Top 25 Mexican-American Fighters Ever

[Violent Demise]

Rios and Mickey Garcia may be worthy once they get a few more big fights under their belts. Theres also up and comers like Mike Alvarado, Danny Garcia and Jesse Vargas, who may have a shot at breaking into the top 25.

This list will have a lot of changes in the next 20 years. There is a lot of Mexican-American prospects coming up. A lot

I always thought that Alberto Sandoval was a better fighter than Richie, despite the championship, and I'd go with Antonio or Julio Diaz over Luevano.

Richie made it off his win over the Great Jeff Chandler. I never thought highly of Richie. But I do of Chandler.

The Diaz brothers are Mexican born.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!

I think you got most of the right names. I'd argue Carlos Palomino belongs even though born in Mexico. He moved to the US as a toddler IIRC. Isn't the same true of the Ruelas' Brothers? If Margarito is excluded, shouldn't these guys be included? But, your list, your criteria.

Here are some that would be on my list. Oscar Alborado (154 strapholder), Raul Marquez (154 strapholder), Ernie Lopez was a tremendous welter and fought for the undisputed crown twice, Jaime Garza (122 strapholder), how about Tony Ayala Junior?, Hell Mike Ayala was far more accomplished than Victor Ortiz.

But again, my compliments. Our debate would be over the last 7-8 names out of 25.

The bad news is you have the order screwed up in my view. The first two are too high, as is Tony Lopez while Art Aragon, Manuel Ortiz, Mando Ramos are too low. I'd move some other guys around too. A valiant effort though.

I'd love to talk more, but I'll be busy fucking myself for a while now.

The Ruelas brothers have been called and considered Mexican fighters a lot of times. Margarito I don't think has ever been called a Mexican-American fighter before. So I excluded them just for that reason

I stand by my placements (who would you have 1 & 2?). Oscar has his critics. But they can't change facts. Decorated amateur career that included an Olympic Gold Medal and several other championships. As a pro he won 10 championships in 6 weight classes. He defeated 20 title holders and 2 ATG (should of been 4). Not to mention after Tyson and before Mayweather/Pacquiao Oscar pretty much carried Boxing on his back. Canizales is a Hall of Famer. He made i believe a total of 16 title defenses. He cleaned out the Batamweight division. He finished at 50-5. But that very easily could of been 54-1. His last 4 losses were all by SD that easily could of gone his way. The man had an iron chin. To my knowledge I don't think he was ever dropped. Can't recall.

Ortiz I have at 3. I don't consider that low. Ramos was a difficult one. I originally had him top 5 when I started. I gave him a lot of credit for challenging for a title at 18 years old I believe it was. And for winning it at 20. What hurt him was he didn't do much as champion and the fact that he was pretty much washed up at 24 years old. What hurt the original Golden Boy Art Aragon was never being champion. He was hella popular. And if it came down to who banged the most best looking broads it's a 3 man race between him, De La Hoya and Ramos. Sadly for him that's not the case

There are some fighters I left out that could easily be swapped in. The Ayala's, Raul Marquez, Garza, Alborado and maybe even Steven Luevano. I also do think I might of reached a little to much on Louie Espinosa. But I'm satisfied. The Mexican list will be much, much tougher

Swap Diego C around with Fernando V make me happier.

Just always thought Varges over rated himself I've never had faith in his mental attitude.

Glad you got Carbajal up high up there.

Corrales was a little tough. I didn't wanna over place him just cuz he's deceased. At the same time he did have good accomplishments. I could swap him with Vargas and be ok with it. I mean I understand people's views on Vargas. And he did underacheve a little. And his career was kind of short. But he did fight Yory Boy Campas, Raul Marquez, Ike Quartey, Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Wilfredo Rivera, Ricardo Mayorga, Winky Wright and Shane Mosley in that short career

Like I sad, your list, your criteria. I think the #1 is Manuel Ortiz by a mile. Being a THE MAN champion in a time of eight divisions and eight champions and defending that title as many times as Ortiz did is THE qunitessential boxing measure of excellence in my view. What makes defending a championship that way so special is it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to cherry pick styles advantageous to you. It is the "I can lick any SOB in the house" idea that is the cornerstone of the sport.

The ten belts in six division crap is just that, crap. You are either THE MAN in a given division or you are not. Oscar is a fine fighter, but he shouldn't get credit because the sport has idluted what "champion" means. It is like equating division championships in baseball with winning the world series. In the same way you punsh Art Aragon for not being a champion. It's true, but he was fighting in a time when the sport had EIGHT champs. Canizales is a function of the explosion of belts. A good fighter who not only didn't clean out the divisaion, he never fought the great challenge of his time in his division. Aragon defeated twice as many ranked guys. I agree Mando is a toughie. But he DFID become THE MAN at his weight, something Canizales (for example) never did.

Again, thanks for the post. It makes for thinking.

I agree that to be champion you have to the actual champion. That should be the criteria use to judge. Sadly for us that's no longer the case. And the amount of titles a fighter won will carry weight. Either way the fighters De La Hoya fought were pretty much all the top fighters of his era. He ducked nobody. I agree Artagon beat a lot of ranked fighters. But he lost and struggled with fighters he really shouldn't of lost or struggled with. He was clearly light years better than both Mario Trigo and John Davis. Yet both gave him problems. I see your point regarding Canizales. He kind of is a product of the splintered titles. But at the same time, where you think Ramos deserves credit for being the man, don't you think he's hurt by the fact he wasn't the man for very long and that his career was pretty much over at 24?

Where's Arreola?

Good list VD...

For me personally I've never rated Guerrero I feel he's just found ways to get the wins.
Still think he found the easy way out vs. Cino.
Could be just that I had predicted Cino to beat him and that I wanted it to happen badly.

He does nothing special in the ring that leads me to believe he can stay as a champ when facing the top guys in a weight class.
As long as he continues fighting opponents ranked between 6-15 he'll continue to win.

I think I would have Mares somewhere there on the bottom side of the list.
How about Juan Lazcano... Honor mentions?

Rather he's highly regarded or not Guerrero is still winning. Cino only enjoyed like what a round and half of success against him? To think he was going to win based on that is going over board. While I do think Guerrero should of let his corner work on the cut, there's no denying it was an ugly cut

Arreola and Lazcano I don't think did or have done enough to make top 25

Mares is Mexican born

[marbleheadmaui]

Violentdemise wrote

I agree that to be champion you have to the actual champion. That should be the criteria use to judge. Sadly for us that's no longer the case. And the amount of titles a fighter won will carry weight. Either way the fighters De La Hoya fought were pretty much all the top fighters of his era. He ducked nobody. I agree Artagon beat a lot of ranked fighters. But he lost and struggled with fighters he really shouldn't of lost or struggled with. He was clearly light years better than both Mario Trigo and John Davis. Yet both gave him problems. I see your point regarding Canizales. He kind of is a product of the splintered titles. But at the same time, where you think Ramos deserves credit for being the man, don't you think he's hurt by the fact he wasn't the man for very long and that his career was pretty much over at 24?

Another good post. With a guy like Aragon (and you make good points) you have to ask how many belts he'd have won had there been four available at 135, 140 and 147 in his time instead of only two total. Or to say the other way, how many would Oscar or Canzales have if there were one belt for a limited number of divisions. No way to know of course, but one simply cannot equate being one of four strapholders in 17 divisions and being the undisputed man in one of eight as both being "champions."

Ramos really is a toughie. It doesn't bother me at all he was done at 24. So was Benitez and heck Sal Sanchez and Masao Obha and Stanley Ketchell and Pancho Villa were dead! The question is what did they accomplish, isn't it? Mando was so inconsistent and that makes him tough to grade. Me? I put great weight, maybe too much, on being a THE MAN champion. But I figure that's the point of the sport right? To be king of the hill?

One other thing, please understand that I am not trying to denigrate guys like Oscar or Canzales. It is a given that the first 15 or so here are at least excellent fighters and many of those deserve to be called great. We're just trying to do the impossible and rank them in that context, right?