Good points on the History of the bantam division but i got Manny Ortiz. Actually im 39 so i became a fan around the time of Olivares first retirement. I do think that older Boxing fans ,who were hardcore fans at the time fighters from the past fought for the most part have a better feel on judging the quality of the fighters that fought in their time. You do have a point when you stated that it does not mean they are right,since I have disagreed with knowledgable old timers, but I also give them credibility in knowing that they saw these guys live or on Tv when they were fighting. My dad is also a hardcore fan so many of my opinions on the old time fighters(but not all) have alot to do with heresay from him or fights ive witnessed on tape (occasionly watch you tube fights).. I also give him more credibility on knowing the fight game more so than 99% of hardcore fans that i know or relate to online not because hes my dad but because i know he knows boxing and was around back then and not just some casual old time fan talking at the barber shop or some bar
Anarci, you're a good poster mate, but we have a huge difference of opinion regarding FINITO. I doubt he was even good enough to move up to 108lbs and beat Carbajal and Gonzalez. We never see him overcome elite competition. That was his fault.
:thumbsup Thanks Addie you are also a knowledgable fan. I notice you didnt comment back on the Lopez vs Carbajal thread, check it out I quoted you and commented on the difference of opinions I also stated that Chiquita definitly didnt want no part. Lopez would beat Chiquita more convincingly than he would Carbajal at least Carbajal would make it to the final bell,Chiquita would get kod around the 9th.
Lopez was interesting because he liked to operate at distance, which was rare for a little guy. He also utilized a beauty of an uppercut which worked well on most of the aggressive guys he faced, until he faced Alvarez who walked through everything. The guy was nuts, but he made me think maybe Lopez would have had a bit more trouble against a guy like Carbajal or Gonzalez because you saw some flaws in Lopez when he was forced to fight a bit. He was nice to watch operating from the outside, perfect textbook technique, but that doesnt always cut it, sometimes you have to be able to mix it up a bit especially as you move up in weight and are at a disadvantage physically.
Every other guy he beat easily or kod,he beat like 8or9 former world champs stopping most of them,Alvarez was just one of those guys that gave Lopez hell. Just like most of the ATGs had someone that wasnt on their equal as far as atg status but theyjust couldnt quite figure out. you know like Ali Norton Armstrong ZIvic Chavez Randall Jofre harada Barrera Jones etc,etc and many many other greats. WIll Grigsby was a real good fighterand former champ that Lopez pretty much had his way with. Also ran over Sorjaturong who kod chiquita and held the title for a while. beat some other champs too.
I still think Alvarez stood out as the best fighter he faced. Grigsby was decent Sorjaroung was better. Being a former champion in that division doesnt always make you a great fighter, but you already knew that. It would have been nice to see how Lopez would have done against some of the other guys, but King was really stingy with his fighters at that time. Alvarez, Grigsby were all King fighters.
Sorjaturong got to Humberto at the end of his career, but was very nearly stopped himself in a fight of the year effort. That said, Sorjaturong would establish himself as a pretty good champion through the years, and was a much improved fighter from when he fought Ricardo Lopez at Minimumweight. I think listing the amount of world champions Lopez managed to beat is a little pointless personally. These are former champions at Minimumweight presumely, and it's the least talented division in Boxing, and has been throughout history.
It's difficult for me to see Lopez. moralesm or barrera above Canto or Saldivar. Canto is the joe Louis of the flyweights for christ's sake
Well, Barrera and Morales will be looked upon more nicely in about 15 or 20 years. That said, both of them demonstrated the skills and against the kind of competition to have them amongst the top 5 in my estimation. It's debatable.
I've no issue with anyone rating them high to be honest, just over those two is a bit much imo, Saldivar fought someone at least on the same level as them in winstneand won every fight, as well as beating a number of other near-greats on that level like Laguna, Ramos, Famechon, as well as your usual number of solid contenders. Those guys were better than McKinney, Ayala and past it versions of Jones, Tapia etc. only the Hamed and Pac wins are on that sort of level, so outside of their series with each other i'd clearly favour Vicente.especially as i think he would beat both of them as well.
I'm a little bias. Barrera is my favorite fighter of all time, and there's not a great deal of Saldivar available on the Internet.
Ruben Olivares Julio Cesar Chavez Vicente Saldivar Miguel Canto Salvador Sanchez Carlos Zarate Baby Arizmendi Kid Azteca With Lopez, Barrera, Morales, and Marquez fighting it out for the #9 and #10 spots.
Why is Barrera so many places ahead of Morales? If Barrera is in a top 10, Morales is directly above/below him.
I have a feeling that list was made prior to his 2005 winning effort against Manny Pacquiao. I agree with you regardless, if Barrera is at 7 then Morales has to be at 8.