At the risk of boxing blasphemy

[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.

[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.

[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

[killersheep]

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

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.

[generalbulldog]

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.

[Kev]

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

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

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

[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??

[killersheep]

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

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

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.

[Kev]

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

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

[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?

[Kev]

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?

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............

[killersheep]

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

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.

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.................

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.

[OumaFan]

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

"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.

[Spicoli]

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?

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.

[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.