Manuel Ortiz

I am one of the few still alive that seen Ortiz fight live, albeit late in his career. I rate him as the #1 bantamweight that I have seen fight live, with Jofre and Olivares behind him, in that order. I don't think that Ortiz had much of a weakness inside the ring, his weakness was outside the ring, he drank too much, in fact he drank himself to death.

 

Nostalgia? that would cover all three fighters.......No I just think that when Ortiz was "on" he was the best of the three said fighters...Had all three fought each other I can see all three winning at one time or other. The reason Ortiz "record is not as sterling or as consistent" is that he fought at times when he was not in shape. I hate to say it, but he was a drunk. In shape very few fighter could touch him. He was without a doubt a great fighter.

 

How would you rate the opponents Ortiz beat, kikibalt ? I made a thread once asking about his opposition and how good it was and I couldn´t get an answer.....

 

I don't rate his bantam opposition too highly. Interested to see Kikibalt's views on it though, being there!

 

He's tough to rate for me because footage of his opponent's and he himself are hard to come by.

I went through a period years ago of trying to get as much reports as i could and i ended up coming to the conclusion(though far from a certain one) that it was one of the weaker Bantam decades.

Dade,Goldberg, Schlong Young,Jurich, Olivera, Castillo, Salica, Marino come across as a decent but not particularly remarkable set of challengers.Better than someone like Canizales as an extended run, especially as to where the fighters were rated when beaten, but not that strong in and of itself either.he lacked even someone like Sanstol to go up against.For Comparison i thnk canto's is a better run too.

ON the other hand he was actually very consistent after he hit his stride at Bantam circa 40-41 and avenged most of his losses to those guys one way or another.A lot of his losses were at Feather where he seems to have been out of his element and best shape....obviously beatable there besides an interesting win over Bolanos.

He rates highly on being THE CHAMP and best Bantam of his decade with a long title run, though overall i tend to err on the side of caution with him, as is.There's much more potential to go up or down quite a bit than with the more known 60s+ bantam's.

interesting observation from Kiki there btw.

 

Schlong Young?!? :rofl

 

I believe that Ortiz level of opposition was as good as any other bantamweight champion ever faced. We need to remember that back in that era there were more fighters than in later years, thus more competition for a fighter to fight on his way to the top. And also for the most part there was only one champion per weight class. I don't believe that Ortiz was champion as long as he was because his opposition was weak, but more so because of how great he was. There are some near great fighters on his record, some he beat, others he lost to. I watch some of those guys fight live and in my opinion had they been fighting in a later era, an era where a fighter gets a title shot with only a handful of fights they would had been champions. Below are names of some of the fighters he fought that I think would be champions in these day age.

Had Ortiz not had a drinking problem his record would; without a doubt be more outstanding.

Eddie Chavez
Harold Dade...Dade was champion for about six months
Jackie Peterson
Ronnie Clayton
Lauro Salas...Salas was lightweight champion for six months
Henry Davis
Maxie Docusen
Carlos Chavez
Luis Castillo

And list goes on

 

I'm not talking about the numerous featherweights he fought and won\lost to when i reference his opposition btw.No doubt taking everything into account(not just wins) he fought a good number of capable fighters.

It's just the Bantam's i'm talking about.

Still i'm only criticising in the context of him being one of the very best Bantam's ever.I think there are a small handful of fighters with safer credentials for that both pre and post his era.No doubt his list of fighters defeated compares well(especially in volume) to 90 percent of Bantam's.

Incidentally being able to be champion in this day and age at Bantam does not necessarily make you a particularly notable fighter imo.Lots of ordinary and weak titlists and challengers around.Someone like Luis Castillo would have just added to them, i wouldn't use him as an example of a strong Bantam.A better matchup to ponder would be how many of the bantam's Ortiz beat would have had an extended run as champ in the 60s-80s? or been among the better contenders? i'm not too sure at all there.

 

aye i'm not going to argue strongly against anyone rating him really high themselves.

Just a fighter and era for the bantam's i'm unsure on and yet to be quite convinced.

 

Bump. In the footage I've seen (Castillo) Ortiz looks very impressive, especially on the inside.

 

Ortiz was great. His spotty record in non-title fights can maybe cause people to underrate him and due to his lifestyle probably lost some fights he shouldn’t have but his championship runs speak for themselves and he passes the eye test on film. One of the greatest fighters ever to come from Los Angeles, arguably the greatest born and raised? As far as all-time banties go I’d say probably top three or four.