At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Why is Ricardo Lopez rated so highly by fightfans?
I know he retired undefeated but come on he never fought above light flyweight.
If he was THAT good surely he could have at least gone up to super bantamweight or something.
Dominating the minimum weight division shouldn't really be considered a great thing as the level of competition down there is hardly noteworthy, it's like being the best team in the Civil Service football five aside league, doesn't mean a whole lot in the scheme of things.
I admit I know next to nothing about him so am not stating he is overated just asking for people to tell me why he is not.
Did he beat a string of p4p stars I've not heard or something?
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Also would Joe Calzaghe now be more highly regarded seeing as he also went undefeated throughout his career in a surely much more competitive division than straweight?
He also has wins over ring legends such as B Hop, Roy Jones, Eubank, and a possible future star in Kessler.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Why is Ricardo Lopez rated so highly by fightfans?
I know he retired undefeated but come on he never fought above light flyweight.
If he was THAT good surely he could have at least gone up to super bantamweight or something.
Dominating the minimum weight division shouldn't really be considered a great thing as the level of competition down there is hardly noteworthy, it's like being the best team in the Civil Service football five aside league, doesn't mean a whole lot in the scheme of things.
I admit I know next to nothing about him so am not stating he is overated just asking for people to tell me why he is not.
Did he beat a string of p4p stars I've not heard or something?
Not sure what you issue with him is. He dominated the competition available to him (not p4p stars) and closed out the weight class. No he didn't go up a bunch of weight classes, but was absolutlely dominant in his 51 wins, that in and of itself is saying enough. You have been quite clear about discounting the lower weight classes for quite some time, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Meh, I think he's way overrated by some in a P4P historical sense. Its just unfortunate that he never got the huge fights. That being said some of his stuff is underrated just cause a lot of people don't know a whole lot about the opponents. But I see him listed up there with some of the truly all time P4P greats and makes me cringe a bit. He was a phenomenal fighter though, I think that influences his rankings, just how he complete he was, and there's nothing really wrong with that if you're consistent.
Anyway will you promise not to go on and on with this for weeks and weeks never shutting about it? Please. :bag: We get it, you think small guys are overrated.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
I don't know if this is response to what I said in the other thread, but he was pretty special. Now I don't rate him as highly as others do precisely because I don't believe his opposition is on the same level as other ATGs.
Part of the problem is the definition of P4P. Most people know seem to see this as 'the guy who can jump weight classes & beat people' probably in response to the acheivements of Jones, Mayweather & Pacquiao. However, it originally means the guy who, if all boxers were hypothetically at the same weight & all things being equal, would have been the best. Lopez certainly filled this, however, he just wasn't physically big enough to go above Light-Flyweight, in fact he didn't look that big for the weight class.
In terms of opposition, he beat Rosendo Alvarez who will almost certainly end up in Canastota although he's not a 1st ballot, & Saman Sorjatung, Alex Sanchez & Will Grigsby are all credible opponents, however in the end his opposition let him down. I would have loved to see him against Calderon, who's probably the only HoF Minimumweight.
To really see how good he was, you need to actually see him in action, the guy is close to the perfect fighter, however for me his lack of real tough competition holds him back from being more than a Top 30 ATG when compared to a lot of other fighters.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Why is Ricardo Lopez rated so highly by fightfans?
I know he retired undefeated but come on he never fought above light flyweight.
If he was THAT good surely he could have at least gone up to super bantamweight or something.
Dominating the minimum weight division shouldn't really be considered a great thing as the level of competition down there is hardly noteworthy, it's like being the best team in the Civil Service football five aside league, doesn't mean a whole lot in the scheme of things.
I admit I know next to nothing about him so am not stating he is overated just asking for people to tell me why he is not.
Did he beat a string of p4p stars I've not heard or something?
Put it this way. You put him in with Carl Fraud at there best weight and Lopez beats his ass. Even with all the weight and height disadvantage's Lopez dominates him
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
bilbo, you need to put the bag of glue down.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Like I say folks I'm not discrediting I openly admit I know nothing about him, but he's one of those names that seems to be almost hallowed in that nobody will ever criticise his resume or anything about him ever.
Yet if you mention Joe Calzaghe for example, who also totally dominated his weight class, never lost a fight, or even drew one, and beat two not only Hall of Famers but arguably two of the greatest of all time, people will literally leap to tell you why he is so overatted, has a padded record, should of lost to Hopkins and Reid, avoided the big names, had a poor defense, no punch, slaps etc etc.
So it's a fair question, is Calzaghe criticised so much more than Lopez because he was far inferior to Lopez or is it merely because if they are honest, nobody really knows much about Ricardo Lopez other than watching a few highlights or a couple of his major fights?
I mean with a guy like Calzaghe, virtually all of his opponents are well known to us, so we can criticise each of them in turn and point out why they were weak oppositon or old, or past their best, or had padded records themselves.
Whereas with Lopez I expect even Britkid has only heard of maybe a dozen opponents at best and most of them only in relation to fighting Lopez.
That's all I'm saying, was he really THAT good, or does fighting at an obscure weight, and the resulting lack of information and knowledge available to us as a result mean that his record and ability is simply not scrutinised as much?
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Like I say folks I'm not discrediting I openly admit I know nothing about him, but he's one of those names that seems to be almost hallowed in that nobody will ever criticise his resume or anything about him ever.
Yet if you mention Joe Calzaghe for example, who also totally dominated his weight class, never lost a fight, or even drew one, and beat two not only Hall of Famers but arguably two of the greatest of all time, people will literally leap to tell you why he is so overatted, has a padded record, should of lost to Hopkins and Reid, avoided the big names, had a poor defense, no punch, slaps etc etc.
So it's a fair question, is Calzaghe criticised so much more than Lopez because he was far inferior to Lopez or is it merely because if they are honest, nobody really knows much about Ricardo Lopez other than watching a few highlights or a couple of his major fights?
I mean with a guy like Calzaghe, virtually all of his opponents are well known to us, so we can criticise each of them in turn and point out why they were weak oppositon or old, or past their best, or had padded records themselves.
Whereas with Lopez I expect even Britkid has only heard of maybe a dozen opponents at best and most of them only in relation to fighting Lopez.
That's all I'm saying, was he really THAT good, or does fighting at an obscure weight, and the resulting lack of information and knowledge available to us as a result mean that his record and ability is simply not scrutinised as much?
Really what's the fukking point? Think about it. If you don't know about Lopez who was the best ever at his weight you ain't going to know anything about the guys he's beat. So what's the point? There just a bunch of names you never heard about. If you want to know about Lopez than just watch him fight
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Like I say folks I'm not discrediting I openly admit I know nothing about him, but he's one of those names that seems to be almost hallowed in that nobody will ever criticise his resume or anything about him ever.
Yet if you mention Joe Calzaghe for example, who also totally dominated his weight class, never lost a fight, or even drew one, and beat two not only Hall of Famers but arguably two of the greatest of all time, people will literally leap to tell you why he is so overatted, has a padded record, should of lost to Hopkins and Reid, avoided the big names, had a poor defense, no punch, slaps etc etc.
So it's a fair question, is Calzaghe criticised so much more than Lopez because he was far inferior to Lopez or is it merely because if they are honest, nobody really knows much about Ricardo Lopez other than watching a few highlights or a couple of his major fights?
I mean with a guy like Calzaghe, virtually all of his opponents are well known to us, so we can criticise each of them in turn and point out why they were weak oppositon or old, or past their best, or had padded records themselves.
Whereas with Lopez I expect even Britkid has only heard of maybe a dozen opponents at best and most of them only in relation to fighting Lopez.
That's all I'm saying, was he really THAT good, or does fighting at an obscure weight, and the resulting lack of information and knowledge available to us as a result mean that his record and ability is simply not scrutinised as much?
I certainly think he does tend to get a bit overrated, as does Calzaghe by some, because of his record. He did appear to have a complete skillset & its not like he didn't fight some excellent fighters, the only debatable decision he ever had was the TD which should have really gone in his favour.
Like I say, he IS an ATG, I would rate him higher than Calzaghe, just purely on skillset, but do I rate him as the best fighter of 90s even? No, I don't think I could rate him as highly as Pernell Whitaker or even Roy Jones. Maybe had he moved up a little earlier & fought Carbajal or Humberto Gonzalez that might have answered those few questions, but we will never know. But, its not just some perverted boxing fan fetish why he gets rated so highly, he really was excellent, you only get it by watching him
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Like I say folks I'm not discrediting I openly admit I know nothing about him, but he's one of those names that seems to be almost hallowed in that nobody will ever criticise his resume or anything about him ever.
Yet if you mention Joe Calzaghe for example, who also totally dominated his weight class, never lost a fight, or even drew one, and beat two not only Hall of Famers but arguably two of the greatest of all time, people will literally leap to tell you why he is so overatted, has a padded record, should of lost to Hopkins and Reid, avoided the big names, had a poor defense, no punch, slaps etc etc.
So it's a fair question, is Calzaghe criticised so much more than Lopez because he was far inferior to Lopez or is it merely because if they are honest, nobody really knows much about Ricardo Lopez other than watching a few highlights or a couple of his major fights?
I mean with a guy like Calzaghe, virtually all of his opponents are well known to us, so we can criticise each of them in turn and point out why they were weak oppositon or old, or past their best, or had padded records themselves.
Whereas with Lopez I expect even Britkid has only heard of maybe a dozen opponents at best and most of them only in relation to fighting Lopez.
That's all I'm saying, was he really THAT good, or does fighting at an obscure weight, and the resulting lack of information and knowledge available to us as a result mean that his record and ability is simply not scrutinised as much?
He was on TV a decent amount over here in the 90s. Most of his competition was not well known, but that's simply because of the nature of the 105 lbers. His definately was THAT good, his skill in the ring and his power were phenomenal. He travelled around the world fighting whomever would step into the ring with him. I think a big reason that people liked him so much was because he was exciting, you knew he could pull out that eraser at any time, or he could simply outbox his opponents. Before you get on another holy than thou rant about him make an effort to watch some of his fights.
And for the record I give Calzaghe full credit for what he did. But the fact that give Lopez crap for only going up one division should apply to Calzaghe as well.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
I don't know if this is response to what I said in the other thread, but he was pretty special. Now I don't rate him as highly as others do precisely because I don't believe his opposition is on the same level as other ATGs.
Part of the problem is the definition of P4P. Most people know seem to see this as 'the guy who can jump weight classes & beat people' probably in response to the acheivements of Jones, Mayweather & Pacquiao. However, it originally means the guy who, if all boxers were hypothetically at the same weight & all things being equal, would have been the best. Lopez certainly filled this, however, he just wasn't physically big enough to go above Light-Flyweight, in fact he didn't look that big for the weight class.
In terms of opposition, he beat Rosendo Alvarez who will almost certainly end up in Canastota although he's not a 1st ballot, & Saman Sorjatung, Alex Sanchez & Will Grigsby are all credible opponents, however in the end his opposition let him down. I would have loved to see him against Calderon, who's probably the only HoF Minimumweight.
To really see how good he was, you need to actually see him in action, the guy is close to the perfect fighter, however for me his lack of real tough competition holds him back from being more than a Top 30 ATG when compared to a lot of other fighters.
Agree with much of this. I wish he would have fought two other all-time greats who were contemporaries of his in Chiquita Gonzalez and Carbajal. I'd feel more comfortable about his all-time status with one or both of those on his resume. Not sure why he never fought either of those guys; the Gonzalez fight in particular would have been huge in Mexico.
Re: At the risk of boxing blasphemy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Like I say folks I'm not discrediting I openly admit I know nothing about him, but he's one of those names that seems to be almost hallowed in that nobody will ever criticise his resume or anything about him ever.
Yet if you mention Joe Calzaghe for example, who also totally dominated his weight class, never lost a fight, or even drew one, and beat two not only Hall of Famers but arguably two of the greatest of all time, people will literally leap to tell you why he is so overatted, has a padded record, should of lost to Hopkins and Reid, avoided the big names, had a poor defense, no punch, slaps etc etc.
So it's a fair question, is Calzaghe criticised so much more than Lopez because he was far inferior to Lopez or is it merely because if they are honest, nobody really knows much about Ricardo Lopez other than watching a few highlights or a couple of his major fights?
I mean with a guy like Calzaghe, virtually all of his opponents are well known to us, so we can criticise each of them in turn and point out why they were weak oppositon or old, or past their best, or had padded records themselves.
Whereas with Lopez I expect even Britkid has only heard of maybe a dozen opponents at best and most of them only in relation to fighting Lopez.
That's all I'm saying, was he really THAT good, or does fighting at an obscure weight, and the resulting lack of information and knowledge available to us as a result mean that his record and ability is simply not scrutinised as much?
He was on TV a decent amount over here in the 90s. Most of his competition was not well known, but that's simply because of the nature of the 105 lbers. His definately was THAT good, his skill in the ring and his power were phenomenal. He travelled around the world fighting whomever would step into the ring with him. I think a big reason that people liked him so much was because he was exciting, you knew he could pull out that eraser at any time, or he could simply outbox his opponents. Before you get on another holy than thou rant about him make an effort to watch some of his fights.
And for the record I give Calzaghe full credit for what he did. But the fact that give Lopez crap for
only going up one division should apply to Calzaghe as well.
Believe me I do, Calzaghe isn't one of my greatest ever either.
And its hardly a holier than thou rant, I openly admited I don't know anything about him, just wondered what it is exactly that makes almost everyone pick him automatically as one of the best ever.
