If I were to tier these guys up in terms of the best Mexicans ever, I'd have them in the same tier, which is just slightly below the clear top five. In the company of guys like Morales and Casanova. I don't like my pound-for-pound list after a certain point, so I'll leave their actual numbers out of it, but I had Chucho slightly higher on that list and the top 20 Mexicans I tried once for a thread on ESB. If we go by actual decisons, then it's not as impressive. Just looking outside of their best wins for a second, it's between Castillo's wins over Herrera, Pimental, Medel, Caraballo and the Cruz's vs Marquez's vs Medina, Gainer, Barrera, Casamayor, and Alvarado. Probably a bit more depth on the side of Marquez, by the virtue of there being more names (although TBF, I know more about the contenders of his era than I do Castillo's, so I may have missed a couple of Chucho's. That's pretty unlikely though, as I am very familiar with both eras). It's undeniable that Castillo's high end wins are better. Herrera is an all-time great bantam, and Pimental and Medel are two of the best contenders ever. Caraballo was far better than guys like Katsidis and Salido, as well. In terms of their apex wins, it's Pacquiao vs Olivares. I find a win over prime, bantamweight Olivares a bit more impressive than a win over a slightly past it, welterweight Pacquiao. That said, it's highly debatable that the manner of Marquez's win makes more impressive. A cuts stoppage in an even, albeit brutal fight isn't as impressive as absolutely sparkling someone in a seesaw-type war. But for me, a clear win is a clear win, whether it's on cuts or a brutal KO, as long as there's no controversy, a win's a win. Olivares impresses me more than Pac, and that version especially. I like Chucho's win. If you include controversial decisions, it's arguable Chucho adds wins over Rose, and more wins over Herrera and Medel. Whereas Marquez, arguably adds 2/3 more wins over Pacquiao, a win over John and Norword. But he could also have a loss to Barrera. It really depends on how you score those fights, but I had Chucho picking up a win vs Rose (quite clearly too), and Marquez picking up a win vs John and a second win vs Pacquiao at the very least. I think the extra win over Rose adds to Chucho's résumé way more than the 'new' wins do to JMM's. Marquez has it locked for consistency and longevity, though. If he had gotten some of those decisons he deserved, he'd be remembered as one of the most consistent fighters of the era. It's arguable he was undefeated in 55 fights going into the Mayweather fight. I have Chucho higher, but Marquez has a decent argument.
Marquez, but I admit your argument makes it closer than I was previously thought. Castillo's legacy definitely improves if he gets the Rose decision.
Marquez had more power P4P, and Marquez was one of the finest counterpunchers we've ever had. In overall skillset, Castillo was better and more versatile. He could certainly take the lead and box aggressively more adeptly than Marquez could. Was a far better infighter as well.
Unless you're including head-to-head, I can't really see Zarate that high. Not saying he isn't top ten (although he isn't a lock IMO) but he did only beat five ranked contenders. Though this isn't about those guys, so I'll leave it there.
I give the edge to Marquez in both categories. In fact, I think it could be argued that he's in the discussion for greatest Mexican fighter ever alongside Chavez and Olivares (and no, Duran was Panamanian). Castillo pulled off a huge win over Olivares in one of their 3 fights, but was soundly beaten in their other two. Contrast that with Marquez going life and death with Pac in all 4 of their fights and arguably winning more than just the KO one. I also thought Castillo lost fair and square to Rose.
Outstanding post. You made me rethink my knee-jerk reaction of Marquez being greater. I tend to group Marquez with Barrera and Morales and have him a shade above now, though it is close there too. Second half of the top 10 Mexicans. Castillo would have been lower and not inside the top 10 (I have Herrera above him, for example). Olivares was in his prime when Castillo met him each time but I think Chuco suffered two clear losses and the cut win, whilst a win, was a very competitive fight (the most competitive of the series by far). I do think the nature of that win matters, to be honest. A win is a win is a win but the nature of it is not as impressive as Marquez's KO of Pac and Marquez has legitimate gripes about the other 3 fights where he deserved at least 1 win there (the third fight in particular). So they both fought their greatest rivals (both ATGs) multiple times and Marquez came off clearly better. Marquez also established himself as the no. 1 lightweight in the world and remarkably the best welter too. In terms of modern weight jumping, this is no cherry picking fighter, this a guy who could legitimately claim to have been the best 126, 135 and 147 pounder in the world at one point. That's extremely rare and of course, Castillo didn't do (or try to do) anything remotely similar - not that I penalise him for that as it was a different era. But like I say, in terms of modern weight jumping, Marquez's feats there make him extra special. Resume is much closer than achievement but I still think I just give the edge to Marquez. Maybe Chuco was in closer defeats against better fighters but if we start counting those as wins (and some of those would be very debatable to do so) then we skew things unfairly, in my view, in Castillo's favour. Certainly, the defeat in the rematch against Herrera was as razor-thin a defeat as you can get (a draw would have been fair) but I thought it was the right result. Better? I think it's more favourable to Castillo, although I think Marquez has a strong argument there too. Both brilliantly skilled with wonderful fundamentals. Defensively, Castillo was better but Marquez was a better attacking force, particularly as he went up in weight. Of course, there is the PED thing, though...
In all honesty, I can't see an argument for Marquez being the better fighter, but I'd love to see someone go for it. The only two reasons I can think of why you'd go for Marquez, is either #1: not knowing as mu h about Castillo due to him being mu h more obscure the JMM, or #2: correlating greatness and in-ring ability and arguing that the Pacquiao fights make Marquez a higher quality fighter. I don't agree with that. I've always thought the Pacquiao fights, in a weird exception-to-the-rule situation, proved Pac was a better fighter. He (Pac) may not have gotten the results to show this in most people's eyes, but I thought those fights clearly showed Pacquiao to be a lot more talented in all four, and more skilled in two, three and four. It also showed a typical case of a southpaw's offense getting shut down and timed by a good lead and a nasty cross-counter down the pipe. Marquez was an extraordinary fighter, though. Excellent ring general, brilliant left hand, good right. Very creative with his combinations, and I especially love his double uppercuts. His defence isn't Whitaker-esque, but it was pretty good. He just knew how to keep in a position of safety. Look at how his stance and guard slightly changed throughout the first round of the first Pac fight. Then obviously, he's got a good chin and a massive heart. I just find Chucho to be better in more areas. He has that stereotypical left hook which Hispanic fighters, Mexicans in particular, seem to speciaise in. When he went to the body with it, it was devastating, and he just seemed to find the right moments to slot it in through their guard. I don't think you'll see too many jabbing performances better than Chucho's vs Caraballo. Dropped him multiple times and controlled him throughout. All down to the jab, and keep in mind that Caraballo was no bum. He'd just given Harada a war, who's jab is legendary. His cross-counter was perfect. I'm not even kidding, if I were to name you a few guys who I'd recommend studying on how a swarmer should counter the jab, Chucho would be second on the list after Duran. He's one of the best guys I've seen at 'weaving sequences', as I've been told it's called (has anyone else heard this term? I hadn't heard the term, but the idea of setting multiple traps and planning for different exchanges/replies isn't new to me). Chucho was brilliant at planning out how his next few exchanges would go, and acted accordingly. He used similar tactics to Jones, with his double jab, upstairs and down. He used it to either set up a nasty cross-counter, or a snappy left hook. Both built leverage off the level change. He was so versatile in so many areas, which is why I find him to be so good. He could fight off the ropes with the absolute best of them, as seen vs Raul Cruz (II). It's possibly him at his peak. He was excellent at shifting forward and cutting off the ring, too. Something Marquez could never do well. Power wise, Xplosive's right. Marquez hit harder, but Chucho's chin was better. Both had plenty of intangibles, but I have no doubt Chucho was braver. Hell, he's probably the bravest bantamweight ever. After all, "he'd fight a bull with a fork".
Excellent post Jez, some good points here. As I say, it's definitely arguable. I think it may come down to three things for me, me valuing résumé a lot higher than I do other aspects, me rating Olivares extremely highly, and me loving Chucho Castillo. I'd be interested to see your top ten though in the bumped thread.
