Same. Don't think it exists. The only thing that's apparent is that he was a devastating puncher. But both Laciar and Accavallo had great chins and high skill levels, so who knows.
#05. Locche #04. Galindez #03. Perez #02. Laciar #01. Monzon Can see differing orders, and maybe even Accavallo above Locche.
So why does Perez outrank Galindez? I know there’s the unspoken rule that everyone has to never question Perez, but I’m feeling wild. Hell, why does Perez even outrank Eduardo Lausse? Or Omar Narvarz?
I'm more thinking why does Locche outrank Galindez? I mean, Locche ranks higher at 140 than Galindez does at 175, but that's only because 175 is WAAAAAYYYYY historically deeper than 140. Galindez had a longer, more dominant reign that was far less controversial - of course talking about Locche's infamous home cooking. But yeah, maybe I did rank Perez at 2 because its taboo to question Perez.
Argentina, like Panama, has an undisputed #1, and 2-5 are arguable. I'm thinking next we go for the deepest, most arguable... Mexico's top 5.
Galindez had more close, controversial wins than he did. Without question if we’re limiting it to their actual title reign. Barrera was the only controversial win for Locche in his, in a fight where he badly injured his arm. About 1/3 of Galindez’s fights during his title reign were close decision wins, several of them controversial. Dominant would not be a word I’d use for him. Consistent, yes.
I really really really wish the full fight of Locche-Cervantes 1 existed. I'm curious to see if Locche really did white wash Kid Pambele like the legend goes, or if it was closer than that.
Galindez and Perez are in similar camps for me. I love watching Vic, and have been extremely impressed by the little we have from Perez, but neither's résumé impresses me. Galindez's best wins are: Muhammad, Kates, Rossman, Ahumada & Fourie. Perez's are: Espinosa, Shirai, Kenji and Yaoita. I don't feel like there's a massive disparity there, outside of their singular best win. I happened to score Victor's win over Gregory 144-141 - in favour of Eddie. I don't feel like the rest of their résumés are fair enough apart to make up for Perez being much more dominant, and having a reign at the top for three years longer. Could definitely go either way, no quarrels with either pick.
You forgot his wins over Yaqui Lopez. And I gotta say, I strongly disagree that there isn’t a massive disparity in quality there. For my money, the opposition you listed for Perez is more in line with Galindez’s second tier wins over guys like Burnett, Hutchins, Douglas and the crop he faced on the way up (Peralta, Aguilar, Gonzalez, Anderson, etc.). Shirai (maybe Espinosa) would fall in line with the first tier if he weren’t at the end of his rope when Perez got to him. Otherwise that’s just a sorry bunch for any great fighter to have as their top wins. Not all that much better than Galaxy or Lopez, in my honest view.
X, I truly think we'd be disappointed if we did. From what we saw from the existing 15th round, I was unimpressed. I think the legend is really orchestrated by the Argentine press. And by and large, people tend to follow what has been written. I have read posters gush over Loche in that round. Well I watched that 15th round and scored it for Cervantes. I don't give points for making faces, mugging to the audience and trying to make the other fighter look foolish by doing absolutely nothing. It was Cervantes throwing punches and forcing the fight. He was coming up short but just touching Loche. He was the only one fighting. Adolph Pruitt had similar comments after their fight in Argentina. I'm sure Loche was something in the mid 60s, but by this time he knew he could sneak by with defense, Argentine officials and a rabid audience.
Pambele is one top 10 all time favorites, so i wouldn't be disappointed if it was close . My gut tells its highly unlikely Locche pitched a shut out. Did he win legitimately? I can believe it, he was a terrific fighter. But I doubt it was as wide as the myth let's us believe. I think by the mid 70s, Cervantes had become a fighter too good to lose to any version of Locche.
This is the crux of the issue. The problem I’ve noticed is a new wave of thought starting to rear its head that disregards the very first part of your sentence. Essentially trying to paint Locche as just another protected fighter. As if a couple of iffy decisions in his twilight years were a microcosm of his entire career. That mode of thought completely disregards his performance in his title winning effort against Fuji and especially his domination of the highly underrated Carlos Hernandez. Both of which exist in full and are available for all to view on YouTube. So what if he coasted a bit in the 70s when clearly on the decline? He’s hardly the first to get a pass for that kinda thing. I think in his prime he’d have served any version of Cervantes, who didn’t seem to like defensive cuties at any point.
I'm the one who replaced the full Locche-Fuji fight on YT. There was a full version, the quality was pretty crappy - like the camera angle was screwed up. I hated watching it like that, so I uploaded the good version. Locche-Fuji is probably one of my top 10 or 15 all time favorite performances.
Much obliged. I wasn’t talking about you, just so you know. I’ve seen similar sentiments to those in your post echoed several times. I just want people to maintain a level head before Locche gets turned into the next pariah on boxing boards.
I get what you're saying. Make no mistake, I like Locche, and I think people are often way too harsh on him. I just fear his style wouldn't match up well against a lot of 140 greats. Like Pryor, Benitez, Floyd, Whitaker, Chavez, Napoles, Pac, I think pretty much all those names are wrong for him. I think Locche outclasses Tszyu though.
