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

[SaadOffTheDeck]

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.

He really is amazing.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I wonder why the great Eusebio Pedroza is so low? He certainly meets the criteria of Perez and then some. Not sure of his awards though. I have to hand it to Elmer, nobody else delves into a career like saying he beat 'some good quality opponents'! No mention of any of them. This is the perfect situation of someone like Elmer going along with the masses instead of actually looking at a record. No doubt Perez exhibited greatness, but he's amazingly overrated.

[Ambling Alp II]

elmer's typical silliness aside, Perez and Arizmendi did have odd careers which does make them both hard to rate in different ways.

Fighters should be rated by weighing their big wins against their relatively bad losses. The worse the opponent the more the loss should be counted against them. If you to take into consideration the stages of the fighter's career as well as his opponents. To a small extent, how competitive the fights were should be taken into account. To some extent film has to count for something, though it can be deceiving either way.

There is so much in boxing that can deceiving. Titles, title defenses, win/loss records title defenses are quite often deceiving. (Btw, every source I looked up has Perez with 9 successful title defenses, not 11. )

Arizmendi is a difficult case because he started his career at the age of 14. You just can't count his losses when he was a teenager. Normally I would count a fighters losses in his late 20s. However, he was fighting for so long by that point he couldn't have been the fighter that he once was.
His losses against Clever Sison, Rodolfo Casanova, Filio Echavvaria, and Jimmy Vaughn should count against him. That is fair enough. However you have to balance that with two wins over Armstrong, 2 over Brown, and 2 over Wright, plus draws with Ambers and Miller.

Perez was more consistent and deserves credit for that. However, he simply has no big wins. At all. We aren't just talking no wins over a Top 100 fighter of all time. I seriously doubt he beat anyone in the Top 1000 of all time.
Does that automatically mean that he wouldn't have beaten a great fighter, or even a really good one? No. We simply don't know.

I just don't see how we can rate Perez ahead of fighters who beat multiple great fighters and also seldom lost to someone they should have beat. Perez is certainly way too high at #7. If someone wants to give him the benefit of the doubt over Arizmendi, that is fair enough. But to think there is a huge difference is just being silly.

[elmersalsa]

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).

You mean Santos Laciar? He was very good, not an all time pound per pound great, though. Let's check his record.

[elmersalsa]

I will give the review of the 7 best fighters that the great Pascual Perez has defeated.

[Jaywheel]

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

Did he unified all the crowns/titles?

The Phantom served two apprenticeships as a plasterer and industrial clerk before turning to boxing and had a costly divorce. Unification can't be the ONLY criteria??? Can it??

[SaadOffTheDeck]

elmer's typical silliness aside, Perez and Arizmendi did have odd careers which does make them both hard to rate in different ways.

Fighters should be rated by weighing their big wins against their relatively bad losses. The worse the opponent the more the loss should be counted against them. If you to take into consideration the stages of the fighter's career as well as his opponents. To a small extent, how competitive the fights were should be taken into account. To some extent film has to count for something, though it can be deceiving either way.

There is so much in boxing that can deceiving. Titles, title defenses, win/loss records title defenses are quite often deceiving. (Btw, every source I looked up has Perez with 9 successful title defenses, not 11. )

Arizmendi is a difficult case because he started his career at the age of 14. You just can't count his losses when he was a teenager. Normally I would count a fighters losses in his late 20s. However, he was fighting for so long by that point he couldn't have been the fighter that he once was.
His losses against Clever Sison, Rodolfo Casanova, Filio Echavvaria, and Jimmy Vaughn should count against him. That is fair enough. However you have to balance that with two wins over Armstrong, 2 over Brown, and 2 over Wright, plus draws with Ambers and Miller.

Perez was more consistent and deserves credit for that. However, he simply has no big wins. At all. We aren't just talking no wins over a Top 100 fighter of all time. I seriously doubt he beat anyone in the Top 1000 of all time.
Does that automatically mean that he wouldn't have beaten a great fighter, or even a really good one? No. We simply don't know.

I just don't see how we can rate Perez ahead of fighters who beat multiple great fighters and also seldom lost to someone they should have beat. Perez is certainly way too high at #7. If someone wants to give him the benefit of the doubt over Arizmendi, that is fair enough. But to think there is a huge difference is just being silly.

Good post, rating him over arizmendi isn't terrible. The fact that the Gap is so wide is absurd. Some of the other guys he's rated above is outlandish. I just picked someone off of the list for a perfect example of Elmer's complete lack of criteria and consistency.

[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).

You mean Santos Laciar? He was very good, not an all time pound per pound great, though. Let's check his record.

You should have checked his record before you made the list.

[elmersalsa]

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).

You mean Santos Laciar? He was very good, not an all time pound per pound great, though. Let's check his record.

You should have checked his record before you made the list.

I have seen his record before. Very impressive, but not ATG pound per pound status like Perez.

[elmersalsa]

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

Did he unified all the crowns/titles?

The Phantom served two apprenticeships as a plasterer and industrial clerk before turning to boxing and had a costly divorce. Unification can't be the ONLY criteria??? Can it??

Did he beat everyone in his class?
Was he as consistent as Perez?
What are his accomplishments?

Perez was THE ABSOLUTE BOSS at flyweight for 6 years. Was Ottke the absolute boss at 168?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You mean Santos Laciar? He was very good, not an all time pound per pound great, though. Let's check his record.

You should have checked his record before you made the list.

I have seen his record before. Very impressive, but not ATG pound per pound status like Perez.

You explain your reasoning so concisely.

[Jaywheel]

Did he unified all the crowns/titles?

The Phantom served two apprenticeships as a plasterer and industrial clerk before turning to boxing and had a costly divorce. Unification can't be the ONLY criteria??? Can it??

Did he beat everyone in his class?
Was he as consistent as Perez?
What are his accomplishments?

Perez was THE ABSOLUTE BOSS at flyweight for 6 years. Was Ottke the absolute boss at 168?

Did he beat everyone in his class? YES
Was he as consistent as Perez? MORE, not a single loss
What are his accomplishments? The great Phantom rebutted his critics, which had complained that he had started too late, when he became German Champion at the age of 18 at Middleweight. He became European Champion in 1991 and 1996. German National Middleweight Champion (1990–1991, 1995–1996). German National Light Heavyweight Champion (1992–1993). IBF and WBA SMW champ. 21 successful defenses.

Was Perez a 3 TIME OLYMPIAN?
Was he ever IBF FIGHTER OF THE YEAR?
Did he ever RUN A MARATHON in less than 4hrs?

[elmersalsa]

The Phantom served two apprenticeships as a plasterer and industrial clerk before turning to boxing and had a costly divorce. Unification can't be the ONLY criteria??? Can it??

Did he beat everyone in his class?
Was he as consistent as Perez?
What are his accomplishments?

Perez was THE ABSOLUTE BOSS at flyweight for 6 years. Was Ottke the absolute boss at 168?

Did he beat everyone in his class? YES
Was he as consistent as Perez? MORE, not a single loss
What are his accomplishments? The great Phantom rebutted his critics, which had complained that he had started too late, when he became German Champion at the age of 18 at Middleweight. He became European Champion in 1991 and 1996. German National Middleweight Champion (1990–1991, 1995–1996). German National Light Heavyweight Champion (1992–1993). IBF and WBA SMW champ. 21 successful defenses.

Was Perez a 3 TIME OLYMPIAN?
Was he ever IBF FIGHTER OF THE YEAR?
Did he ever RUN A MARATHON in less than 4hrs?

You mean the guy that had controversial decision wins against American boxers in Germany?

The one that only had 34 fights at pro level?
The one that fought at an overrated and non important weight class like super middleweight?

The one that, despite of it all, didn't cleaned up the whole division by winning all crowns? He was not the TOP DOG at no stretch of your imagination.

The great Pascual Perez won over 80 fights, and held his crown in a weight class that most champions don't last for 6 years. He was THE ABSOLUTE TOP DOG of the flyweight division, making 11 title defenses all over the world. He was not like that overrated German that almost never left Germany to defend hs crown. Ottke absolutely is not a top 100 pound per pound all time great.

[elmersalsa]

These are the highlights and record of the great Pascual Perez of Argentina:

1948 Olympic Gold Medalist. He became the first Latin boxer to win an Olympic boxing gold medal and a world boxing championship at pro level.

He started his pro boxing career at age 26.

He was Argentinian, South American and World flyweight champion. That means he was champion in ALL LEVELS OF COMPETITION: Olympic, National, Continental and World champion.

He defended the World Flyweight Championship 11 times all over the world in 6 years.

Undefeated in his first 52 professional fights.

He had an outstanding and amazing record of 84-7-1 with 57 knockouts. He lost all those fights after turning 30 years old.

He defeated:
Yoshio Shirai twice in Japan who was the World Flyweight Champion in 1952.

W15 Leo Espinosa. Espinosa was Oriental Pacific Boxing Federation Bantamweight Champion (OPBF). He beat Yoshio Shirai (WTKO7) in first fight, Young Martin (W10), Pone Kingpetch (W12), who took Perez' crown, and also beat Sadao Yaoita (W12).

W10 Danny Kid. Kid, another Philippine fighter like Espinosa, was OPBF Flyweight Champion. He beat high ranking bantamweight contender Billy Peacock (W10), Dommy Ursua (twice), and Jose Medel, in the first fight by decision. Who Medel beat? The great Fighting Harada.

WTKO11 Oscar Suarez. Suarez was Cuban Flyweight Champion.

WKO1 Dai Dower. Dower was British and European Flyweight Champion.

WKO3 Young Martin. Martin was Spain and Eorope Flyweight Champion. He beat Dai Dower.

W15 Dommy Ursua. Another Filipino that was flyweight and bantamweight division contender. He beat Sadao Yaoita of Japan, who was the first man to defeat Perez.

W10 Kenji Konekura. Konekura was Japanese Flyweight and OPBF Bantamweight Champion. He beat Leo Espinosa for the bantamweight title.

WKO13 Sadai Yaoita (II). He was Japan and OPBF Flyweight Champion. Good enough to beat Perez in first fight. He was the first man ever to defeat Perez.

Now, to say that Perez didn't beat anybody good it shows the ignorance of the posters who think that only good fighters are over the flyweight division. Perez beat the best of his time, convincingly, sometimes more than once. Sometimes in their own backyards. They may not be all time great boxers, but very good to be champions of their own continental and national areas. He did it and proved it for 6 years as champion. He was a true all time pound per pound great boxer.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Who said he didn't beat anyone 'good'? Are any of his victims in the p4p top 500?

[Ambling Alp II]

Take a look at the opponents that elmer is now bringing up. Of course he is now resorting to them winning lame titles that nobody in the world cares about.
However, if you look at their career going into their fights with Perez:
Oscar Suarez lost his previous two fight before fighting Perez. Yet Perez makes a title defense against him.
Dommy Ursua had a record of 19-15-1 before Perez gave him a title shot. He lost 3 of his previous 5 fights. Yet Perez made a title defense against him.
Kenji Konekura was 4-1 before fighting Perez in a non-title fight. Then Perez gives hima title shot right away. Konekura had been a pro for barely a year before Perez made his defense against him.
Young Martin was ko'd in the first round in a fight just the year before Perez made a defense against him.

There is also the classic elmer logic of Sadai Yoati. Why is he good? Because he earlier beat Perez in a non-title fight!!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

His resume is weak as hell.

[Kalan]

I think we can agree to disagree here, you see Alexis Arguello, who is well within the top 25 at his perspective weight class, had one thing going for him that kept him a media darling in the limelight. With all due respect to El Campeonisimo, it was the colour of his skin that helped him maintain a paycheck in comparison with other fighters near his weight class. That does not speak ill of Alexis Arguello as much as it does about the state of corruption and rampant abuse of fighters during the time. It may have nothing to do with it but I will give an example with the current Mixed Martial Arts scene. Connor McGregor made a tremendous amount of money even before Mayweather Jr in comparison with his peers at the time. More than the previous two pound for pound mixed Martial Artists, Anderson Silva, and Georges St. Pierre.

Arguello was not a white man. He was more Native American than Caucasian I believe.

And that's not the deal... Arguello won World Titles in 4 different weight classes.. He was well liked, humble, and respectful compared to some of his peers.. He had some charisma about him.. Sugar Ray Leonard was a very charismatic individual.. He could call his own shots and fight whoever he wanted when he wanted.. If he didn't want to fight somebody he didn't.. Ali and Tyson were also extremely charismatic publicity magnets..

That's something you have that other people don't have.. It has nothing to do with color.. Tunney complained in his autobiography that he was disliked and disrespected - an unpopular champion.. Technically he was more Anglo than Dempsey -- but when he fought Dempsey he had a lot of choice comments directed at him and got hate mail.. Will Rogers said, "Let's have prize fighters with harder wallops and less Shakespeare."

[elmersalsa]

His resume is weak as hell.

It is not a weak resume. It is a great resume! His quality of opposition was very good. Not great, but very good. He beat the best boxers of his weight class. He beat what was in front of him. He can't go to the 1980s or to the 1920s and fight those guys. He could only fight what is in his time, and in his weight class. And he did it well.

[elmersalsa]

Take a look at the opponents that elmer is now bringing up. Of course he is now resorting to them winning lame titles that nobody in the world cares about.
However, if you look at their career going into their fights with Perez:
Oscar Suarez lost his previous two fight before fighting Perez. Yet Perez makes a title defense against him.
Dommy Ursua had a record of 19-15-1 before Perez gave him a title shot. He lost 3 of his previous 5 fights. Yet Perez made a title defense against him.
Kenji Konekura was 4-1 before fighting Perez in a non-title fight. Then Perez gives hima title shot right away. Konekura had been a pro for barely a year before Perez made his defense against him.
Young Martin was ko'd in the first round in a fight just the year before Perez made a defense against him.

There is also the classic elmer logic of Sadai Yoati. Why is he good? Because he earlier beat Perez in a non-title fight!!

Lame titles that nobody cares about? Winning a national and continental area crown is achievement in itself for any boxer. It is a great accomplishment, especially in those times. Pascual Perez could only fight the guys of his weight class and time. Could he get a knockoff job because he didn't went up in weight and fight bantamweight boxers? Yes. Then, the greats Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon should get knocked off because they didn't jump to light heavyweight. Why are they supposed to be great and Perez not? Perez did the same thing that Monzon and Marvelous did. What was the difference?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

His resume is weak as hell.

It is not a weak resume. It is a great resume! His quality of opposition was very good. Not great, but very good. He beat the best boxers of his weight class. He beat what was in front of him. He can't go to the 1980s or to the 1920s and fight those guys. He could only fight what is in his time, and in his weight class. And he did it well.

He did do it well. You also can't take away the guys that were in a better era and mixed it up with other great fighters. Perez never faced one. You can blabber on all you want but saying he has a greater resume than Kid Gavilan is fornicating ridiculous, even for you. You certainly wouldn't have to pump up Dai Dower on the resumes of guys you have way below him.

[elmersalsa]

His resume is weak as hell.

It is not a weak resume. It is a great resume! His quality of opposition was very good. Not great, but very good. He beat the best boxers of his weight class. He beat what was in front of him. He can't go to the 1980s or to the 1920s and fight those guys. He could only fight what is in his time, and in his weight class. And he did it well.

He did do it well. You also can't take away the guys that were in a better era and mixed it up with other great fighters. Perez never faced one. You can blabber on all you want but saying he has a greater resume than Kid Gavilan is effing ridiculous, even for you. You certainly wouldn't have to pump up Dai Dower on the resumes of guys you have way below him.

Comparing Perez with the great Kid Gavilan could be a toss up. The list was of the year 2014. But, further consideration in the year 2017, Perez is in slot #11. Still, he was a great fighter no matter how we look at it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Not nearly as great as you rank him. Lists are hard, but your clinging to your rankings with no consistent criteria is pathetic.

[elmersalsa]

Not nearly as great as you rank him. Lists are hard, but your clinging to your rankings with no consistent criteria is pathetic.

I got criteria. Your criteria is about quantity and quality of opposition. Which I believe is not the only thing you can go by.

I explore and see all the facets of a fighter's career. Everything has a balance.

[elmersalsa]

Lupe Pintle, Jose Medel, Gilberto Roman and Rafael Herrera were underrated boxers from Mexico.