I always thought of a "Typical Mexican Fighter" as a guy with a solid chin and lot of determination, a guy who's willing to grind it out for 12 rounds and when hit returns fire immediately. Tough as nails, take a licking and keep on ticking kind of guys - regardless of actual fighting style, ability or dimension.
The mexican fans want there fighters to go in there and destroy their opponets, to never take a backward step, to be tough as hell with a ton of heart and to be bathed in blood by the end of it the fighters cater to the fans to become popular thus the typical mexican term is born. I agree though it really misses the boat as far as appreciating boxing goes when they call Chavez and Morales and early Barrera "typcial" mexican fighters.
I think that's the way it should be, but in reality when commentators like Lampley describe "typical Mexican fighters", they are usually talking about a fighter who is strictly coming forward and throwing leather as well as taking it.
A few things: a) It's considered a "positive" stereotype - have a "warrior's heart", that sort of thing. That it has a potential negative connotation ("lack skill/technique") is just left aside. b) It's reinforced by some Mexican/Mex-American fighters - Vargas spent as much time as he could talking about being a "real Mexican". Maybe just to **** DLH off, but it still doesn't help matters. c) Action sells fights better than technique, so commentators are going to push an action stereotype. They are, in effect, promising the viewer what it is assumed the viewer wants.
There's not too many fighters Lampley calls "typical Mexican fighters" Margarito, Vasquez, Angulo and Andrade are about the only ones that seriously fit that description off the top of my head. Barrera, Mijares, Marquez and Morales dont fit the "typical" mold.
go back to your coloring books and connect the dot puzzles...this board is a bit full of autistic types already. Dont worry...your mother still loves you. Walk away from the keyboard now.