Teddy Atlas claims Canelo is not a top 10 mexican fighter all time

Who are the thousand commentators ahead of him?

 

Anywhere between 6 - 10 is reasonable

 

Top 5 for sure. He has accomplished a lot in this career. Cannot say he hasn't.

 

Me but only when I'm not being asked about Lennox Lewis

 

Intentional Butt says I'm an ignoramus for voting Alvarez into the top five but he doesn't know me at all. If he did, he would know I am much more of a moron or an idiot.

 

Those are the guys that immediately came to mind as I did a tally.

 

I like those guys a lot better than the diva that is Canelo Alvarez. That said Alvarez record is better than most of those guys. For me the championship records are the most telling for comparing these guys. Alvarez has a better win loss record against world champs than most of the other guys. Canelo has 2 losses while Barrera has 7 losses at the world level while Morales has 8. Canelo has more victories at the world level than Lopez, Morales, Marquez and Zarate. Chavez has the top spot on lock. As much as I hate Canelo he is arguably number 2.

Alvarez:

• Has a record of 18-2-1 (10 KOs) in world title fights (secondary belts excluded).
• Has a record of 18-2-1 (7 KOs) against former, current, and future world champions

Chavez:

• Has a record of 31-4-2 (21 KOs) in world title fights.
• Has a record of 18-4-2 (10 KOs) against former world titlists

Lopez:

• Finished career with a record of 25-0-1 (19 KOs) in world title fights.
• Finished career with a record of 10-0-1 (7 KOs) against former, current and future world titlists.

Barrera:

• Has a record of 22-4 (12 KO) in World Title fights.
• Has a record of 18-7 (10 KO) against former or current world titlist

Morales:

• Has a record of 18-5 (11 KO) in World Title fights.
• Has a record of 16-8 (6 KO) against former or current world titlists

Marquez:

• Has a record of 9-5-1 (3 KOs) in World Title fights.
• Has a record of 14-6-1 (7 KOs) against former or current world titlists

Zarate:

• 10-4 (10 KOs) in world title fights.
• 3-4 (3 KOs) against former, current and future world titlists

 

This. His record is largely smoke & mirrors, asterisks galore. The people saying he's clearly greater than all these other Mexican legends - based on what exactly, other than happening to successfully scoop belts while weight climbing (which is a rather excessively relied upon criteria for determining p4p value, and I don't think ought to be...for the very reason that it devalues people like, say, Marvin Hagler. Nothing wrong with camping out in a division your whole career as long as it's comfortably makeable, and people who do it shouldn't be graded on a different curve than those who do jump around but happen to cherry-pick mediocre or shot titlists and wind up with a body count of mediocrity belied by the superficially "more impressive" feat of racking up divisions) ?

The very best 7-8 fighters he fought (excluding Bivol but including the other guy he lost to) were inarguably past their best when he did so. That has to factor into things, no?

 

Another explanation of 'The Canelo's Effect' is that the boxing world has gotten into the habit of lauding things that used to be the norm. Fighting four times inside twelve months, from Smith to Plant, is a good example other fighters should try to follow, but it wasn't a revolution. One of those of course, Yildirim, was a complete mismatch.

Oscar De La Hoya fought five times in sixteen months including bouts against Ike Quartey, Tito Trinidad and Shane Mosley, a tremendous gauntlet run, but how easily we forget.

Erik Morales, in just over a year, went to war with Jesus Chavez, Carlos Hernandez, Barrera (III), and Pacquiao (I).

Can you spot the difference?

 

I really blame the overemphasis in recent years on ascension through multiple weights...and I lay the bulk of that at the feet of Pacquiao and his fan base making out like that is the be-all end-all criteria for p4p ranking. It's gotten completely blown out of proportion since his heyday; it never used to matter as much before he came along. Should never have become a factor of primary focus, as it really truly doesn't matter as much as some people think. Depending on how it's done it can be nothing more than a parlor trick. Being able to hang with mediocre contenders in several divisions is...eh, yeah, a skill, but not as true a reflection of a fighter's genuine overall pound for pound worth as staying put in one and cleaning house versus as many of the very best as one can lay hands on.

 

It's become a bit of a fad in itself. Too easily replicated. Being the first man to win a world title in a third, fourth or fifth weight class held an understandable appeal, but such are the number of divisions and belts that the likes of Ricky Burns can say (probably with a straight face) that he's also a three weight world champion, just like Bob Fitzsimmons.

I can't think a bigger gulf in greatness between two fighters who have the 'same' achievement.

 

Exactly, aside from the history book trivia footnote of being the first to reach a milestone (or first this or that...first Filipino fighter, first French, whatever) it is nothing but a gimmick, and elevating it on a pedestal like the foremost criteria of evaluating p4p worth just spits in the face of greats like Hagler.

 

Analyzing just those numbers is just lazy analyzing.
Go into depth into them.
What win the caliber of Hamed for Barrera does Canelo have?
What win the caliber of Pacquiao for Morales does Canelo have?
What win the caliber of Pacquiao 4 for Marquez does Canelo have?
Gonez cor Sanchez?
Etc.
Now this is lazy analyzing aswell but it just shows touching on depth rather than looking on numbers counts for a lot more?

 

Eh, nearly the whole forum is full of lazy analyzing. I mean your post didn’t go into either guys records either. It’s pretty much back and forth saying this guy is greater over that guy based on name recognition alone. I also could have written more, but each guy could have a book written about their career. Even when you get into individual victories then it becomes a comparison of their opponents, then you can compare how many weight classes, and their longevity. I watched all of them and they all have great aspects of their careers and not so great aspects of their career. Barrera, Morales, and Márquez get major props for having great fights and major wars, but that shouldn’t be enough to trump the other guys just off of name recognition alone. Marquez is my favorite fighter and he has the victory over Pacquiao, but I don’t consider that enough to trump Barrera or Morales in terms of greatness, because they definitely have more big fights and longevity.

If you didn’t like my post, well I basically served the ball and it’s your turn to make a return. Calling another post lazy and not offering any analysis is pretty lazy itself.