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?

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.

;D

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.

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.

;D

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.

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

bilbo, you need to put the bag of glue down.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Like who? You just have to throw in blanket statements on everything.
This is a completely pointless thread anyway, because are not willing to make an effort to watch him fight after clearly explained to you by those on this thread it was his SKILL and not his competition that made him great.

Ohh boy.Still with this ?Simply put.Exactly how many times have you watched...sat through and watched him fight??A fair and objective fight fan can watch Calzaghe fight numerous times as well and never run the risk of comparing,contrasting or confusing their respected skill sets.They were not only oceans but worlds apart in my honest opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

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.

---

Like who? You just have to throw in blanket statements on everything.
This is a completely pointless thread anyway, because are not willing to make an effort to watch him fight after clearly explained to you by those on this thread it was his SKILL and not his competition that made him great.

---

How is this a pointless thread? It's a valid question, I didn't say Lopezs was overated, I said from the very outset that I knew nothing about him and was asking the question.

For some reason this is a very tetchy subject for you which frankly is pretty bizarre because ANY and EVERY fighter fighting today can be and IS criticised constantly on here. Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquaio receive tons of criticism, so did Joe in his day, so does Wlad, so does Haye, Pavlik, Dawson, Cotto etc and I'm sure you've said criticised at least one of these on here before yourself.

Yet merely asking a question about Ricardo Lopez prompts you to say I'm holier than thou, on a rant, posting pointlessly etc? :confused:

Let me ask you, do you think if he was fighting right now, on Showtime regularly for example and was maybe fighting the likes of Calderon, Cazares etc do you reckon everyone would think he was the complete package and one of the best ever still, or do you think the fact that he's retired, and most of us, if we are honest, don't know a great deal about him means he's rated higher than he actually was?

Don't spit out your dummy, it's just a question is all.

I can't help but think of Christian Mijares, who was put into the p4p by the Ring, earmarked for greatness by many on this forum, but who was found out by a crude, unorthadox, ugly fighter with a big punch, and then lost again to a part timer who had been a pro for barely four years.

I'm just wondering whether if he'd have faced better competition Lopez may not have been equally found out, maybe against Carbajal maybe against somebody else.

It's just a thought, not an opinion, I don't know the answer, just daring to ask the question :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Like who? You just have to throw in blanket statements on everything.
This is a completely pointless thread anyway, because are not willing to make an effort to watch him fight after clearly explained to you by those on this thread it was his SKILL and not his competition that made him great.

---

How is this a pointless thread? It's a valid question, I didn't say Lopezs was overated, I said from the very outset that I knew nothing about him and was asking the question.

For some reason this is a very tetchy subject for you which frankly is pretty bizarre because ANY and EVERY fighter fighting today can be and IS criticised constantly on here. Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquaio receive tons of criticism, so did Joe in his day, so does Wlad, so does Haye, Pavlik, Dawson, Cotto etc and I'm sure you've said criticised at least one of these on here before yourself.

Yet merely asking a question about Ricardo Lopez prompts you to say I'm holier than thou, on a rant, posting pointlessly etc? :confused:

Let me ask you, do you think if he was fighting right now, on Showtime regularly for example and was maybe fighting the likes of Calderon, Cazares etc do you reckon everyone would think he was the complete package and one of the best ever still, or do you think the fact that he's retired, and most of us, if we are honest, don't know a great deal about him means he's rated higher than he actually was?

Don't spit out your dummy, it's just a question is all.

I can't help but think of Christian Mijares, who was put into the p4p by the Ring, earmarked for greatness by many on this forum, but who was found out by a crude, unorthadox, ugly fighter with a big punch, and then lost again to a part timer who had been a pro for barely four years.

I'm just wondering whether if he'd have faced better competition Lopez may not have been equally found out, maybe against Carbajal maybe against somebody else.

It's just a thought, not an opinion, I don't know the answer, just daring to ask the question :)

---

It's pointless, because even though your question has been answered by many of us on here that have seen many of his full fights (not on youtube mind you, on terrestrial television) and have explained you should go watch his fights to understand, you refuse to do so.

Well to be fair, you can only fight the guys put in front of you. As someone said Lopez is an atg but would I rate him over let's say Floyd and Pacman? No because their level of opposition was much greater.

And maybe the hobbit has a point, eveyone on here calls Floyd a pussy for not taking on all comers and Manny a pussy for the catchweight, so if those 2 can be criticised as with all the other atgs than Ricardo Lopez isn't immune to speculation and criticism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Like who? You just have to throw in blanket statements on everything.
This is a completely pointless thread anyway, because are not willing to make an effort to watch him fight after clearly explained to you by those on this thread it was his SKILL and not his competition that made him great.

---

How is this a pointless thread? It's a valid question, I didn't say Lopezs was overated, I said from the very outset that I knew nothing about him and was asking the question.

For some reason this is a very tetchy subject for you which frankly is pretty bizarre because ANY and EVERY fighter fighting today can be and IS criticised constantly on here. Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquaio receive tons of criticism, so did Joe in his day, so does Wlad, so does Haye, Pavlik, Dawson, Cotto etc and I'm sure you've said criticised at least one of these on here before yourself.

Yet merely asking a question about Ricardo Lopez prompts you to say I'm holier than thou, on a rant, posting pointlessly etc? :confused:

Let me ask you, do you think if he was fighting right now, on Showtime regularly for example and was maybe fighting the likes of Calderon, Cazares etc do you reckon everyone would think he was the complete package and one of the best ever still, or do you think the fact that he's retired, and most of us, if we are honest, don't know a great deal about him means he's rated higher than he actually was?

Don't spit out your dummy, it's just a question is all.

I can't help but think of Christian Mijares, who was put into the p4p by the Ring, earmarked for greatness by many on this forum, but who was found out by a crude, unorthadox, ugly fighter with a big punch, and then lost again to a part timer who had been a pro for barely four years.

I'm just wondering whether if he'd have faced better competition Lopez may not have been equally found out, maybe against Carbajal maybe against somebody else.

It's just a thought, not an opinion, I don't know the answer, just daring to ask the question :)

---

It's pointless, because even though your question has been answered by many of us on here that have seen many of his full fights (not on youtube mind you, on terrestrial television) and have explained you should go watch his fights to understand, you refuse to do so.

---

When did I say I refused to watch the fights? When was I told what fights to watch?

Since when is asking to someone to watch their fights the end of a discussion on Saddos?

Next time you say anything negative about a fighter, or even question him in anyway I'll respond with 'I told you to watch the fights but you won't' and see if whether that makes any sense to you either :p

Actually I am curious to check him out, which are the fights you'd recommend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Maybe it's because he had enough skill to win every one of his fights and enough sense to get out while on top??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

How is this a pointless thread? It's a valid question, I didn't say Lopezs was overated, I said from the very outset that I knew nothing about him and was asking the question.

For some reason this is a very tetchy subject for you which frankly is pretty bizarre because ANY and EVERY fighter fighting today can be and IS criticised constantly on here. Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquaio receive tons of criticism, so did Joe in his day, so does Wlad, so does Haye, Pavlik, Dawson, Cotto etc and I'm sure you've said criticised at least one of these on here before yourself.

Yet merely asking a question about Ricardo Lopez prompts you to say I'm holier than thou, on a rant, posting pointlessly etc? :confused:

Let me ask you, do you think if he was fighting right now, on Showtime regularly for example and was maybe fighting the likes of Calderon, Cazares etc do you reckon everyone would think he was the complete package and one of the best ever still, or do you think the fact that he's retired, and most of us, if we are honest, don't know a great deal about him means he's rated higher than he actually was?

Don't spit out your dummy, it's just a question is all.

I can't help but think of Christian Mijares, who was put into the p4p by the Ring, earmarked for greatness by many on this forum, but who was found out by a crude, unorthadox, ugly fighter with a big punch, and then lost again to a part timer who had been a pro for barely four years.

I'm just wondering whether if he'd have faced better competition Lopez may not have been equally found out, maybe against Carbajal maybe against somebody else.

It's just a thought, not an opinion, I don't know the answer, just daring to ask the question :)

---

It's pointless, because even though your question has been answered by many of us on here that have seen many of his full fights (not on youtube mind you, on terrestrial television) and have explained you should go watch his fights to understand, you refuse to do so.

---

When did I say I refused to watch the fights? When was I told what fights to watch?

Since when is asking to someone to watch their fights the end of a discussion on Saddos?

Next time you say anything negative about a fighter, or even question him in anyway I'll respond with 'I told you to watch the fights but you won't' and see if whether that makes any sense to you either :p

Actually I am curious to check him out, which are the fights you'd recommend?

---

Both of his fights against Alvarez are a great fights, his KO of Lim is absolutely brutal, start with those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

It's pointless, because even though your question has been answered by many of us on here that have seen many of his full fights (not on youtube mind you, on terrestrial television) and have explained you should go watch his fights to understand, you refuse to do so.

---

When did I say I refused to watch the fights? When was I told what fights to watch?

Since when is asking to someone to watch their fights the end of a discussion on Saddos?

Next time you say anything negative about a fighter, or even question him in anyway I'll respond with 'I told you to watch the fights but you won't' and see if whether that makes any sense to you either :p

Actually I am curious to check him out, which are the fights you'd recommend?

---

Both of his fights against Alvarez are a great fights, his KO of Lim is absolutely brutal, start with those.

---

Will start looking for them tonight

I think underneath of all of this is a serious discussion about Lopez. About ranking people because of how good you think they are versus pure resume. Because he is WAY up there on some people's lists, light years past where he would be if you looked at pure resume. There are some obvious comparisons with Calzaghe whether or not Lopez was the smoother technician or not, did he ever fight anybody as good as a 44 year old Bernard Hopkins? Did he ever fight anybody as bad as an old Roy? :cwm13:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I think underneath of all of this is a serious discussion about Lopez. About ranking people because of how good you think they are versus pure resume. Because he is WAY up there on some people's lists, light years past where he would be if you looked at pure resume. There are some obvious comparisons with Calzaghe whether or not Lopez was the smoother technician or not, did he ever fight anybody as good as a 44 year old Bernard Hopkins? Did he ever fight anybody as bad as an old Roy? :cwm13:

---

You say that as if you mean take away my idiot rantings, it's an ok topic but I've said nothing unreasonable at all in this thread, merely asked questions, been up front about my own lack of first hand knowledge and wanted to know why he was rated so highly, as I don't know anybody on his record, and nearly every great fighter nowadays conquers several divisions.

It's a fair question.

One possibility I think is the 'penis extension argument' whereby men like to have certain hardcore knowledge that elevates them above other men.

In the case of boxing I think guys like Ricardo Lopez are supreme, because they are very little known if at all to the casual fan, and even regular boxing fans like myself may not have seen him.

So by talking about such fighters as if they were better than the current lot of popular fighters, it gives the more hardcore fan the satisfaction of superior knowledge, kind of like a film nerd who takes satisfaction in naming some obscure film like Shichinin no samurai as the greatest ever as he knows the common masses won't have seen it and so must yeild to his greater knowledge of the subject............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo;766277[B

I've said nothing unreasonable at all in this thread[/B],

One possibility I think is the 'penis extension argument' whereby men like to have certain hardcore knowledge that elevates them above other men.

---

You said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Which implies you are aware of the abilities of the fighters in that division enough to pass judgement.
And would mean that this is a direct contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

And then to the more unreasonable statement.................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

If he was THAT good surely he could have at least gone up to super bantamweight or something.

---

So to be great he would have to jump 5 weight classes, by that rational that only all time greats are PAC, ODLH and PBF.

I know you like to try to kick my dick in the dirt by skirting issues with talk of penises, but it's clear to see where you are
heading when you start a thread like this. I do appreciate you assuming I would come back with name calling though, clearly
that's all I do here.

Bilbo you were doing all right till right after you said I've said nothing unreasonable in this thread :cool:

"In the case of boxing I think guys like Ricardo Lopez are supreme, because they are very little known if at all to the casual fan, and even regular boxing fans like myself may not have seen him.


So by talking about such fighters as if they were better than the current lot of popular fighters, it gives the more hardcore fan the satisfaction of superior knowledge, kind of like a film nerd who takes satisfaction in naming some obscure film like Shichinin no samurai as the greatest ever as he knows the common masses won't have seen it and so must yeild to his greater knowledge of the subject............"

But is it just me or do you seem to extend this argument to whenever somebody talks about how good they think some smaller fighter is?

Things aren't always so complicated, Ricardo Lopez is just good.

I would never argue against that, he was technically pretty amazing, my only argument is ranking him among certain guys like, just off the top of my head, Thomas Hearns who knocked out Roberto Duran, who beat Benitez, etc. Unfortunately he never got those fights although he fought some good opposition.

For fuck's sake, its impossible to listen to a soccer game in the background with a spanish announcer, you think something big's happening every five seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I think underneath of all of this is a serious discussion about Lopez. About ranking people because of how good you think they are versus pure resume. Because he is WAY up there on some people's lists, light years past where he would be if you looked at pure resume. There are some obvious comparisons with Calzaghe whether or not Lopez was the smoother technician or not, did he ever fight anybody as good as a 44 year old Bernard Hopkins? Did he ever fight anybody as bad as an old Roy? :cwm13:

---

This is exactly why I think less and less of p4p status lists flaunted about.At the risk of sounding like a pompous azz,put the numbers aside and who fought who with p4p names...past and present.Lopez was a master technician and superb combination puncher who could feint you out of your boots and counter you just as fast.He blows the fooking doors off of Calzaghe...and man,Im not slamming Calzaghe.Ive never had a problem with him and as much as I love Hopkins....I had Joe beating him.Forget the 'robbery etc'.He was all volume and confidence and yes part disrespectful showman but still had him edging the win.

I think Lopez has the stigma and misfortune of being...well....a straw weight.I mean honestly.What are peoples first thought when they think Straw weight?"Well Ive never heard of him...how the fook do you pronounce his name....I dont follow the smaller divisions,give me heavyweights".Don king kept him buried beneath Chavez,Tyson,etc an many cards and when he finally began to get major 'pop' he was nearing the end of career.For quick footage Bilbo...check the Trainer section and Chris N's thread on studding certain boxers.His initial title win over very respectable champion Ohashi was an exercise in pin point hitting.Also check ko's over Lin,Sorjaturong,Villomar and dissection of Andy Tabanas.Nene Sanchez was a superb top contender on the rise but Lopez was a man with a scalpel that night.And the Alvarez fight...those classics belong in all-time vault

shite I wish I could type faster.

I've never really seen anybody who's seen a fair amount of him say anything but that he was pretty amazing. Its not a conspiracy. And Andre Ward has not fought better opposition than Nonito Donaire.

I don't think he's on a different planet than Joe though. I've never been a fan of Joe but whether or not he looks smooth, and he obviously is nowhere near as precise as Lopez, his style and physical gifts are a handful for anybody. I think it was Mick, may not have been, who I disagreed with too when he said he was completely on a different level than JMM, I think that's going a bit over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I've never really seen anybody who's seen a fair amount of him say anything but that he was pretty amazing. Its not a conspiracy. And Andre Ward has not fought better opposition than Nonito Donaire.

I don't think he's on a different planet than Joe though. I've never been a fan of Joe but whether or not he looks smooth, and he obviously is nowhere near as precise as Lopez, his style and physical gifts are a handful for anybody. I think it was Mick, may not have been, who I disagreed with too when he said he was completely on a different level than JMM, I think that's going a bit over the top.

---

I've got to be honest, & I'm sure plenty will disagree, but at the moment I rate Lopez & JMM about even, Lopez slightly ahead at the moment. If JMM retires after Floyd fight, win or lose he will have fought at least 4 guys who I think are certs for the hall in Floyd, MAB, Pac & Casamayor & ignoring the PBF fight which Lopez cannot match.

As for Bilbo's argument, it all pretty much went downhill when he started talking about penises & I think killer debunked it all pretty well.

I guess some things never change huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I think it was Mick, may not have been, who I disagreed with too when he said he was completely on a different level than JMM, I think that's going a bit over the top.

---

It could have, although both have the "Nacho" style stance and way of fighting I think Lopez always carried the 1 punch power to stop someone. While JMM brakes them down systematically.
I do think Lopez is better technically then JMM.
Lopez also had better footwork/lateral movement then JMM.

The modern boxing fan wants something different from the sport, that Lopez did not deliver.

Now a days unless you are a 23 time world champion at 14 weight divisions you are nothing.

Unless Wlad/Paciquao is being discussed at the end of next year, the fans will be saying Manny is ducking Klitschko...;)

Lopez was a multi weight champ, and highly respected by the boxing connoisseur, just as winning a title at 112 though to 140 is mighty impressive, boiling down to 108 for seven years without coming close to losing a fight, also has it's merits.

I dread to think what the modern fan would think of a Hagler or Monzon if they fought in this era.

Great Thread, enjoyed ;D

Bilbo, it was nice of you to raise the issue about Lopez. Every boxer needs to be scrutinized properly.:cool:

Ricardo Lopez could do everything, every punch he threw was perfectly executed! At his best it made you think if you could fight like anyone it'd be him! He wasn't the fastest guy but he had excellent technique! He had great defense, he could box, he could punch, fight going forward or back, he could do it all

When Roy Jones was the p4p #1 he even said he thought Lopez should be rated 1st!!!

He was a special fighter, I would of loved to have seen him fight Mark 'Too Sharp' Johnson...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

The modern boxing fan wants something different from the sport, that Lopez did not deliver.

Now a days unless you are a 23 time world champion at 14 weight divisions you are nothing.

Unless Wlad/Paciquao is being discussed at the end of next year, the fans will be saying Manny is ducking Klitschko...;)

Lopez was a multi weight champ, and highly respected by the boxing connoisseur, just as winning a title at 112 though to 140 is mighty impressive, boiling down to 108 for seven years without coming close to losing a fight, also has it's merits.

I dread to think what the modern fan would think of a Hagler or Monzon if they fought in this era.

---

It must be because of the easy access to video footage and every fighters record.

The boxrec delver can turn just about any fighters record from great to good to medicore to toilet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

The modern boxing fan wants something different from the sport, that Lopez did not deliver.

Now a days unless you are a 23 time world champion at 14 weight divisions you are nothing.

Unless Wlad/Paciquao is being discussed at the end of next year, the fans will be saying Manny is ducking Klitschko...;)

Lopez was a multi weight champ, and highly respected by the boxing connoisseur, just as winning a title at 112 though to 140 is mighty impressive, boiling down to 108 for seven years without coming close to losing a fight, also has it's merits.

I dread to think what the modern fan would think of a Hagler or Monzon if they fought in this era.

---

It must be because of the easy access to video footage and every fighters record.

The boxrec delver can turn just about any fighters record from great to good to medicore to toilet.

---

Yup ;)

Also agree with VD's comment earlier that if you wanna rate a fighter, watch them fight!!

If you look at the names on the resume some of the 'Greats' you can pick big holes, e.g Duran at Lightweight, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano (just a couple of examples) Boxrec is great as a memory recap, but sh1t it telling you how good, bad or great a fighter was!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

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.

---

great thing what you did with the three legends. it actually looks like arguello has his arm round gatti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmaff36

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

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.

---

great thing what you did with the three legends. it actually looks like arguello has his arm round gatti

---

Thanks man, i was going to try to crop that hand out, but like you said it looks like his arm is around Gatti, so I figured just to leave it.