The 25 Greatest Pound per Pound Latin Boxers of All-Time

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[Ambling Alp II]

Just so we are clear here:
Perez is better than Arizimendi; Perez 11 title defenses.
When it is pointed out that to Trinidad had more title defenses than Perez, it doesn't count because Perez had more wins than Trinidad.
When it is pointed out that Arizmendi had more wins than Perez, that doesn't count because Perez had more title defenses!

elmer logic at it's finest!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Just so we are clear here:
Perez is better than Arizimendi; Perez 11 title defenses.
When it is pointed out that to Trinidad had more title defenses than Perez, it doesn't count because Perez had more wins than Trinidad.
When it is pointed out that Arizmendi had more wins than Perez, that doesn't count because Perez had more title defenses!

elmer logic at it's finest!

Not just better than Arizmendi, it's embarrassing to mention them in the same breath, Don't forget that facing much better fighters isn't a big deal.

[elmersalsa]

Just so we are clear here:
Perez is better than Arizimendi; Perez 11 title defenses.
When it is pointed out that to Trinidad had more title defenses than Perez, it doesn't count because Perez had more wins than Trinidad.
When it is pointed out that Arizmendi had more wins than Perez, that doesn't count because Perez had more title defenses!

elmer logic at it's finest!

I have never said that it doesn't count Felix "Tito" Trinidad's title defenses. Tito had more title defenses than the great Pascual Perez. But, evaluating the whole career between both men, Perez was better. He had more fights, more winning streaks and was better than Tito after the prime years. As soon Tito lost one fight, he retires like a chump. That is not a mark of a great boxer.

As for Baby Arizmendi, Saad and I agreed that Arizmendi beat better competition.
But who was the top dog in their respective weight classes? Perez
Who won more fights in a row? Perez
Who won more awards? Perez
Who won more title bouts? Perez
Who was more consistent? Perez

The ONLY THING Arizmendi had over Perez is better wins over quality of opposition. You just can't go by that. When fighting the fights that counted, like a title fight of the world, Arizmendi FLUNKED BIG TIME!

[Kalan]

Basically Perez fought nobody... He had one of the most puffed up and cherry-picked resumes in the History of Boxing... He never beat opponents like Oscar De La Hoya and Pernell Whitaker so forget saying he's anywhere close to Felix Trinidad.. Trinidad should have been pulled out of the Bernard Hopkins fight by the 9th round or earlier.. He had ZERO chance to win and absorbed a massive beating that shortened his career greatly.. Tito was 10 X better than Perez.

But B-Hop was Trinidad's 3rd weight division and Hopkins was absolutely at his peak.. Hopkins was so confident before the fight it was ridiculous for an underdog.. But like Foreman before the Frazier fight -- sometimes you're the underdog but you just KNOW there's no way your opponent has a shot in Hell.

[elmersalsa]

[quote="Kalan"]Basically Perez fought nobody... He had one of the most puffed up and cherry-picked resumes in the History of Boxing... He never beat opponents like Oscar De La Hoya and Pernell Whitaker so forget saying he's anywhere close to Felix Trinidad.. Trinidad should have been pulled out of the Bernard Hopkins fight by the 9th round or earlier.. He had ZERO chance to win and absorbed a massive beating that shortened his career greatly.. Tito was 10 X better than Perez.

But B-Hop was Trinidad's 3rd weight division and Hopkins was absolutely at his peak.. Hopkins was so confident before the fight it was ridiculous for an underdog.. But like Foreman before the Frazier fight -- sometimes you're the underdog but you just KNOW there's no way your opponent has a shot in Hell.[/quote]

Tito was never better than Pascual. You're confusing the whole situation. You have said that the great Pascual Perez didn't fight anybody. Well, Tito didn't beat anybody great in my view, either. Just name opponents to blow up his deceiving record in an era of multiple champions per division.

Because Perez didn't beat an all time great it doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter and that his opponents weren't world class. Later, I will give a detailed list of Perez' opponents. He was a flyweight for crying out loud. He is considered a top 3 or 5 of all times in that division. Does Tito breaks the all time top welterweights? I doubt it.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just so we are clear here:
Perez is better than Arizimendi; Perez 11 title defenses.
When it is pointed out that to Trinidad had more title defenses than Perez, it doesn't count because Perez had more wins than Trinidad.
When it is pointed out that Arizmendi had more wins than Perez, that doesn't count because Perez had more title defenses!

elmer logic at it's finest!

I have never said that it doesn't count Felix "Tito" Trinidad's title defenses. Tito had more title defenses than the great Pascual Perez. But, evaluating the whole career between both men, Perez was better. He had more fights, more winning streaks and was better than Tito after the prime years. As soon Tito lost one fight, he retires like a chump. That is not a mark of a great boxer.

As for Baby Arizmendi, Saad and I agreed that Arizmendi beat better competition.
But who was the top dog in their respective weight classes? Perez
Who won more fights in a row? Perez
Who won more awards? Perez
Who won more title bouts? Perez
Who was more consistent? Perez

The ONLY THING Arizmendi had over Perez is better wins over quality of opposition. You just can't go by that. When fighting the fights that counted, like a title fight of the world, Arizmendi FLUNKED BIG TIME!

You are obviously picking and choosing the criteria that favors the guy that you like , which is what you always seem to do.
You list various criteria, but don't say how much weight you give to each.

some of the criteria is silly.
Who was the top dog? Well so what? There is never any depth in the flyweight division. Arizmendi had a lot more competition.
Who won more awards? First, who cares? Second, what awards did Perez win?

The only thing that Arizmendi has over Perez is that better competition? Well yes. That is a big deal. A really big deal. Like the most important thing. And it's not even close. Arizmendi had some great wins. Perez has zero.
And Arizimendi did win more fights than Perez. Doesn't mean anything to me, but when it suits you it's a big deal. When it doesn't suit your argument, you ignore it.

Arizmendi flunked big time in title fights. Well he won the NYSAC title. He won the California version of world title. He won the NBA world title. That is not flunking big time by any stretch of the imagination. He lost decisions in title fights to Henry Armstrong and Freddie Miller. That isn't like losing to the legendary Pone Kingpetch.

You can make a case for Perez being better than Arizmendi. However you aren't doing it. You are just randomly picking things that favor your guy.

[Kalan]

You have said that the great Pascual Perez didn't fight anybody. Well, Tito didn't beat anybody great in my view, either.

Anybody who says Pernell Whitaker and Oscar De La Hoya weren't great fighters isn't being a serious debater... Perez never beat anyone that caliber but beat about 50 guys making their pro debut... or guys who had ZERO wins. He was a charlatan.

[elmersalsa]

You have said that the great Pascual Perez didn't fight anybody. Well, Tito didn't beat anybody great in my view, either.

Anybody who says Pernell Whitaker and Oscar De La Hoya weren't great fighters isn't being a serious debater... Perez never beat anyone that caliber but beat about 50 guys making their pro debut... or guys who had ZERO wins. He was a charlatan.

Again, you're confusing the whole situation. The great Pernell Whitaker was already hooked on cocaine and fell hard on drugs before taking Tito. He was also 35 and not in his complete prime. His days were over.

He didn't beat Oscar De La Hoya. None of the two did nothing to indicate that they deserve to be with the all time best. They stunk big time. Oscar to me, won the fight, but it was not convincing. None of the two closed the show. Tito and Oscar were superstars in boxing, not great all time 100 pound per pound fighters.

[elmersalsa]

Just so we are clear here:
Perez is better than Arizimendi; Perez 11 title defenses.
When it is pointed out that to Trinidad had more title defenses than Perez, it doesn't count because Perez had more wins than Trinidad.
When it is pointed out that Arizmendi had more wins than Perez, that doesn't count because Perez had more title defenses!

elmer logic at it's finest!

I have never said that it doesn't count Felix "Tito" Trinidad's title defenses. Tito had more title defenses than the great Pascual Perez. But, evaluating the whole career between both men, Perez was better. He had more fights, more winning streaks and was better than Tito after the prime years. As soon Tito lost one fight, he retires like a chump. That is not a mark of a great boxer.

As for Baby Arizmendi, Saad and I agreed that Arizmendi beat better competition.
But who was the top dog in their respective weight classes? Perez
Who won more fights in a row? Perez
Who won more awards? Perez
Who won more title bouts? Perez
Who was more consistent? Perez

The ONLY THING Arizmendi had over Perez is better wins over quality of opposition. You just can't go by that. When fighting the fights that counted, like a title fight of the world, Arizmendi FLUNKED BIG TIME!

You are obviously picking and choosing the criteria that favors the guy that you like , which is what you always seem to do.
You list various criteria, but don't say how much weight you give to each.

some of the criteria is silly.
Who was the top dog? Well so what? There is never any depth in the flyweight division. Arizmendi had a lot more competition.
Who won more awards? First, who cares? Second, what awards did Perez win?

The only thing that Arizmendi has over Perez is that better competition? Well yes. That is a big deal. A really big deal. Like the most important thing. And it's not even close. Arizmendi had some great wins. Perez has zero.
And Arizimendi did win more fights than Perez. Doesn't mean anything to me, but when it suits you it's a big deal. When it doesn't suit your argument, you ignore it.

Arizmendi flunked big time in title fights. Well he won the NYSAC title. He won the California version of world title. He won the NBA world title. That is not flunking big time by any stretch of the imagination. He lost decisions in title fights to Henry Armstrong and Freddie Miller. That isn't like losing to the legendary Pone Kingpetch.

You can make a case for Perez being better than Arizmendi. However you aren't doing it. You are just randomly picking things that favor your guy.

Being the TOP DOG in the weight class mean something in boxing. It means that you are the best fighter of that class. The great Pascual Perez was THE TOP DOG of the flyweights for 6 years. That's remarkable no matter how we look at it. He made 11 title defenses. Baby Arizmendi was not even the top dog at his weight class. Perez was a better flyweight than Arizmendi being a featherweight. Perez was more consistent. A winner. Arizmendi lost 26 fights in 127. Perez only lost 7. And that was after turning 30. A very good fighter named Pone Kingpetch of Thailand had to take his crown.

Winning awards in boxing mean something. It's a recognition that every boxer wants. For example, being a world champion. Perez was Olympic, Argentinian, South American and World flyweight champion. He was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION. That is GREATNESS in itself. No matter how we look at it. And to start pro boxing at a late age of 26 makes it more remarkable, indeed. Arizmendi was through at 29. Perez was finished at 38. The ONLY THING Arizmendi got over Perez is that he beat better fighters. But THAT IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA.

[elmersalsa]

Pascual Perez professional boxing record was 84-7-1 with 57KOs
Baby Arizmendi professional boxing record was 87-26-14 with 20KOs

[giacomino]

Elmersalsa I don’t have a huge problem with your list. I think Perez was probably the best or close to the best flyweights ever. He was before my time but I saw Spanish tapes of some of his fights and the dude was impresssive and a relatively big puncher considering his size. I would probably have Wilfredo “Bazooka”Gomez a little higher because he was the best ever at 122 by far and probably would have dominated at his more natural bantamweight as well. Would probably have Trinidad in the top 25 as well

[SaadOffTheDeck]

This is why I laughed instead of getting into it, you're criteria is pin the tail on the donkey.

[elmersalsa]

This is why I laughed instead of getting into it, you're criteria is pin the tail on the donkey.

Beating better fighters is not the only criteria. A guy that lost 27 fights with the same number of wins of Perez can't be better if Perez only lost 7 fights.

[elmersalsa]

Elmersalsa I don’t have a huge problem with your list. I think Perez was probably the best or close to the best flyweights ever. He was before my time but I saw Spanish tapes of some of his fights and the dude was impresssive and a relatively big puncher considering his size. I would probably have Wilfredo “Bazooka”Gomez a little higher because he was the best ever at 122 by far and probably would have dominated at his more natural bantamweight as well. Would probably have Trinidad in the top 25 as well

The great Wilfredo Gomez was a monster at 122lbs, ain't he?

[Jaywheel]

Svenn Ottke,the TOP DOG at 168 for so long. Surely TOP TEN P4P EVER?

[Ambling Alp II]

This is why I laughed instead of getting into it, you're criteria is pin the tail on the donkey.

Beating better fighters is not the only criteria. A guy that lost 27 fights with the same number of wins of Perez can't be better if Perez only lost 7 fights.

Yes he could be better even if his win/loss record is not as good. Win/loss % is not the only criteria either. It certainly is not as important whom you have beaten.

Another comment that needs to be addressed : Winning awards in boxing mean something. It's a recognition that every boxer wants. For example, being a world champion. Perez was Olympic, Argentinian, South American and World flyweight champion. He was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION. That is GREATNESS in itself. No matter how we look at it. And to start pro boxing at a late age of 26 makes it more remarkable, indeed. Arizmendi was through at 29. Perez was finished at 38. The ONLY THING Arizmendi got over Perez is that he beat better fighters. But THAT IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA.

First why do awards have to mean anything? And again what awards did Perez win anyway?
Now we are talking about Olympic, Argentinian, South American titles? Couldn't you have come up with more meaningless criteria?

Perez was finished at 38? Well he never beat a decent fighter after the age of 33. He won several fights after 33 against tomato cans. He doesn't deserve credit for those wins. You can always find stiffs to beat.
Yes Arizmendi retired at 29. He had been fighting a lot longer than Perez and against much tougher competition. He started his career at the age of 14 for goodness sakes. His prime was longer than Perez's.
If you are going to crticize Arizmendi for not fighting later, then criticize Perez for not fighting earlier.

Being the "Top Dog" at one weight class doesn't automatically mean you are better than someone else who was not the "Top Dog" at another. The flyweight division almost never has any depth. It's usually much easier to be the Top Dog at flyweight than at Featherweight and above.

Ultimately, your biggest problem is that you don't factor in the quality of competition of whom a fighter goes up against. That and you make your rankings before actually using criteria. Then when people point out things you have to desperately backtrack and find meaningless criteria (like South American and Argentinian titles) to back it up.

[Kalan]

This is why I laughed instead of getting into it, you're criteria is pin the tail on the donkey.

Beating better fighters is not the only criteria. A guy that lost 27 fights with the same number of wins of Perez can't be better if Perez only lost 7 fights

I'll repeat Elmersalsa... Cuz you can't hear... Perez beat 50 guys making their pro debut...or who had ZERO wins... Cherry-picker DELUXE.

[elmersalsa]

Svenn Ottke,the TOP DOG at 168 for so long. Surely TOP TEN P4P EVER?

Did he unified all the crowns/titles?

[elmersalsa]

This is why I laughed instead of getting into it, you're criteria is pin the tail on the donkey.

Beating better fighters is not the only criteria. A guy that lost 27 fights with the same number of wins of Perez can't be better if Perez only lost 7 fights

I'll repeat Elmersalsa... Cuz you can't hear... Perez beat 50 guys making their pro debut...or who had ZERO wins... Cherry-picker DELUXE.

Some of the fighters records are not accurate. Pascual Perez beat some good quality opponents

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Baby arizmendi beat great ones.

[elmersalsa]

This is why I laughed instead of getting into it, you're criteria is pin the tail on the donkey.

Beating better fighters is not the only criteria. A guy that lost 27 fights with the same number of wins of Perez can't be better if Perez only lost 7 fights.

Yes he could be better even if his win/loss record is not as good. Win/loss % is not the only criteria either. It certainly is not as important whom you have beaten.

Another comment that needs to be addressed : Winning awards in boxing mean something. It's a recognition that every boxer wants. For example, being a world champion. Perez was Olympic, Argentinian, South American and World flyweight champion. He was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION. That is GREATNESS in itself. No matter how we look at it. And to start pro boxing at a late age of 26 makes it more remarkable, indeed. Arizmendi was through at 29. Perez was finished at 38. The ONLY THING Arizmendi got over Perez is that he beat better fighters. But THAT IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA.

First why do awards have to mean anything? And again what awards did Perez win anyway?
Now we are talking about Olympic, Argentinian, South American titles? Couldn't you have come up with more meaningless criteria?

Perez was finished at 38? Well he never beat a decent fighter after the age of 33. He won several fights after 33 against tomato cans. He doesn't deserve credit for those wins. You can always find stiffs to beat.
Yes Arizmendi retired at 29. He had been fighting a lot longer than Perez and against much tougher competition. He started his career at the age of 14 for goodness sakes. His prime was longer than Perez's.
If you are going to crticize Arizmendi for not fighting later, then criticize Perez for not fighting earlier.

Being the "Top Dog" at one weight class doesn't automatically mean you are better than someone else who was not the "Top Dog" at another. The flyweight division almost never has any depth. It's usually much easier to be the Top Dog at flyweight than at Featherweight and above.

Ultimately, your biggest problem is that you don't factor in the quality of competition of whom a fighter goes up against. That and you make your rankings before actually using criteria. Then when people point out things you have to desperately backtrack and find meaningless criteria (like South American and Argentinian titles) to back it up.

First, I have never said or written that having a winning record or not, or comparing both fighters records is the only criteria. I always put a balance between the two when comparing fighters. You're criticizing the great Pascual Perez for not fighting top opposition or that his opposition was weak compared to Baby Arizmendi's. Perez could only fight what was in front of him. If he didn't move up on weight, then that could be a strike against him. Well, the greats Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon never went up in weight, either. They were great because they were THE TOP DOGS of their division. So, are we going to penalize Perez for not moving up? The criteria is POUND PER POUND, not who beat who.

Second, winning is a part of greatness. Perez did it on the regular even after 30 years old. He was a champion IN ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION which means a lot for any fighter. He was twice the best fighter in the world at the amateur and pro level. He was the best flyweight of his country. He was the best fighter of his own continental area. And the best fighter in the world in HIS WEIGHT CLASS. I guess the little men, like the flyweights don't get no love. Even if the fighter was the top dog for 6 years and 11 title defenses. What else he got to do? He ahniliated everything in front of him convincingly. He defeated the mandatory challengers. Arizmendi WAS NEVER THE BEST at his weight class in no particular time or fashion. He had 27 losses. That should count against him. And many of those losses were in his prime.

Pasccual Perez, The Terrier from Mendoza, Argentina was a great champion. He beat THE VERY BEST OF HIS CLASS, even though it was not Arizmendi's class of opposition.

Should we penalize Perez for not fighting top 100 ATG guys?

Does pound per pound means from featherweight to heavyweight or from strawweight to heavyweight?

Or is it just welterweights and middleweights?

[elmersalsa]

Baby arizmendi beat great ones.

And that should not be THE ONLY CRITERIA. We should have an overall balance in judging boxers' careers.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How does Perez rank so much higher than Santos? Very comparable records and Laciar also beat better fighters, not as many as Arizmendi(who has like 5 wins against fighters from your top 100).

[Ambling Alp II]

Was Santos a beast or a top dog?
Did he win the Argentinian title?
Did he beat people no one has ever heard of in his mid-30s?

Those are the kinds of things that matter.