At the risk of boxing blasphemy

[Violent Demise]

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

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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

[Kev]

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?

[Violent Demise]

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

[JazMerkin]

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

[killersheep]

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.

[Kev]

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.

[killersheep]

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.

[Kev]

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?

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

[Spicoli]

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.

[Jody Lane]

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??