Top 5 of USA, Mexico, Philippines, and Puerto Rico

[Gallegos Boxing Gym]

Can anyone find anything on these top 5 lists that they can righteously argue with? I can explain my rankings. I won't fold under questioning. Sorry if this is old hat.

USA
1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Pep
4. Greb
5. B. Leonard
(Kills me to leave Ali and Louis out)

Mexico
1. Chavez
2. Finito
3. Sanchez
4. Zarate
5. Canto

Puerto Rico
1. Ortiz
2. Gomez
3. Benitez
4. Trinidad
5. Cotto

Philippines
1. Pac
2. Villa
3. Elorde
4. Little Dado
5. Villaflor

[marbleheadmaui]

Can anyone find anything on these top 5 lists that they can righteously argue with? I can explain my rankings. I won't fold under questioning. Sorry if this is old hat.

USA
1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Pep
4. Greb
5. B. Leonard
(Kills me to leave Ali and Louis out)

Mexico
1. Chavez
2. Finito
3. Sanchez
4. Zarate
5. Canto

Puerto Rico
1. Ortiz
2. Gomez
3. Benitez
4. Trinidad
5. Cotto

Philippines
1. Pac
2. Villa
3. Elorde
4. Little Dado
5. Villaflor

On the USA that is certainly a respectable list. There are about 8 guys with good arguments for the top five and you got five of them.

On Mexico there is a flagrant miss and that is Ruben Olivares who, in my view cannot be lower than #2 and may be number 1. I think Morales may have a claim. But again the exclusing on Olivares is the only obvious flaw.

On PR one could quibble with the order and I think one could replace Cotto with Camacho or Jose Torres and have as good a list, but overall pretty good.

On the Phillipines I think one could arguably replace Dado and Villaflor with Montana or Cefarino or Espinsoa and have as good a list. But again, these are quibbles.

All in all I think you've done good work here.

[Gallegos Boxing Gym]

On the USA that is certainly a respectable list. There are about 8 guys with good arguments for the top five and you got five of them.

On Mexico there is a flagrant miss and that is Ruben Olivares who, in my view cannot be lower than #2 and may be number 1. I think Morales may have a claim. But again the exclusing on Olivares is the only obvious flaw.

On PR one could quibble with the order and I think one could replace Cotto with Camacho or Jose Torres and have as good a list, but overall pretty good.

On the Phillipines I think one could arguably replace Dado and Villaflor with Montana or Cefarino or Espinsoa and have as good a list. But again, these are quibbles.

All in all I think you've done good work here.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Rockabye Ruben. Might have been an oversight. It's just such a deep group. I think Zarate was more dominant as a bantamweight champ against a more demanding group. That's a judgment call, but I never thought Zarate lost at 118, the Pintor decision being a bad one. Olivares was less peerless at 118 if that makes any sense. Preferring Olivares' more voluminous body of work is a very understandable take.

The #5 spot for PR can be taken by a number of fighters. I prefer Cotto's more complete list of wins over the more limited accomplishments of Torres and Camacho. Again, arguments can be made both ways.

For the Philippines, it gets really messy after the top 3. There's a gaggle of great flyweights who fought more or less in the same era (the Dados, Montana) and it's hard to comb through the results to determine the best. For me, Little Dado's best wins and the fact that he didn't lose a ton of fights in his prime like the others seems to give him an edge. I think Ceferino's resume is a little dicey. Luisito had some big wins, but along the way frequently lost to guys he should have beaten, which drops him down a peg. But to put Espinoza ahead of Villaflor is a move I might make. He was just a more special talent, even if Villaflor has a period of dominance that Espinoza never achieved.

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

[marbleheadmaui]

On the USA that is certainly a respectable list. There are about 8 guys with good arguments for the top five and you got five of them.

On Mexico there is a flagrant miss and that is Ruben Olivares who, in my view cannot be lower than #2 and may be number 1. I think Morales may have a claim. But again the exclusing on Olivares is the only obvious flaw.

On PR one could quibble with the order and I think one could replace Cotto with Camacho or Jose Torres and have as good a list, but overall pretty good.

On the Phillipines I think one could arguably replace Dado and Villaflor with Montana or Cefarino or Espinsoa and have as good a list. But again, these are quibbles.

All in all I think you've done good work here.

Yeah, Rockabye Ruben. Might have been an oversight. It's just such a deep group. I think Zarate was more dominant as a bantamweight champ against a more demanding group. That's a judgment call, but I never thought Zarate lost at 118, the Pintor decision being a bad one. Olivares was less peerless at 118 if that makes any sense. Preferring Olivares' more voluminous body of work is a very understandable take.

The #5 spot for PR can be taken by a number of fighters. I prefer Cotto's more complete list of wins over the more limited accomplishments of Torres and Camacho. Again, arguments can be made both ways.

For the Philippines, it gets really messy after the top 3. There's a gaggle of great flyweights who fought more or less in the same era (the Dados, Montana) and it's hard to comb through the results to determine the best. For me, Little Dado's best wins and the fact that he didn't lose a ton of fights in his prime like the others seems to give him an edge. I think Ceferino's resume is a little dicey. Luisito had some big wins, but along the way frequently lost to guys he should have beaten, which drops him down a peg. But to put Espinoza ahead of Villaflor is a move I might make. He was just a more special talent, even if Villaflor has a period of dominance that Espinoza never achieved.

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Zarate's best wins were Zamora, Farerri, Rodolfo Martinez, Benicio Sosa and Dvila. Is that fair? Pretty good group!

Puas' were Sal Burruni, Octavio Gomez, an aging but still formidable Jose Medel, Kanazawa twice, Sakurai, Lionel Rose, Chucho Castillo twice, Pimintel, Bobby Chacon (twice), Art Hafey and JL Ramirez.

I think I'm being fair in saying Puas' conquests were deeper and at the top aren't Rose and Chacon the equal of Zamora and Fererri?

[Gallegos Boxing Gym]

Those are good points.

I still think Zarate was the better bantamweight champion.

Look at Rodolfo Martinez' body of work before Zarate blasted him out. He ruined fighters whose subsequent lack of success was related to the beating Zarate gave them. For 3 years he reigned dominantly and violently until they robbed him against Pintor and he left the sport. I think you can say Olivares' opponents at the top of his list are a slightly deeper group, but Zarate usurps that a bit with his utter dominance.

Not to imply Olivares wasn't dominant. Or violent. But he reigned for only a year before getting stopped by Chucho. He won the return and a year later was stopped again by Herrera, ending his days at 118. That's a pretty unfair characterization of Olivares' reign, but I'm just pointing out that his dominance over his peers was not as pronounced as Zarate's. And no one will say the late-70's was a weak era at 118.

So what's more important, a few more good fighters on your "good wins" list or clearer dominance? It's a matter of personal tastes, but I can't get around the fact that Zarate was as dominant a force at 118 that I ever saw in my limited time on this planet. You certainly make a good case, but I'm gonna go with Zarate.

[Gallegos Boxing Gym]

But if you think Olivares' work outside the bantamweight division was compelling nough to nose him ahead of Zarate in an all-time sense, I can definitely see that.

[marbleheadmaui]

Those are good points.

I still think Zarate was the better bantamweight champion.

Look at Rodolfo Martinez' body of work before Zarate blasted him out. He ruined fighters whose subsequent lack of success was related to the beating Zarate gave them. For 3 years he reigned dominantly and violently until they robbed him against Pintor and he left the sport. I think you can say Olivares' opponents at the top of his list are a slightly deeper group, but Zarate usurps that a bit with his utter dominance.

Not to imply Olivares wasn't dominant. Or violent. But he reigned for only a year before getting stopped by Chucho. He won the return and a year later was stopped again by Herrera, ending his days at 118. That's a pretty unfair characterization of Olivares' reign, but I'm just pointing out that his dominance over his peers was not as pronounced as Zarate's. And no one will say the late-70's was a weak era at 118.

So what's more important, a few more good fighters on your "good wins" list or clearer dominance? It's a matter of personal tastes, but I can't get around the fact that Zarate was as dominant a force at 118 that I ever saw in my limited time on this planet. You certainly make a good case, but I'm gonna go with Zarate.

That was one whale of a post! It is awfully hard to argue with much of it. As much as I loved Puas, few men in history ever left quite as much wreckage in their wake as Zarate did. Now I'm gonna go watch the Zarate-Martinez fight again!

The one argument I will make is while the Zarate era was a formidable one? The Cuevas era was as tough at the top and deeper. I'm not arguing Zrate doesn't belong in the top five, only that Puas does as well.

You've made a great case regarding the bantam comparison! I learned a couple oif things, thanks!