Top fighters out of every country

[frankenfrank]

I'll start with 1 of d most popular if not d popular outside of d U.S of course :

Puerto Rico :
1. Juan LaPorte
2. Hector Camacho
3. Carlos Ortiz
4. Wilfredo Gomez
5. Sixto Escobar
6. Wilfred Benitez
7. Esteban DeJesus
8. Edwin Viruet
9. John John Molina
10. Adolfo Viruet

11. Frankie Narvarez
12. Edwin Rosario
13. Wilfredo Vasquez

Mexico :
1. Salvador Sanchez
2. Julio Cesar Chavez
3. Juan Manuel Marquez
4. Jose Luis Lopez
5. Jose Luis Ramirez
6. Carlos Palomino
7. Erik Morales
8. Ruben Olivares
9. Rafael Herrera
10. Chucho Castillo

11. Carlos Zarate
12. Rosendo Alvarez
13. Ricardo Lopez
14. Marco Antonio Barrera
15. Baby Arizmendi
16. Alfonso Zamora
17. Jose Medel
18. Jorge Arce
19. Gilberto Roman
20. Genaro Hernandez

21. Christian Mijares
22. Raul Perez

It seems 2 me that Olivares , Herrera & Castillo r all swappable , 2 know better i need 2 know especially about each of their stoppage losses .
Rosendo Alvarez lost on paper 2 Ricardo Lopez (draw & a split decision) but had much more longevity 2 his prime and had a slightly better opposition . They r swappable , but i wanted 2 emphasize just how much . 2 me , a close decision win or lose is considered a draw and I don't care how many "wins" , "losses" or "KOs" a fighter has . I care y , how & vs who .


2 prevent any discrimination against d U.S born :

1. Oscar Delahoya
2. Manuel Ortiz
3. Orlando Canizales
4. Micahel Carbajal
5. Danny Perez
6. Gaby Canizales
7. Carlos Hernandez
8. Richie Sandoval
9. Juan Escobar ("Rudy")
10. Alberto Davila

11. Bobby Chacon

Loaded gloved Antonio Margachito and Chito Trinidad will not b introduced 2 any of my list but my Hall Of Shame .

This list may undergo fixes but don't criticize me b4 u present your own alternative 2 it .
Finding a slight mistake is easier than compiling it all from virtually nothing .

Both Olivares and Zarate are way to low, they both could've been crowned King Of Mexico at some point in their career they were that popular. I have them both ahead of Palomino and Ramirez and top 5.

Zarate's resume is weak . I don't even count his "losses" 2 Pintor and Gomez as losses but look @ who he beat : Zamora and this is about where it ends . And Zamora wasn't great or near great anyway . Zamora's loss 2 some1 like Zarate counts against him more than Zarate's win over Zamora counts in his favor . Both r almost totally unproven . 2 1 hit wonders .
As 4 Olivares he is proven , but look @ his outcomes against Castillo & Herrera . 4 me he lost 2 each 1 of them in each 1 of their encounters . He was floored in his "winning" efforts against Castillo and was stopped due 2 cuts in another 1 of their encounters .
Olivares was not even Mexico's greatest bantamweight of his era , it's 2 close between himself , Castillo & Herera and if only d 3 of them had existed and their fights would have ended Xactly d way they had , i'd have them ranked like this :
1. Castillo (stopped Herera , cut Olivares and actually beat Olivares twice more but got robbed)
2. Herera (stopped Olivares twice but was stopped by Castillo)
3. Olivares (could just never beat Castillo or Hererra in 5 overall opportunities)

[THE THIRD MAN]

I'll start with 1 of d most popular if not d popular outside of d U.S of course :

Puerto Rico :
1. Juan LaPorte
2. Hector Camacho
3. Carlos Ortiz
4. Wilfredo Gomez
5. Sixto Escobar
6. Wilfred Benitez
7. Esteban DeJesus
8. Edwin Viruet
9. John John Molina
10. Adolfo Viruet

11. Frankie Narvarez
12. Edwin Rosario
13. Wilfredo Vasquez

Mexico :
1. Salvador Sanchez
2. Julio Cesar Chavez
3. Juan Manuel Marquez
4. Jose Luis Lopez
5. Jose Luis Ramirez
6. Carlos Palomino
7. Erik Morales
8. Ruben Olivares
9. Rafael Herrera
10. Chucho Castillo

11. Carlos Zarate
12. Rosendo Alvarez
13. Ricardo Lopez
14. Marco Antonio Barrera
15. Baby Arizmendi
16. Alfonso Zamora
17. Jose Medel
18. Jorge Arce
19. Gilberto Roman
20. Genaro Hernandez

21. Christian Mijares
22. Raul Perez

It seems 2 me that Olivares , Herrera & Castillo r all swappable , 2 know better i need 2 know especially about each of their stoppage losses .
Rosendo Alvarez lost on paper 2 Ricardo Lopez (draw & a split decision) but had much more longevity 2 his prime and had a slightly better opposition . They r swappable , but i wanted 2 emphasize just how much . 2 me , a close decision win or lose is considered a draw and I don't care how many "wins" , "losses" or "KOs" a fighter has . I care y , how & vs who .


2 prevent any discrimination against d U.S born :

1. Oscar Delahoya
2. Manuel Ortiz
3. Orlando Canizales
4. Micahel Carbajal
5. Danny Perez
6. Gaby Canizales
7. Carlos Hernandez
8. Richie Sandoval
9. Juan Escobar ("Rudy")
10. Alberto Davila

11. Bobby Chacon

Loaded gloved Antonio Margachito and Chito Trinidad will not b introduced 2 any of my list but my Hall Of Shame .

This list may undergo fixes but don't criticize me b4 u present your own alternative 2 it .
Finding a slight mistake is easier than compiling it all from virtually nothing .

Both Olivares and Zarate are way to low, they both could've been crowned King Of Mexico at some point in their career they were that popular. I have them both ahead of Palomino and Ramirez and top 5.

Zarate's resume is weak . I don't even count his "losses" 2 Pintor and Gomez as losses but look @ who he beat : Zamora and this is about where it ends . And Zamora wasn't great or near great anyway . Zamora's loss 2 some1 like Zarate counts against him more than Zarate's win over Zamora counts in his favor . Both r almost totally unproven . 2 1 hit wonders .
As 4 Olivares he is proven , but look @ his outcomes against Castillo & Herrera . 4 me he lost 2 each 1 of them in each 1 of their encounters . He was floored in his "winning" efforts against Castillo and was stopped due 2 cuts in another 1 of their encounters .
Olivares was not even Mexico's greatest bantamweight of his era , it's 2 close between himself , Castillo & Herera and if only d 3 of them had existed and their fights would have ended Xactly d way they had , i'd have them ranked like this :
1. Castillo (stopped Herera , cut Olivares and actually beat Olivares twice more but got robbed)
2. Herera (stopped Olivares twice but was stopped by Castillo)
3. Olivares (could just never beat Castillo or Hererra in 5 overall opportunities)

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

[frankenfrank]

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

[THE THIRD MAN]

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

[frankenfrank]

My Rguments R a result of watching hundreds of fights (no Xageration) , especially not contemporary fights , and (2) devoutly learning history . Despite your possibly slight advantage in years of following d sport , u r clearly a long time casual fan , in contrast 2 d astute student of d sport that i m .

you might be a "student of the sport" but your knowledge is as bad as your grammar meaning you're flunking big time buddy

u mainly showed ignorance 2 this point . dissing Ramirez' record despite having almost every possible big name of his era and d next era on it and ranking some1 who hadn't fought anybody (Ricardo Lopez) ahead of him .

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

u r reading this ryte . 2 me , RBR scoring was only meant as a measure of deciding d winner in close affairs . But whenever some1 scored a KD and remains upright himself , he had his way in d fight unless (maybe) it is reversed . Think if it was 4 real , or if d times were "Dempsey's" times and d rules were "Dempsey era's" rules . D 1st 1 who went down would have probably had no much hope left .

Also , i repeat , of d little that i'vee watched of Castillo vs Olivares (i believe it was d 3rd) , Castillo was far from pummeled .

Based Xclusively on their per4mances against each other it is :
1. Castillo
2. Herera
3. Olivares

going from best 2 worst .

D only thing that might prevent me from clearly ranking them like this is their per4mances against others than each other .

[ElTerribleMorales]

My Rguments R a result of watching hundreds of fights (no Xageration) , especially not contemporary fights , and (2) devoutly learning history . Despite your possibly slight advantage in years of following d sport , u r clearly a long time casual fan , in contrast 2 d astute student of d sport that i m .

you might be a "student of the sport" but your knowledge is as bad as your grammar meaning you're flunking big time buddy

u mainly showed ignorance 2 this point . dissing Ramirez' record despite having almost every possible big name of his era and d next era on it and ranking some1 who hadn't fought anybody (Ricardo Lopez) ahead of him .

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

u r reading this ryte . 2 me , RBR scoring was only meant as a measure of deciding d winner in close affairs . But whenever some1 scored a KD and remains upright himself , he had his way in d fight unless (maybe) it is reversed . Think if it was 4 real , or if d times were "Dempsey's" times and d rules were "Dempsey era's" rules . D 1st 1 who went down would have probably had no much hope left .

Also , i repeat , of d little that i'vee watched of Castillo vs Olivares (i believe it was d 3rd) , Castillo was far from pummeled .

Based Xclusively on their per4mances against each other it is :
1. Castillo
2. Herera
3. Olivares

going from best 2 worst .

D only thing that might prevent me from clearly ranking them like this is their per4mances against others than each other .

so just cause Ramirez has a who's who of great fighters on his records even if all but 2 fights (should just be the one win against El Chapo) he's automatically one of the greatest fighter's to grace the earth? he fought the best and lost every time but once, you're smoking huge rocks bro, just cause the guy might be your favorite fighter doesn't make him a great, rewriting history to build up your boy and then I'm the one who's ignorant? lol

[THE THIRD MAN]

My Rguments R a result of watching hundreds of fights (no Xageration) , especially not contemporary fights , and (2) devoutly learning history . Despite your possibly slight advantage in years of following d sport , u r clearly a long time casual fan , in contrast 2 d astute student of d sport that i m .

you might be a "student of the sport" but your knowledge is as bad as your grammar meaning you're flunking big time buddy

u mainly showed ignorance 2 this point . dissing Ramirez' record despite having almost every possible big name of his era and d next era on it and ranking some1 who hadn't fought anybody (Ricardo Lopez) ahead of him .

A bit Harsh on Olivares, he beat up on Castillo in the 3rd fight and Herrera just had his measure. How was Castillo robbed? If Olivares wasn't his era's best bantamweight 1968-1972 then who was? His style was always going to be risky in fights, he kept on coming forward and fought some wars. I'm not seeing anyone better than him in that era. Herrera just didn't go on with it.

Whenever a KD occur , i tend 2 score d whole fight as if it was a single rd in regards of d question of who won .

Also , even when scoring fights RBR , i m not shy of scoring rds as 10-10 and then of d little that i did watch of 1 of their fights , Olivares looked a bit flashier but certainly did not look like beating Castillo .

Olivares was d better of d 3 outside of their fights against each other , but as far as their fights against each other went , he was clearly d worst .

Now take in2 consideration that he was d youngest of d 3 , and he does even worse if ages r hypothetically reversed against him (or even prime vs prime) .

Am i reading this right, if a knockdown occurs you score the whole fight as if it's a single round? Huh? Castillo knocked Olivares down, but he was pummeled for most of the 3rd fight. Olivares is clearly the best bantam of his era, he then fought and won the Featherweight title losing to the great Alexis Arguello, i actually had Olivares ahead at the time of the stoppage.

u r reading this ryte . 2 me , RBR scoring was only meant as a measure of deciding d winner in close affairs . But whenever some1 scored a KD and remains upright himself , he had his way in d fight unless (maybe) it is reversed . Think if it was 4 real , or if d times were "Dempsey's" times and d rules were "Dempsey era's" rules . D 1st 1 who went down would have probably had no much hope left .

Also , i repeat , of d little that i'vee watched of Castillo vs Olivares (i believe it was d 3rd) , Castillo was far from pummeled .

Based Xclusively on their per4mances against each other it is :
1. Castillo
2. Herera
3. Olivares

going from best 2 worst .

D only thing that might prevent me from clearly ranking them like this is their per4mances against others than each other .

According to this bizarre reasoning JMM should never have got the draw against Pacman in the first fight? Maybe Joe Frazier who was knocked down twice against Bonavena in round 2 of their first fight should never have got the decision? The 3rd Olivares V Castillo fight was almost a shut out except for the 6th round knockdown. Olivares clearly won the fight over 15 rounds losing no more than 2 or 3 rounds along the way. You score a fight over the 12 rounds and it does not matter if you score 2 knockdowns in the same round if you lose all the other rounds you will lose the fight!

[frankenfrank]

so just cause Ramirez has a who's who of great fighters on his records even if all but 2 fights (should just be the one win against El Chapo) he's automatically one of the greatest fighter's to grace the earth? he fought the best and lost every time but once, you're smoking huge rocks bro, just cause the guy might be your favorite fighter doesn't make him a great, rewriting history to build up your boy and then I'm the one who's ignorant? lol

Ricardo Lopez has no1 in his resume , except from Alvarez whom beside of Lopez has no1 in his .
So both r just a little bit more than nobodies 2 me .
Jose Luis Ramirez showed that he could beat good fighters in Edwin Rosario , Alexis Arguello and Pernell Whitaker . Ricardo Lopez has no name which comes close 2 these . Had he been great he would've gone 3 lbs north and challenged Michael Carbajal but his handlers and possibly himself knew that Carbajal would've KOd him . As 4 Ramirez , i guess that he and his handlers feared no1 , and usually that feeling was well backed up in d ring .
U claim he only beat Rosario , but going by boxrec he also beat
Whitaker , and going by my scorecards he also beat Arguello . People far more knowledgeable than yourself who watched that fight scored it 4 Ramirez and i don't remember any1 claiming that Arguello deserved it . But u claim that Ramirez only ever beat Rosario . U R 1 big ignorant casual , didn't i already mention it ?
And u couldn't bring me 1 reasonable opponents whom Ricardo Lopez proved his "greatness" against . No1 . His best opponent was Rosendo Alvarez whom just like himself was far from being great and does not make even d all time top 10 of Mexico . U consider him great based on shadowboxing against cab drivers . Go watch RJJ highlights beating policemen .

Ramirez also KOd Cornellius Boza-Edwards and outpointed Terrence Ali , fighters whom at least had d balls d fight d best . Ricardo Lopez had no balls and would have been KOd by Carbajal if he had any . Usually i don't blame fighters 4 not wanting 2 fight fighters in a division above them , but Ricardo Lopez has 0 wins that counts . This is his true record : 0-0-2 .

According to this bizarre reasoning JMM should never have got the draw against Pacman in the first fight? Maybe Joe Frazier who was knocked down twice against Bonavena in round 2 of their first fight should never have got the decision? The 3rd Olivares V Castillo fight was almost a shut out except for the 6th round knockdown. Olivares clearly won the fight over 15 rounds losing no more than 2 or 3 rounds along the way. You score a fight over the 12 rounds and it does not matter if you score 2 knockdowns in the same round if you lose all the other rounds you will lose the fight!

Pacquiao massacred Marquez and if d 3 KD rule was in tact Marquez would have been stopped .
However it was not in tact and Marquez carried on and deserves some respect 4 it , but i don't think that he deserved 2 win against Pacquiao , not even a draw .
And yes , Frazier down twice vs Bonavena means that Bonavena was robbed by d judges who gave it 2 Frazier , at least 2 of them were criminals .

I know how scoring RBR works but i separate between it and a correct ruling of a fight .