There are loads of names. I'd probably even put the likes of Ramirez, Rosario and J.L. Castillo there before Zaragoza. I didn't watch Taylor-Abraham either Mac. I'm interested to hear the results of these kinda fights but that's about it really. Sad to say my passion for the sport right now ain't that high (for most current-day fights, anyway).
Here's 25: Roberto Duran Carlos Monzon Luis Rodriguez Carlos Ortiz Eder Jofre Alexis Arguello Jose Napoles Kid Gavilan Julio Cesar Chavez Ruben Olivares Vicente Saldivar Salvador Sanchez Wilfredo Gomez Miguel Canto Manuel Ortiz Wilfred Benitez Pascual Perez Nicolino Locche Carlos Zarate Eusebio Pedroza Kid Chocolate Panama Al Brown Cocoa Kid Victor Galindez Pedro Montanez
Barrera, Morales, and Marquez just missed the cut, along with a few others. Who do you feel he could replace? In short, I consider Zarate one of the best stand-up boxer-punchers in the history of the lower weight classes. If you want me to indulge you on anything in particular just specify.
I mentioned Zarate because I felt perhaps Barrera, although he never dominated a division like Zarate, does have a superior resume. Likewise, watching them both on film, I feel Barrera had more offensive tools - and did a few things better than Zarate. Zarate shows little foot work from what I've seen, and although he clearly has the edge in power, I don't see him throwing the variety of punches I see Marco throwing. I think it's conceivable for Marco to replace Zarate. I'd love to hear everything you know about Zarate. Admittedly, I haven't seen a great deal of him, but I'm sure you have. Educate me.
All good picks. I thought Latino was Central American or in the Caribean, not in Brazil. Was Jofre 100% Latino?
True. In fact, he may've made my top 25. Usually a fighter I would call attention to, yet somehow he slipped my mind.
Morales has a superior resume than Barrera. I don't think he was a superior fighter, though. Zarate, while seemingly a very up-right and standard technician, was more effective than either, IMO. He was very balanced in his attack, an excellent body/head combination puncher, and one of the best finishers in the history of the sport. He wasn't quite the counter-puncher in combination that Barrera was, but his offensive arsenal when he got into full flow was much more devstating I feel. He kind of like a smaller Arguello, with more mobility but lesser fluidity in his movements. I disagree on the footwork call, as I don't think Barrera's was particularly outstanding, either. I think Zarate showed good ring generalship for the most part, though he could be made to look plodding by certain stylists, just as Arguello and Barrera could. Not neccessarily a strong point for either, but I think Zarate was capable of moving his feet quite well when he felt the need to press the fight. All in all, I think he's more of a handful for the majority of Bantamweights throughout history than Barrera is for the majority of Featherweights. Easily top 5 in his division, whereas Barrera doesn't crack the top 10 Feathers in my book.
I think Barrera was one of the outstanding body and head combination punchers this side of Julio Cesar Chavez. You give Zarate the edge in that department? Interesting comparison, the first time I saw Zarate at work against Zamora he did strike me as frighteningly similar to Arguello, his upright stance and patience especially. Barrera displayed impressive footwork at Featherweight, it's all about maneuvering yourself out of the way of punches but being in a position to counter back with two or three shots. Barrera was notorious for that, and the way he would circle his jab against Hamed and Tapia was especially impressive to me. That's more a testament to the history of the 126lbs division, boasting such stars as Sanchez, Gomez, Nelson, Pedroza, and the list goes on. Bantamweight isn't as rich in my estimation, not throughout history - and Barrera probably wouldn't crack my top 10 Featherweights of all time either - but he's the best there has been since Nelson for me.