Who are the Top 15 Latin American Fighters in History?.

A better resume, yes. A superior fighter, no.

 

I think even in terms of resume, Dejesus is close if we take away the DLH 'win' and factor in that guys like Camacho, Whitaker and Pendleton were past their use-by dates. Tito did have a greater quantity of good wins, but the quality of the guys beaten were not really better imo. He certainly has nothing close to a scalp as good as Duran, other than DLH, who I think he lost to. I'm trying to uncover a report on the DeJesus/Antonio Gomez fight, to see if the decision there was legit (I'll never trust a Venezuelan decision on face value). If I can find some reports suggesting that fight was even-ish or that Dejesus got the better of it, I'd say Esteban's resume would not be inferior to Tito's at all.

But even so, on my criteria, I think the point still stands that it's pretty hard to have DeJesus ahead, since his resume, dominance, longevity, character are really no better than Tito's and since I wasn't taking abillity into account, I'm not really sure what justifies DeJesus being higher....

 

Has nothing to do with being a DLH fan and just realizing greatness when i see it. Ive stated too many times here that im very aware of all the old timers comp,and resumes. I am not saving DLH a spot in my favorite list as you say. I have no doubt hed be an elite fighter in any era he would have fought in. For instance im just as big a fan of the fighter in my Avi (Bobby Chacon) but i dont consider him an ATG, more like borderline Great and very good. If i was biased like you guys think I am i would also have Chacon and Danny Lopez on that list however i dont feel they are elite atgs. But they are among my favorites.
As for RJJ i agree that hes not a top 5 middle ATG,but that is cause he didnt stay long enough however in HTH matchup youd be hardpressed to find anyone that would beat him at that weight, and Im not a big RJJ fan although his abilities were Supermanlike at middleweight.


I hope you guys will remeber what im going to say right know 20 years from now.

"PAC,JONES,HOPKINS,DELAHOYA,MAYWEATHER AND MAYBE MOSLEY WILL BE ON MOST TOP 50 ATG LIST ONE DAY" and people will be saying how much better they are than the fighters of 2030 and 2040. Its always been like that even the legends of the 70s and 80s were thought of as inferior to the predecessors.. Duran at lightweight is one of the very few Greats that Old timers accepted as equal to the old time fighters.

 

The way Floyds going he won't even be considered a top 75 fighter of all time. Weight jumping and talent aside he has no GREAT wins. Only reason I have him at no 50 is becase of his talent

 

I'm still not too sure as to the remaining 14, as the pool of talent in this category was so unbelievably great, but I do know that Carlos Monzon is my pick for NUMERO UNO..on this day being the 15th year since his death.

 

Over Duran? Number 2 is very possible but one?

 

I'd have Duran above Monzon personally, and not just because of weight jumping.

His lightweight reign is arguably as good, chuck in the win over Leonard and his success as other weights.....he made up for his sometimes inconsistent stages by career resrugances at Middle, good effort against Hagler.......well, those are my reasons without going in depth :good

 

Latino Fighters
1. Roberto Duran
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Juilo Cesar Chavez
4. Alexis Arguello
5. Jose Napoles
6. Eder Jofre
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Ruben Oliveres
9. Salvador Sanchez
10. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
11. Wilfredo Gomez
12. Kid Chocolate
13. Carlos Ortiz
14. Wilfred Benitez
15. Panama Al Brown

Honourable Mention: Ricardo Lopez, Nicolino Loche, Carlos Zarate, Vincinte Saldivar, Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Antiono Cervantes, Miguel Canto, Tito Trinidad, Esteban De Jesus & Coca Kid

 

Generally yes I talk mainly about the ones I've lived through and more than that, seen live. But what i meant was when some posters put others down for their opinions and acting like THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE TRUE KNOWlEDGE OF THE SPORT AND THE OTHER GUYS KNOW NOTHING. THAT'S BULL****, Everybodies opinion counts and it just burns my ass when some posters act like their **** don't stink when it comes to boxing knowledge. There is no way at age 20 or so that you have the knowledge to put others down and act like the king**** of poop island. Or any age really. You may know a lot but are not always right. The great Red Smith said it best when he was talking to another sportswrtiter about a fellow boxing writer that died. The guy said, "Red, there aren't that many of us boxing experts left". To which Red replied,"And there is one less than you think". Red knew there was no true expert who could predict it all and it was all subjective to the person's experiences and what they like.

 

:good

 

Yes..I've always rated Monzon over Duran..it's ice over fire, cold control over fiery emotion, etc., I rate Monzon over Duran in a p4p sense, and of course head to head..as Duran as a middleweight would have had the stuffings beat out of him, similarly as what happened to Napoles, though I'm aware of their differences as fighters..it would have been another Monzon victory that his detractors would have been unable to explain because after all, Monzon was so "slow and stiff" and "easy to hit" and all that ****. A cool and detached Wilfred Benitez had all the right stuff to counter the fire of Duran, and a bigger, meaner, colder, and cruel Carlos Monzon would have stopped Duran. Monzon was the best of all the Latin greats, IMO.

 

Duran's LW record equals Monzon's at MW. He also has possibly the single greatest win of all time over SRL. 4 weight champion who fought over 5 decades. Whilst I am a huge admirer of Monzon, he record is not comparable to that of Duran. Duran features in most peoples top 10 P4P ATG list. Monzon is a solid top 25.

 

If Cobra thinks Monzon was simply a better fighter, that's his opinion. I personally think Monzon is one of the boxing Gods myself, regardless of whether or not he has the weight jumping credentials of so many others. He was hands down one of the most effective fighters there's ever been.

 

C'mon man. You can have that opinion, but saying that definitively is just asinine. You're telling me that a modern era fighter with 50+ losses who went something like 2-10 against future hall of famers (and the ones he beat were pretty marginal ones) and never won a title has a better record than someone who won belts in five weight classes, went 4-6 against guys rated in the top 10 pound for pound and went about 5-5 with likely future hall of famers?

I'm not a boxing historian, so maybe you have a perfectly legitimate argument, but even if you think Cocoa's era was five times better than Hoya's era, Hoya's record on its face looks a lot better than Cocoa's. If you have an opinion, that's fine, but to say his record is "definitely" better is way out there.

I don't think I'm way out here on this one. If Cocoa was 'definitely' better than Hoya, you'd see Cocoa ranked higher than Hoya on most of the ATG type lists, and he's not. Hell, you'd see some kind of movement for Cocoa to join the Hall even, and as far as I've heard, there's never been one.

Edit: Forgot that Holman Williams was elected to the HOF a year or two ago.