Jose Luis Ramirez

[Ambling Alp II]

It seems like all that we hear about Ramirez is fights with Whitaker. However, he had over 100 fights and had some against some good competition.
He was stopped early in his career by Olivares, was competitive in losing decisions vs Chavez and Arguello, close decision to Rosario, lost lopsided decisions to Camacho and Mancini.
He also knocked out Rosario and Boza-Edwards, and won a close decision to Terrence Alli.

Just wanted to hear what people thought of him; how good was he? Just another good fighter, should be in HOF, or where in between?
Did you find him fun to watch? What were his most exciting fights? etc.

[Vladimir5555]

Good southpaw.I saw his two fights versus Sweet Pea and fight versus JCC,good fighter.

[giacomino]

Olivares aside, always thought of him as a slow but extremely durable and powerful fighter who couldn't be deterred. Thought he beat Rosario in their first fight, despite being absolutely hammered early on. Both his fights with Rosario were great back-and-forth battles. I wouldn't put him in the HOF, but then again, I wouldn't put a lot of fighters now in the HOF in the HOF

[crib73]

Obviously you can view y/t vids but here are some other stuff for reading if interested

Ted Sares makes a case for his Induction to the HOF - The Case for Jose Luis Ramirez in the Hall - http://www.boxing.com/the_case_for_jose ... _hall.html

LA Times articles - http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/jose-luis-ramirez

Daily Press articles - http://articles.dailypress.com/keyword/ ... is-ramirez

[Rover]

Very good fighter. HOF? Not for me.

[giacomino]

Obviously you can view y/t vids but here are some other stuff for reading if interested

Ted Sares makes a case for his Induction to the HOF - The Case for Jose Luis Ramirez in the Hall - http://www.boxing.com/the_case_for_jose ... _hall.html

LA Times articles - http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/jose-luis-ramirez

Daily Press articles - http://articles.dailypress.com/keyword/ ... is-ramirez

I saw a bunch of Ramirez's fights as they happened, not on video, and always enjoyed watching him. Tough, working man's fighter, willing to wing his wide punchers for 12- or 15-rounds, regardless of his opponent. But against all the best fighters listed in "the case for Jose Luis Ramirez ...." other than the Rosario fights, Ramirez lost. Fighting Whitaker, Arguello, Camacho, Chavez, Coggi, is great, but ultimately he lost all those fights, which, IMO, leaves him outside the HOF. Ramirez beat a ton of good fighters, but generally lost when he stepped up against the best. Rosario, IMO, was the exception

[Rover]

Obviously you can view y/t vids but here are some other stuff for reading if interested

Ted Sares makes a case for his Induction to the HOF - The Case for Jose Luis Ramirez in the Hall - http://www.boxing.com/the_case_for_jose ... _hall.html

LA Times articles - http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/jose-luis-ramirez

Daily Press articles - http://articles.dailypress.com/keyword/ ... is-ramirez

I saw a bunch of Ramirez's fights as they happened, not on video, and always enjoyed watching him. Tough, working man's fighter, willing to wing his wide punchers for 12- or 15-rounds, regardless of his opponent. But against all the best fighters listed in "the case for Jose Luis Ramirez ...." other than the Rosario fights, Ramirez lost. Fighting Whitaker, Arguello, Camacho, Chavez, Coggi, is great, but ultimately he lost all those fights, which, IMO, leaves him outside the HOF. Ramirez beat a ton of good fighters, but generally lost when he stepped up against the best. Rosario, IMO, was the exception

Mancini, too.

[giacomino]

Obviously you can view y/t vids but here are some other stuff for reading if interested

Ted Sares makes a case for his Induction to the HOF - The Case for Jose Luis Ramirez in the Hall - http://www.boxing.com/the_case_for_jose ... _hall.html

LA Times articles - http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/jose-luis-ramirez

Daily Press articles - http://articles.dailypress.com/keyword/ ... is-ramirez

I saw a bunch of Ramirez's fights as they happened, not on video, and always enjoyed watching him. Tough, working man's fighter, willing to wing his wide punchers for 12- or 15-rounds, regardless of his opponent. But against all the best fighters listed in "the case for Jose Luis Ramirez ...." other than the Rosario fights, Ramirez lost. Fighting Whitaker, Arguello, Camacho, Chavez, Coggi, is great, but ultimately he lost all those fights, which, IMO, leaves him outside the HOF. Ramirez beat a ton of good fighters, but generally lost when he stepped up against the best. Rosario, IMO, was the exception

Mancini, too.

Forgot about that fight. Was weird. Thought going in it would be close

[elmersalsa]

If Barry McGuigan is in the HOF, then Jose Luis Ramirez should be in there, too.

[Rover]

If Barry McGuigan is in the HOF, then Jose Luis Ramirez should be in there, too.

Why compound errors? McGuigan shouldn't be in.

[Ambling Alp II]

He has just as good or better of an argument as Rosario or Ken Buchanan or Chalky Wright or atleast 20 other guys for that matter as well.
I agree that you can't just let in everyone who better than the worst Hall of Famer. Otherwise you would have to put in more than 1000 more fighters.
I don't think he quite deserves it; though it's arguable. Had he won one more big fight it really would have helped his case. There are a handful of other guys who are not in that were better, and several who were roughly equal. I thought he was more than good; he was very good. But he wasn't great; at least not often enough.

The Mancini fight was mentioned; that is the one fight that is hard to figure out; it's hard to understand how he could have lost so convincingly.

[Giancarlo]

Good not great.

[Autobarn]

was freakishly strong and tough and persistent. he had his day, Rosario being the perfect foil to him. Rosario, having all that flash but fading or getting caught, in their two tremendous fights. Ramirez was so hard, he was able to outlast one highly talented hall of famer. he just lacked that extra dimension and that can be seen in the chavez fight - chavez actually giving ground, using angles, landing brutal shots on his own terms, getting out, controlling the action increasingly, prior to the clash of heads.

beating one hall of famer decisively (close to winning the 1st, winning the 2nd by KO) doesn't make you great. but it means you've had a good and honourable career. you can also look to the example of iran barkley, who twice beat Thomas hearns, at 2 different weights, in very different fights. when barkley fought nunn, he wasn't quite able to show that something extra to get the win, in a fight in which his strength & persistence made the champion uncomfortable. kind of like Ramirez v chavez.

and aqainst "pound for pound" guys like toney (barkley) & whitaker (Ramirez), they weren't able to get to grips with their slick & slippery opponents - at all. obviously barkley had a really good career, competed in some of the great fights of his time (sims, hearns 1, duran, benn) but it didn't make him great. same with Ramirez.

[Counter-puncher]

his Kryptonite was speed, mostly he would be competitive/very competitive against anyone who didn't have a promounced athletic advantage over him. but he'd look like a bag of sand against someone who did.

[Autobarn]

he was really slow, Ramirez. he could look terrible.

[palooka]

I saw him v Rosario 2 and v Chavez - he was a very strong puncher, physically strong and very determined. I think he turned pro at 14 years of age, he was a better boxer than people like to remember with a good jab and good balance - as counter puncher said earlier he was pretty slow which makes his knockout ratio even more surprising - he must have had a fantastic eye for the target and excellent timing.

(It shows also what a master hitter Olivares was; he got Ramirez out in 2 rounds, Ramirez stood up to bombers like Arguello, Roasario and Chavez and Mancini were heavy hitters - Chavez paid Ramirez the compliment of boxing him rather than meeting him head to head).

[Ambling Alp II]

was freakishly strong and tough and persistent. he had his day, Rosario being the perfect foil to him. Rosario, having all that flash but fading or getting caught, in their two tremendous fights. Ramirez was so hard, he was able to outlast one highly talented hall of famer. he just lacked that extra dimension and that can be seen in the chavez fight - chavez actually giving ground, using angles, landing brutal shots on his own terms, getting out, controlling the action increasingly, prior to the clash of heads.

beating one hall of famer decisively (close to winning the 1st, winning the 2nd by KO) doesn't make you great. but it means you've had a good and honourable career. you can also look to the example of iran barkley, who twice beat Thomas hearns, at 2 different weights, in very different fights. when barkley fought nunn, he wasn't quite able to show that something extra to get the win, in a fight in which his strength & persistence made the champion uncomfortable. kind of like Ramirez v chavez.

and aqainst "pound for pound" guys like toney (barkley) & whitaker (Ramirez), they weren't able to get to grips with their slick & slippery opponents - at all. obviously barkley had a really good career, competed in some of the great fights of his time (sims, hearns 1, duran, benn) but it didn't make him great. same with Ramirez.

I get what you are saying, but I think Ramirez was clearly a better fighter than Barkley.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Barkley clearly accomplished more.

[Ambling Alp II]

Barkley won more paper titles; Ramirez had a more impressive career.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Nope

[Ambling Alp II]

Umm, yes. Barkley wasn't exactly Mr. Consistency. Not counting all the losses later in his career, he got stopped in the first round by Benn, lost to 37-year old Duran, and to the great Eddie Hall. Needed favors the judges to bail him out in fights against stiffs like Jorge Amparo, Sanderline Williams, and 3-12 Juan Hernandez.

The 2nd best fighter he beat was who? Darrin Van Horn?

Ramirez seldom lost. When he did it was to someone very good if not great; and he was usually competitive when he did lose.

Barkley was a good fighter; Ramirez was a very good fighter.

[Autobarn]

was freakishly strong and tough and persistent. he had his day, Rosario being the perfect foil to him. Rosario, having all that flash but fading or getting caught, in their two tremendous fights. Ramirez was so hard, he was able to outlast one highly talented hall of famer. he just lacked that extra dimension and that can be seen in the chavez fight - chavez actually giving ground, using angles, landing brutal shots on his own terms, getting out, controlling the action increasingly, prior to the clash of heads.

beating one hall of famer decisively (close to winning the 1st, winning the 2nd by KO) doesn't make you great. but it means you've had a good and honourable career. you can also look to the example of iran barkley, who twice beat Thomas hearns, at 2 different weights, in very different fights. when barkley fought nunn, he wasn't quite able to show that something extra to get the win, in a fight in which his strength & persistence made the champion uncomfortable. kind of like Ramirez v chavez.

and aqainst "pound for pound" guys like toney (barkley) & whitaker (Ramirez), they weren't able to get to grips with their slick & slippery opponents - at all. obviously barkley had a really good career, competed in some of the great fights of his time (sims, hearns 1, duran, benn) but it didn't make him great. same with Ramirez.

I get what you are saying, but I think Ramirez was clearly a better fighter than Barkley.

that's cool - no comparison is meant to fit perfectly. I actually think barkley did great work in his losses, 2 of which were narrow and controversial - he was able to wobble benn, in the middle of savage exchanges; and he fought very well vs duran, he just wasn't alert enough to the crafty right when it mattered & would likely have won had duran not wobbled him in one and dropped him in 12. also barkely's wins over hearns are taken for granted because he beat the same guy meaning he "just had the guy's number". where in fact he bombed hearns out after he'd been almost chopped in half with body shots himself, first time; and outmuscled and outworked hearns, who was stuck on the ropes, in fight two.

[elmersalsa]

Iran Barkley and Jose Luis Ramirez should be in the HOF. Who was better? I think they were EVEN. I edge Ramirez because he fought more fights, but Barkley beat better opponents.

[Autobarn]

best barkley beat - 160 pound version of tommy hearns

2nd best barkley beat - 175 pound version of tommy hearns

then, olajide, kinchen, van horn

[King Carlos]

Not one mention of Ramirez arguably being robbed of the decision against Arguello?