who was the greatest Latino boxer

how about jose napoles, did anyone mention him? Luis Rodriquez and all the cubans who Ali picked the brains of to become "The Greatest" lots and lots of talent.


Napoles was an incredible fighter. They loved him in Mexico.
 
think so? So many names and they define everything very different in latin america, country by country, very interesting. I'm a half-breed myself but in america that basically means the white folk don't want you so you're as good as just being Indian. Mexicans on the other hand are predominantly indigenous yet they treat their pure indiginous horribly.

this is mostly due to the colonial cast system under spanish rule . the hierarchy went like this : criollo ( pure ethnic spaniard born in the americas ) > castizo ( 3/4 european ,1/4 indigenous ) > mestizo ( half european , half indigenous ) > cholos ( half indigenous , half mestizo ) > indios ( indigenous people ) .

basically the less indigenous you are , the higher your rank in the hierarchy .this mindset still persists to this very day . mixed people are more than happy to disregard their native roots .

terms like " hispanic " and " latinos " , both inherently european and " white " reinforce this culture of denial . hell , some mestizos in the us nowadays flatout refer to themselves as " spanish " :eek: i even heard the description " spanish looking " , describing someone who looks like juan manuel marquez. with all this energy some of them spend getting touchy and cranky over their " language " and heritage , they could explore and reconnect with their indigenous roots .

if you want an example of how confused some spanish speakers in the us are, just look at the angry reaction charlie sheen got for saying that he's white, not latino . sheen's grandpa was a spaniard from galicia , he's of european descent . but for some reason , some mestizos didn't understand why charlie didn't see himself as one of them...
 
this is mostly due to the colonial cast system under spanish rule . the hierarchy went like this : criollo ( pure ethnic spaniard born in the americas ) > castizo ( 3/4 european ,1/4 indigenous ) > mestizo ( half european , half indigenous ) > cholos ( half indigenous , half mestizo ) > indios ( indigenous people ) .

basically the less indigenous you are , the higher your rank in the hierarchy .this mindset still persists to this very day . mixed people are more than happy to disregard their native roots .

terms like " hispanic " and " latinos " , both inherently european and " white " reinforce this culture of denial . hell , some mestizos in the us nowadays flatout refer to themselves as " spanish " :eek: i even heard the description " spanish looking " , describing someone who looks like juan manuel marquez. with all this energy some of them spend getting touchy and cranky over their " language " and heritage , they could explore and reconnect with their indigenous roots .

if you want an example of how confused some spanish speakers in the us are, just look at the angry reaction charlie sheen got for saying that he's white, not latino . sheen's grandpa was a spaniard from galicia , he's of european descent . but for some reason , some mestizos didn't understand why charlie didn't see himself as one of them...

that's one reason I don't really have a whole lot of sympathy for the mexicans who try to come to the US, A group of people who'll be that racist in their own country to MY people don't deserve my sympathy. Of course we can't make crazy generalizations, I've always told mexicans that "you're basically Indian" and I've met many, many wonderful, humble latinos who probably couldn't care less about their countrie's discrimination and not even all are ashamed, duran was called cholo which I have read meant indian, I've heard Alexis Arguello describe himself as Indian. I've also met the kind you are talking about, the kind who try to say they are mexican but from the white class. Charlie Sheen himself was actually born to a jewish mother. Race is still a powder keg and it's not going to get better.
 
this is mostly due to the colonial cast system under spanish rule . the hierarchy went like this : criollo ( pure ethnic spaniard born in the americas ) > castizo ( 3/4 european ,1/4 indigenous ) > mestizo ( half european , half indigenous ) > cholos ( half indigenous , half mestizo ) > indios ( indigenous people ) .

basically the less indigenous you are , the higher your rank in the hierarchy .this mindset still persists to this very day . mixed people are more than happy to disregard their native roots .

terms like " hispanic " and " latinos " , both inherently european and " white " reinforce this culture of denial . hell , some mestizos in the us nowadays flatout refer to themselves as " spanish " :eek: i even heard the description " spanish looking " , describing someone who looks like juan manuel marquez. with all this energy some of them spend getting touchy and cranky over their " language " and heritage , they could explore and reconnect with their indigenous roots .

if you want an example of how confused some spanish speakers in the us are, just look at the angry reaction charlie sheen got for saying that he's white, not latino . sheen's grandpa was a spaniard from galicia , he's of european descent . but for some reason , some mestizos didn't understand why charlie didn't see himself as one of them...

"Latino" means Latin American or of Latin American descent. Latin America is not Europe and people are aware of this.

They're not trying to claim Europe so calm the hell down. Gotta love the whiteness police getting sensitive when they think darkies are threatening to breach the borders. (though I agree that those East Coast Puerto Ricans and Cubans that use "Spanish" interchangeably with "Latino" or "Hispanic" are idiots)

Mestizo and other racial terms are too exclusionary. If we go by "best mestizo fighters" we'd have to exclude Trinidad and just about all the Puerto Rican and Cuban fighters because they're black or part black. And we'd also exclude Sergio Martinez and Canelo Alvarez and a few others that are white.

No need for that. Latino captures what needs to be captured.
 
"Latino" means Latin American or of Latin American descent. Latin America is not Europe and people are aware of this.

They're not trying to claim Europe so calm the hell down. Gotta love the whiteness police getting sensitive when they think darkies are threatening to breach the borders.

i'm fairly calm , and what you said is not the issue at all . i dislike these terms because they ignore the indigenous component of these populations ,continuing with the colonial tradition , not because i"m annoyed by " darkies " supposedly claming europe .
for example , the indonesian origin of the indo people in holland is often highlited (as the name indicates ) even though they're more dutch than mestizos and mulattos are spanish or " latin " .

Mestizo and other racial terms are too exclusionary. If we go by "best mestizo fighters" we'd have to exclude Trinidad and just about all the Puerto Rican and Cuban fighters because they're black or part black. And we'd also exclude Sergio Martinez and Canelo Alvarez and a few others that are white.

No need for that. Latino captures what needs to be captured.

and why this need to group all spanish speakers in the americas under one label ? why not call all americans " anglo-saxons " then ?you could just say " south of the US " , it captures everything and everyone in that region .

people can keep saying that terms like " hispanic " and " latino " refer to culture and whatnot , but we both know that's not how the term is used in real lfe . .. not only latino and hispanic are used interchangeably , but they're both used to label mestizos almost exclusively . ( " hispanic looking male " is often used by the police for example )

the shortcomings of these terms include some hilarious contradictions . like how brazilians are neither hispanic nor latinos despite speaking a latin language that originated in hispania ...and how italians are not " latins " despite being the descendants of the actual latins ..or how spaniards are neither hispanic nor latino despite originating in hispania and speaking a latin language..

this comment made by a mexican-american about the italo-argentine pope francis captures the reality of what the term actually means to the majority : " that guy is The furthest thing from latino " :icon_lol:


ps : this is getting off-topic , let''s drope the subject .
 
Last edited:
and why this need to group all spanish speakers in the americas under one label ? why not call all americans " anglo-saxons " then ?you could just say " south of the US " , it captures everything and everyone in that region .

people can keep saying that terms like " hispanic " and " latino " refer to culture and whatnot , but we both know that's not how the term is used in real lfe . .. not only latino and hispanic are used interchangeably , but they're both used to label mestizos almost exclusively . ( " hispanic looking male " is often used by the police for example )

Why group them all under one label? Because there's a common culture, background and history among these nations and people, and these factors matter, that's why.

And yes, the majority of Latinos are, physically, some shade of brown so often times it's used as a physical descriptor. That doesn't mean that "mestizo" should replace it because, once again, it'd exclude the white and black components. If we go strictly by your physical appearance definition, you'd have entire families belonging to different groups.


the shortcomings of these terms include some hilarious contradictions . like how brazilians are neither hispanic nor latinos despite speaking a latin language that originated in hispania ...and how italians are not " latins " despite being the descendants of the actual latins ..or how spaniards are neither hispanic nor latino despite originating in hispania and speaking a latin language..

this comment made by a mexican-american about the italo-argentine pope francis captures the reality of what the term actually means to the majority : " that guy is The furthest thing from latino " :icon_lol:

ALL racial/ethnic terms are social and political constructions and NOT scientific categories so they all have murky definitions and carry contradictions. They take different meanings as time goes by and as political trends change.

And yes, this even includes the sacred "white" category. In the late 1800s-early 1900s the Irish, Jews and Italians weren't considered white in the US. At least not the same type of white as the English/Germans and other northern Europeans. Today, this idea is ridiculous.

Hell, "white" itself wasn't really a term until a couple of centuries ago. People were talking about the different German, Anglo, Alpine, Mediterranean and Scandinavian "races." But somehow it all became one big, happy "white" family sometime in the 20th century.

And I won't even get to the "Caucasian" term that's getting real popular now. That one is always good for a laugh.

So no racial term will ever be foolproof. When describing people descended from the region known as Latin America, however, "Latino" suffices for now.
 
And to keep with the topic, this is the holy trinity, IMO.

In order:

1. Duran
2. Monzon
3. Chavez
 
1. Canelo
2. De La Hoya
3. Saul Alvarez
 
1. Canelo
2. De La Hoya
3. Saul Alvarez

larry-stare-o.gif
 
Mestizo and other racial terms are too exclusionary. If we go by "best mestizo fighters" we'd have to exclude Trinidad and just about all the Puerto Rican and Cuban fighters because they're black or part black. And we'd also exclude Sergio Martinez and Canelo Alvarez and a few others that are white.

No need for that. Latino captures what needs to be captured.

most of those countries have a rich racial history, and what I learned was really, spain was heavily mixed with moors, jews before they even started coming here. The latin american countries also have East Indian and Asian people going back 500 years, amazing but true. As far as Puerto Ricans not being mestizo, i would question that, I'm sure there is a dollop of Taino blood (which is something some puerto rican boxers claim) even if not as significant as Mexico. Us USA indians had a much more virulent, hateful european stock up here, I recall reading that some politician from the 1800's gloated over the fact that they'd exterminated us so they didn't have to worry about a race of half-breeds like Mexico.
 
most of those countries have a rich racial history, and what I learned was really, spain was heavily mixed with moors, jews before they even started coming here. The latin american countries also have East Indian and Asian people going back 500 years, amazing but true. As far as Puerto Ricans not being mestizo, i would question that, I'm sure there is a dollop of Taino blood (which is something some puerto rican boxers claim) even if not as significant as Mexico. Us USA indians had a much more virulent, hateful european stock up here, I recall reading that some politician from the 1800's gloated over the fact that they'd exterminated us so they didn't have to worry about a race of half-breeds like Mexico.

Definitely. The Moors occupied Portugal and Spain for 700 freakin' years! It's safe to say there was mixing going on there. But Spaniards and Portuguese are "white" (or are they?)

And sure, there's some Taino blood in most Puerto Ricans, but is it enough to get the "mestizo" label? Where do we draw the line? 10% 25%? And if we're going by the one-drop rule, can we do that for whites? Why don't you get to be considered white if you have a lone white ancestor? Why does whiteness demand purity?

These are all questions with difficult and politicized answers. This is what people mean when they say race is a social construct. The blurred lines between the categories are everywhere.
 
those are the rules, in america those rules were set up by the people in power. Whoever has the power to define has the power. White people thought anyone mixed was impure so they didn't want them. I've known lots and lots of people who were say, half-black/half-italian, half-black/half Jewish and usually, the white side wants nothing to do with them. Indians aren't quite the target we used to be because we are such a small minority and I do think there is so much mixing going on that it's becoming less and less important but I don't believe our species will overcome this trait for us/them thinking and the damage it creates.
 
The notion that Puerto ricans should self classify as mulatto or mestizo is silly. Most of us are as close or closer genetically to north africans than mestizo/mulatto.
Coincidentally there is also no consensus as to how to classify them in the states.
On Topic my top three sudacas according to subgroup.
OVERALL: Duran, Chavez, Monzon
LATINO: Duran, Gavilan, Napoles
MESTIZO: Monzon, Sanchez, Canto
HISPANIC: Chavez, Arguello, Finito
OTHER: Jofre, Locche, Carlos Ortiz
 
those are the rules, in america those rules were set up by the people in power. Whoever has the power to define has the power. White people thought anyone mixed was impure so they didn't want them. I've known lots and lots of people who were say, half-black/half-italian, half-black/half Jewish and usually, the white side wants nothing to do with them. Indians aren't quite the target we used to be because we are such a small minority and I do think there is so much mixing going on that it's becoming less and less important but I don't believe our species will overcome this trait for us/them thinking and the damage it creates.

tbf natives are some of the worst when it comes to us vs them thinking and its not dissimilar to your half white example. only difference is since there arent that many "pure" natives they dont mind letting halfs (or less) hang around but when it comes down to it they will for damn sure let you know that you arent that same and you never will be.

MESTIZO: Monzon, Sanchez, Canto
HISPANIC: Chavez, Arguello, Finito
this right here is dumb as fuck
no way would i classify lopez, arguello, and chavez as hispanic. and honestly most hispanics wouldnt classify them as hispanic either they would be mexicans and nicuraguan and if we look at it from a more scientific view they are all mestizo
 
most of those countries have a rich racial history, and what I learned was really, spain was heavily mixed with moors, jews before they even started coming here. The latin american countries also have East Indian and Asian people going back 500 years, amazing but true. As far as Puerto Ricans not being mestizo, i would question that, I'm sure there is a dollop of Taino blood (which is something some puerto rican boxers claim) even if not as significant as Mexico. Us USA indians had a much more virulent, hateful european stock up here, I recall reading that some politician from the 1800's gloated over the fact that they'd exterminated us so they didn't have to worry about a race of half-breeds like Mexico.
thats so fucked up but imagine if the whole country had demographics like new mexico that would be really interesting
 
tbf natives are some of the worst when it comes to us vs them thinking and its not dissimilar to your half white example. only difference is since there arent that many "pure" natives they dont mind letting halfs (or less) hang around but when it comes down to it they will for damn sure let you know that you arent that same and you never will be.

you ain't never lied, sad to say but I don't want much to do with my own kind, some things you gotta learn the hard way. But I have to say that alot of the us/them was branded into us with a million techniques of divide and conquer. I don't worry either way, I know what I am and don't really get hung up on any of it. One thing I have learned is that pretty much everyone is the same today "when it comes down to it" so I don't put a lot into lip service. Green is the true color people care about.
 
thats so fucked up but imagine if the whole country had demographics like new mexico that would be really interesting

It's even more interesting to watch how america, as soon as Indians were nearly wiped out, began to exoticize them and adore them. Very strange, I wonder if they wiped out all the slaves would they be as charitable. Bob Dylan recently said america was doomed because it was built on slavery, I think he's right.
 
It's even more interesting to watch how america, as soon as Indians were nearly wiped out, began to exoticize them and adore them. Very strange, I wonder if they wiped out all the slaves would they be as charitable. Bob Dylan recently said america was doomed because it was built on slavery, I think he's right.

tbf that charity dosent mean much
reservations are shit holes, have you been to pine ridge?
and id say blacks are in a very similar place
they get idealized and romanticized for the actions a minority of them participate in

edit
if your native and dont have long hair and "act like a native" then people willl prolly think your mexican. If your black and you dont act hip hop and are from a middle class family alot of people will tell you that you arent really black.
 
Back
Top