely behind Chavez, Marquez, Lopez and Sanchez. Would have to include Napoles who's more revered by Mexicans than his successors in Cuevas and Palomino.

Was napoles in the 80s?

No way did Sal do enough to be above him...........Whittaker, Chavez twice, Quartey plus other quality.........titles from 130-154..... and ten years at the top......

Will say I think Sal would have been the best If he avoided camacho at 130........

Beat better fighters than Julio too........Who's owning off Randall kind of marks him down for me......Plus he lucked out against Meldrick.......

As for your late additions...........80-present.

Thanks for your input though Mate.......It's all subjective.

When you say 10 years at the top, what do you mean? 10 years at the top of what? A belt holder, divisional number one, top 10 p4p?

Let's not forget his losses as well Truss and he was a mere belt holder outside of welterweight and light middleweight. Sanchez with his wins over Gomez, Nelson and Lopez as well as his dominance of his division is more than enough.

I think you severely over rate De La Hoya to be honest, a very good fighter but just short of greatness.

I would have JCC comfortably above DLH and would swap Guerrero for Chiquita Gonzalez but the right names are there other than that.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:When you say 10 years at the top, what do you mean? 10 years at the top of what? A belt holder, divisional number one, top 10 p4p?

At the top of the sport.......For argument purposes...........

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I would have JCC comfortably above DLH and would swap Guerrero for Chiquita Gonzalez but the right names are there other than that.

Chiquita is a good offering............You got me stumped Mate.........been so long since I saw him..........Carbajal fights were superb.......Good champion

Maybe he goes in instead of Guerrero.........I'll amend the list.......Good call.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:When you say 10 years at the top, what do you mean? 10 years at the top of what? A belt holder, divisional number one, top 10 p4p?

At the top of the sport.......For argument purposes...........

He was the most popular figure granted, but I would have him at the 'top of the sport'.

My knowledge of boxing history isn't as vast as most on here, but from that list I'd certainly have Marquez higher than Oscar for the more modern fighters. 3 wins at least over Manny who will go down as an ATG will see him above for me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I would have JCC comfortably above DLH and would swap Guerrero for Chiquita Gonzalez but the right names are there other than that.

Chiquita is a good offering............You got me stumped Mate.........been so long since I saw him..........Carbajal fights were superb.......Good champion

Maybe he goes in instead of Guerrero.........I'll amend the list.......Good call.

Carbajal fights are what give him the edge for me. Fantastic little fighter. Cob Castro and Sosa were excellent wins as well. To come back from the first fight with Carbajal and beat him twice was some effort.

I wish Lopez had fought him. Great all Mexican battle. I think Lopez beats him pretty handily but I would have loved to have seen it.

But he didn't beat Manny more than once..........I imagine If Norton won twice over Ali.......He'd break the top 20 heavyweights......

I have sympathy with that argument......But fact is on paper he won once..

I'd have given him all 4 fights.........But Whittaker, Chavez twice, Mayorga, Vargas plus all the other former champions means Oscar for me......

Subjective though.........Not suggesting your opinion is wrong.......Hammer is in sympathy with it..........

But he doesn't like Oscar........

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I would have JCC comfortably above DLH and would swap Guerrero for Chiquita Gonzalez but the right names are there other than that.

Chiquita is a good offering............You got me stumped Mate.........been so long since I saw him..........Carbajal fights were superb.......Good champion

Maybe he goes in instead of Guerrero.........I'll amend the list.......Good call.

Carbajal fights are what give him the edge for me.  Fantastic little fighter.  Cob Castro and Sosa were excellent wins as well.  To come back from the first fight with Carbajal and beat him twice was some effort.

I wish Lopez had fought him.  Great all Mexican battle.  I think Lopez beats him pretty handily but I would have loved to have seen it.

Absolutely.........Nothing beats a Mexican war...........Chavez vs sanchez in 85 had he lived sounds tasty too......at 130.

I think we need to look at Marquez in the same way we do Whittaker. Both were blatantly robbed during their careers and I for one wouldn't mark them down for it. Clear as day that Marquez won the first and third fights for me, and I gave him the second too.

Magnificent fighter and my personal favourite to watch over the last 10 years.

Nobody holds Ramirez against Whittaker...........He drew with Chavez which is still legacy enhancing.......and ran like a thief against Oscar.......

We can disagree on that one.........

Whittaker is ranked highly enough..........

Walcott was robbed against louis..........Probably cracks the top 15 heavies otherwise......

What is in the book.............counts....Or it gets too complicated.

You might have reservations about his one-plan way of fighting and overall abilities, Truss, but on the sheer strength of his championship record, career achievements and overall consistency, Chavez is without doubt the greatest Mexican fighter of all time in my eyes, never mind just the past thirty-odd years.

Can't see any way to have De la Hoya above him, really.

That aside, there's some cracking names there, but I'd say that Ramirez could be included in the final spot or so. Chavez's win over Rosario was his coming as a genuine super star fighter, but it's easy to forget that it was actually Ramirez who first shattered Rosario's aura of invincibility. Additional wins over Boza-Edwards and Ali, gave a pretty much peak Arguello a huge scare, and only really beaten decisively by the absolute cream of the crop (Camacho, Whitaker, Chavez). Borderline case, perhaps, but worth a thought.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I would have JCC comfortably above DLH and would swap Guerrero for Chiquita Gonzalez but the right names are there other than that.

Chiquita is a good offering............You got me stumped Mate.........been so long since I saw him..........Carbajal fights were superb.......Good champion

Maybe he goes in instead of Guerrero.........I'll amend the list.......Good call.

Carbajal fights are what give him the edge for me.  Fantastic little fighter.  Cob Castro and Sosa were excellent wins as well.  To come back from the first fight with Carbajal and beat him twice was some effort.

I wish Lopez had fought him.  Great all Mexican battle.  I think Lopez beats him pretty handily but I would have loved to have seen it.

Absolutely.........Nothing beats a Mexican war...........Chavez vs sanchez in 85 had he lived sounds tasty too......at 130.

I think '85 may have come a little early for JCC. The Sanchez who beat Gomez was just sublime and I'm not sure JCC really cracked in gear until later in the decade. May have been 2 - 3 years too early for Julio.

Timing is difficult though as who knows who Sanchez would have fought between Nelson in '82 and whenever a JCC fight took place.

I said it was a subjective list.........I see Oscar beating him anytime........any place....

Rosario his other great win is marred by the Ramirez stoppage in 84.......Don't really think Taylor was anything but robbed........

But that's how I feel and If anybody wants Chavez top then hey that's fine with me......

Great fighter who will always have a place in my heart.......26 years next month.......

Consensus say's you are right and I'm wrong...........

Consensus counts too when it sides with Haz!!   

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I would have JCC comfortably above DLH and would swap Guerrero for Chiquita Gonzalez but the right names are there other than that.

Chiquita is a good offering............You got me stumped Mate.........been so long since I saw him..........Carbajal fights were superb.......Good champion

Maybe he goes in instead of Guerrero.........I'll amend the list.......Good call.

Carbajal fights are what give him the edge for me.  Fantastic little fighter.  Cob Castro and Sosa were excellent wins as well.  To come back from the first fight with Carbajal and beat him twice was some effort.

I wish Lopez had fought him.  Great all Mexican battle.  I think Lopez beats him pretty handily but I would have loved to have seen it.

Absolutely.........Nothing beats a Mexican war...........Chavez vs sanchez in 85 had he lived sounds tasty too......at 130.

I think '85 may have come a little early for JCC.  The Sanchez who beat Gomez was just sublime and I'm not sure JCC really cracked in gear until later in the decade.  May have been 2 - 3 years too early for Julio.  

Timing is difficult though as who knows who Sanchez would have fought between Nelson in '82 and whenever a JCC fight took place.

You may be right Tino........Although I'm not sure Chavez'... Modus operandi .....Really changed over the years......Wonderful body puncher......Sanchez would enjoy him coming forward...But chavez would be bigger!!.....Helluva fight and a potential trilogy.........

You can't base it all on paper then say Taylor was robbed, on paper it's a win for Chavez and the right call from Steel to boot.

I don't dislike De La Hoya but I don't regard him as highly as others, he won some but he also lost some.

Gross misjustice and basically a shutout till the stoppage..........So whilst you have a point in one regard I've acknowledged Draws don't hurt a legacy with whittaker.........or Marquez..

and acknoweldeged Ramirez doesn't hurt Whittaker..........

Gross miscarriages shouldn't hurt legacies..........LJ was referring to Manny-Marquez...I mentioned Walcott-Louis.........contentious decisions..

But I should have been clearer.......

I don't want to argue over Steele but I'll be damned If.......

1. He couldn't see the red lights

2. He wasn't in King's pocket......

3. Hearns wasn't in a worse state against barkley and he let it go on.......

Same old argument, Steele made the right call and was put in that position by indominatable will of Chavez.

If you wish to call that a robbery then ill use the Pacquiao fights as a plus for Marquez not to mention never having size on his side.

Don't tell me he made the right call as If it's fact.........HBO thought it sucked at the time and Merchant still does.......As did plenty of the media..at the time.

So don't say FACT........ just because you think it all the time............

The stoppage sucked and he stunk to high heaven......He rushed his inspection because he saw the lights flashing.......

disgusting.

Id have JMM a little higher mate, probably above Sanchez. Maybe.

Like lumbering, he has been my fav fighter for a very very long time and had he not been robbed multiple times, his record would appear better.

saying that, had he not got robbed, we may not have seen 4 great fights between him and pacman. May not have been as popular.

DLH for me is 1 with JCC 2 although was never a fan of JCC. Just didn't appeal to me having looked back at his career.

But there you go.

I'll make my own mind up Truss and who cares what the so called experts say and lets not make out they're not biased.

What a surprise the Mayweather fanboys both have De La Hoya top, not want to squeeze Ortiz and Jesus Chavez into your lists.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'll make my own mind up Truss and who cares what the so called experts say and lets not make out they're not biased.

You're not making your own mind up are you.........You are telling me it's fact when it isn't !!!!!!!!

Plenty believe it stunk.......

mobilemaster8 wrote:Id have JMM a little higher mate, probably above Sanchez. Maybe.

Like lumbering, he has been my fav fighter for a very very long time and had he not been robbed multiple times, his record would appear better.

saying that, had he not got robbed, we may not have seen 4 great fights between him and pacman. May not have been as popular.

DLH for me is 1 with JCC 2 although was never a fan of JCC. Just didn't appeal to me having looked back at his career.

But there you go.

You're more than entitled to your opinion Mobile........and it's most welcome..

Granted our opinions aren't as worthy as Hammers but maybe someday we'll aspire to reach his lofty status.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't tell me he made the right call as If it's fact.........HBO thought it sucked at the time and Merchant still does.......

You can do what you like........

Thats true but remember them playing the replay and Letterman saying well that the point - if he doesnt reply he has to stop the fight, richard steele made the right call. In the Legendary nights series they omitted that bit. Larry Merchant called it a bad stoppage but Letterman and Lampley (Latter grudgingly) agreed with steele

The record book states it as a win and a win it is, were it the other way round your view would change.

It's a fair point.Shah.........and we can disagree..........Just that......

1. He gave Hearns all the time in the World against Barkley........and .rushed the inspection over Taylor in my opinion because..........

He saw the lights flashing and didn't want to bite the hand that fed him........King.

My point is.... It was contentious.........and still is.......remember KO going ape over it.....

It counts against him on my list.........which is subjective.......

Have no objection to those who have Chavez higher.

Hammer have no wish to fall out with you Mate..........But my opinion is my opinion........and the list isn't Mayweather related I can assure you.........Now I'm sure like usual you'll tell me that it is and you can read my mind.......

But I assure you it isn't............

Ifs buts and maybes, but for me Sanchez would've been the best of the bunch save for an unfortunately early departure to the boxing ring in the sky.

Ortiz? Eh?

After having read that, if your on about Ortiz, then i really will find it hard to which such lofty heights as Hammer.

Possibly because i don't do drugs or abuse them. Either or.

What about all the great little men like Rafa Marquez, Vasquez, Arce and Mijares?

What about Vicious Victor?

azania wrote:Was napoles in the 80s?

And was he Mexican? I guess we Brits cheer when Peterson hits a six.

Quite a tough list to evaluate. A lot of fighters who are seriously good/borderline greats. Sanchez you have to rate on potential, Oscar and Jcc had setbacks later on their careers, Oscar arguably nearer his prime (though I I referred his work pre welter). Not clear cut, really for me, but several million Mexicans think Jcc is top dog do who am I to argue.

I didn't see the 80's bit to start with.

milkyboy wrote: Sanchez you have to rate on potential.

Not so sure you do, milky.

Lopez x 2, LaPorte, Gomez and Nelson is more than some fighters manage in two careers. The Gomez win alone puts him in a special bracket.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I didn't see the 80's bit to start with.

It was the Cuban angle I was teasing you about, mate.

Oscar doesn't belong up there -- he's way down the list. Chavez remains the greatest Mexican of all time. Who's Sota?

I'd have to think Marquez has now outstripped Lopez (and certainly Oscar).

The Mexican heritage thing muddies the water a bit -- but Rafael Marquez is a decent shout.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

milkyboy wrote: Sanchez you have to rate on potential.

Not so sure you do, milky.

Lopez x 2, LaPorte, Gomez and Nelson is more than some fighters manage in two careers.  The Gomez win alone puts him in a special bracket.

Didnt explain that too well, I meant with his career ending so young, it's difficult to rank him because he was potentially number 1.

That's the thing though, he could have been one of the greatest ever, or he might have done a benitez. There were certainly some great match ups ahead of him.

Danny "Little red" Lopez was American but had Mexican heritage. Does he qualify?

Orlando Canizales? Michael Carbajal? Diego Corrales? Genaro Hernandez?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No way did Sal do enough to be above him...........Whittaker, Chavez twice, Quartey plus other quality.........titles from 130-154..... and ten years at the top......

Will say I think Sal would have been the best If he avoided camacho at 130........

Beat better fighters than Julio too........Who's owning off Randall kind of marks him down for me......Plus he lucked out against Meldrick.......

As for your late additions...........80-present.

Thanks for your input though Mate.......It's all subjective.

Sanchez rates over Oscar for me -- his only decisive wins in the list you mention came against a badly faded and undersized former legend (in Chavez). Oscar lost all of his biggest fights.

Chavez wasn't owned by Randall either -- it was split decision. Randall was good for it but took his lumps against a champion that clearly looked to have lost his lustre (as well he might after such an imperious reign).

Another case of personal preference colouring your judgement?

I'd go with:

1. Chavez
2. Marquez
3. Sanchez
4. Barrera

It gets tougher after that, especially if you include the heritage thing.

milkyboy wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I didn't see the 80's bit to start with.

It was the Cuban angle I was teasing you about, mate.

It's a tricky one, he is Cuban but fought out of Mexico and is one of their boxing heroes, I can see the argument either way.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No way did Sal do enough to be above him...........Whittaker, Chavez twice, Quartey plus other quality.........titles from 130-154..... and ten years at the top......

Will say I think Sal would have been the best If he avoided camacho at 130........

Beat better fighters than Julio too........Who's owning off Randall kind of marks him down for me......Plus he lucked out against Meldrick.......

As for your late additions...........80-present.

Thanks for your input though Mate.......It's all subjective.

Sanchez rates over Oscar for me -- his only decisive wins in the list you mention came against a badly faded and undersized former legend (in Chavez). Oscar lost all of his biggest fights.

Chavez wasn't owned by Randall either -- it was split decision. Randall was good for it but took his lumps against a champion that clearly looked to have lost his lustre (as well he might after such an imperious reign).

Another case of personal preference colouring your judgement?

I'd go with:

1. Chavez
2. Marquez
3. Sanchez
4. Barrera

It gets tougher after that, especially if you include the heritage thing.

Chavez is a great no doubt haz, but truss does have a point here. If you strip away the bum of the month fluff to build up the w column, and look only at the competitive fights. You can see he went tooth and nail with la Porte and, to a lesser extent, lockridge, was gifted a decision against Whittaker, and the Randall fight was a clear defeat whatever the judges said.

If he'd had 50 fights with the same number of genuine opponents would he be ranked so high? I'm not so sure. Ultimately his record relies on some very good wins and a few great wins on paper against Rosario and camacho... plus the taylor fight. But, el Chapo had been ramirez'd by then, and camacho was in full reverse mode. Did he get either at their best? He got Taylor at his best and it was a great come from behind win... But another ref... Or a trainer who wasn't worried about his fighter getting shafted, and it's a clear points defeat.

Great fighter, great record and I'm not nitpicking a record.. Just putting a different perspective. Just as your view of Oscar is seen from a different set of eyes than truss.

Oscar lost his biggest fights? On the scorecards yes, on everyone's scorecards no. He was in a lot of very close fights, got the rub in dome not in others. For example,  you make a better argument for quartey beating him than Trinidad. Whichever, he certainly didnt prove himself top dog in a very good welter/light middle scene.

I'd have Chavez above Oscar, for that reason, though I always thought Oscar was better below 147, and personally, I don't think it's all that clear cut.

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."

1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Salvador Sanchez
3. Marco Antonio Barrera
4. Ricardo Lopez
5. Juan Manuel Marquez
6. Erik Morales
7. Chiquita Gonzalez
8. Israel Vazquez
9. Jose Luis Castillo
10. Rafael Marquez

I have stuck to Mexicans rather than Americans of Mexican heritage before anyone thinks i just forgot ODH.

Interesting list Mate...........Castillo and no Oscar.......

Oscar is a great.........come on.

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