Top fighters out of every country

[ElTerribleMorales]

no one but you has said that Ramirez legitimately beat Whitaker, for fucksake ESPN ranked it as one of the top 10 worst decisions in the history of the sport, dude you really are delusional, no point in arguing with you cause you're clueless the fact that you say that if a fighter is dropped he automatically loses a fight is laughable, Marquez was dropped 3 times in the first then then went on to fucking dominate, that's why he deserves respect, he clearly won the fight despite being dropped 3 times, you really need to get your headchecked and learn boxing, according to you Trinidad should have losses to a bunch of his opponents who got flash knockdowns on him, same would go for a hell of a lot of other fighters

ESPN is a biased American TV station , like i care what they say . They cheered their homeboy but i watched d fight unlike u and have my own impressions . any1 who reads this , watch d fight and decide 4 yourself if u have any qualms about my claims .
I doubt that u watched this fight in its entirety in normal speed and even if u did (which i doubt) then u probably only watched it once and long ago and were deeply touched by d biased commentary / reading shit summaries on d fight .
Fights R not won by avoiding contact at all cost which is what Whitaker did there .

Ricardo Lopez had no balls and would have been KOd by Carbajal if he had any . Usually i don't blame fighters 4 not wanting 2 fight fighters in a division above them , but Ricardo Lopez has 0 wins that counts . This is his true record : 0-0-2 .

You can say something like this, but I'm the casual fan?? Sorry bud..... but 1,000 out of 1,000 people will tell you you're full of shit. Again, read up on boxing history..... watch a few hundred old fights..... and get back to me when you're done.

Xactly . U R a casual fan . I read boxing history , more than all of u combined ever did , i watched fights at least more than each 1 of u had , and this is Y I claim what i do . Tell me again , who did Ricardo Lopez ever fight , let alone beat ?
Your username alone implies your casualness . Your ludicrous arguing in favor of Ricardo Lopez , who fought nobody and beat nobody only solidify d impression on your casualness . what do u know about d history of d sport when u take a shit over d real warriors , real men who were fighting and willing 2 fight any1 , men like Ramirez and many others , by ranking n unproven , unknown quantity , a mystery like Ricardo Lopez whom wasn't willing 2 fight a man 3 lbs above him , whom was d only man that could count 4 him , above them ?

I own the fight, seen both fights numerous times, and both performances are boxing lessons handed out by Whitaker, Ramirez was nothing more then a cab driver with a good beard, fought the best and lost every time aside from his win over El Chapo and the gift decision against Whitaker first time out, unlike anything you post this is FACT not OPINION, you are the epitome of a casual viewer of the sport rambling on about things you have no idea what you're talking about

[frankenfrank]

I own the fight, seen both fights numerous times, and both performances are boxing lessons handed out by Whitaker, Ramirez was nothing more then a cab driver with a good beard, fought the best and lost every time aside from his win over El Chapo and the gift decision against Whitaker first time out, unlike anything you post this is FACT not OPINION, you are the epitome of a casual viewer of the sport rambling on about things you have no idea what you're talking about

Fact is that 2 out of 3 of d judges agreed with me , at least 2 out of 3 knew how 2 score a fight .
And i bet u haven't seen Ramirez vs Rosario #1 and Ramirez vs Arguello , because Ramirez did not lose those 2 either .
But even supposing a fighter fought great fighters and lost every time by decision , not 2 mention while being d aggressor and not 2 mention that this is not even d case here because Ramirez actually won once by stoppage and once by decision , in addition 2 2 robberies , such a fighter at least proves that he can last d distance with greats , which is a telling thing and a necessary condition 2 greatness . Such a fighter still proved something that Ricardo Lopez never proved , not even once .
Ramirez however proved it plenty of times and proved even more than that , he proved that he can also win by decision against good fighters , which is not much more really , but also win by stoppage , and that against a proven puncher like Edwin Rosario .

[TitoFan]

My username implies that I am a fan of Felix Trinidad, just as any boxing fan is also a fan of other, individual boxers. Difference is I'm not afraid to show my preferences in my username... and the fact that this is an issue for you is another "feather in your cap".

By the way, doesn't it take longer and more trouble to type in "shorthand"?

What do u mean by "feather in my cap" ?
and who did Ricardo Lopez ever fight ? U keep ignoring my question . U or some1 else mentioned some nobody and Rosendo Alvarez , whom was just 1-2 notches above a nobody . So who did Ricardo Lopez fight ? Ramirez had a much higher number of wins and stoppages over nobodies . D difference is that Ramirez fought d best whenever they agreed 2 fight him , held his own and sometimes beat them .
I think in "shorthand" so i don't think it takes more time 4 me .
This way i save both time and digital space .
And Y does that nobody in Ricardo Lopez counts ? because he had n alias ?
Almost every1 would have looked great if he fought nobodies like Lopez had .
Imagine Edison Miranda without Arthur Abraham & Lucian Bute . What a killer . 10* d killer that Ricardo Lopez ever was .

By "feather in your cap" is just a nice way of saying that you're putting importance on something that shouldn't even come into the conversation. Being a fan of a particular boxer doesn't exactly disqualify you from being a fan of boxing in general, and knowledgeable about other boxers. Difference is... I'm not timid about putting my personal preferences out there in my username.

About Ricardo Lopez, I think you're being a bit unfair. It's not like there's a bunch of household names in the light-flyweight division. Look at the list of champions in the division's history, and you'll see less recognized names than in other, even slightly heavier divisions. Just like cruiserweight. Everybody knows the heavyweights and the middleweights and super-middles. But ask for a list of great cruiserweights throughout the years, and you get a blank look from some fans.

To Lopez's credit, he began going abroad to fight fighters in their own home countries as early as his 25th fight. I compare that with the record of Julio Cesar Chavez, who ventured only a couple of times outside Mexico until his 45th fight, and only fought someone with a pulse at that time.

Lopez, I believe was victim of the "Klitschko syndrome", where he really didn't have much great opposition to fight. At least not to my knowledge. I don't know of him ever ducking a challenger for any reason. So while his list of opponents is not the greatest, it's unfair of you to say his record should really be 0-0-2.

[frankenfrank]

By "feather in your cap" is just a nice way of saying that you're putting importance on something that shouldn't even come into the conversation. Being a fan of a particular boxer doesn't exactly disqualify you from being a fan of boxing in general, and knowledgeable about other boxers. Difference is... I'm not timid about putting my personal preferences out there in my username.

About Ricardo Lopez, I think you're being a bit unfair. It's not like there's a bunch of household names in the light-flyweight division. Look at the list of champions in the division's history, and you'll see less recognized names than in other, even slightly heavier divisions. Just like cruiserweight. Everybody knows the heavyweights and the middleweights and super-middles. But ask for a list of great cruiserweights throughout the years, and you get a blank look from some fans.

To Lopez's credit, he began going abroad to fight fighters in their own home countries as early as his 25th fight. I compare that with the record of Julio Cesar Chavez, who ventured only a couple of times outside Mexico until his 45th fight, and only fought someone with a pulse at that time.

Lopez, I believe was victim of the "Klitschko syndrome", where he really didn't have much great opposition to fight. At least not to my knowledge. I don't know of him ever ducking a challenger for any reason. So while his list of opponents is not the greatest, it's unfair of you to say his record should really be 0-0-2.

Again #1 , he could have gone up 3 lbs and challenge Michael Carbajal , Melchor Cob Castro , Humberto Gonzalez , Rolando Pascua . Just 3 lbs up and he could have had plenty . Again #2 , i usually do not blame fighters 4 not moving up 2 where they do not belong , because i do think that weight classes r 4 a reason , unlike u probably . But in such cases when a man's record is null and void , 0-0-2 actually being slightly generous 2 him , he could have looked 4 more prestigious money fights . But i guess that he was overpaid 4 his opposition and had that blind following , like d Klitschkos get from d Germans . D difference is , that d Klitschkos don't have who 2 duck 2day , and nowhere 2 move up . A case might b made about Wlad ducking Chisora .

u 2 made me a fan of Ramirez , when in fact i haven't even seen all his fights yet , unlike other fighters . I do not even fancy his style 2 much , neither do i hate it .
just using d same judgement and criteria with him like i do with others , true that i respect him , but it's only due 2d facts . He was a warrior , Lopez wasn't . Greats from d past , and even not greats of 2day , seek greatness , fortune and notoriety by moving up divisions and challenging their main men , Ricardo Lopez was d antithesis of it . U think that i m being unfair with him but i use d same criteria with every 1 . I've seen astute followers of d sport , with more years of following d sport and more knowledge about d below 118 fighters "dissing" Lopez at least as bad as i do , and it was their reasoning that convinced me . Initially i thought just like u , that he was great , but when d questions arose , i had no problems facing d truth , that is he is not great , and y should i have a problem with it ? it's not like i'm a relative or anything , and actually even if some relative of mine was @ stake , i'd still exact d same criteria on him . If any1 is being "unfair" , biased and just wrong , then it's u 2 .
Just read our argument so far and take a note that u ignored some of my questions , answered wrong on others , and ignored some of my replies . just read it again and c how wrong u r , just look at his record , compare it 2 Ramirez' and then ask yourself : " if Ramirez fought only bums and drew twice with another bum beater , would that had made him greater than he is now ? is there any doubt that he could do just d same ? " . Ramirez actually beat more bums and stopped more of them , his record just trumps Lopez' big time if u just were balanced about it .

[ElTerribleMorales]

I own the fight, seen both fights numerous times, and both performances are boxing lessons handed out by Whitaker, Ramirez was nothing more then a cab driver with a good beard, fought the best and lost every time aside from his win over El Chapo and the gift decision against Whitaker first time out, unlike anything you post this is FACT not OPINION, you are the epitome of a casual viewer of the sport rambling on about things you have no idea what you're talking about

Fact is that 2 out of 3 of d judges agreed with me , at least 2 out of 3 knew how 2 score a fight .
And i bet u haven't seen Ramirez vs Rosario #1 and Ramirez vs Arguello , because Ramirez did not lose those 2 either .
But even supposing a fighter fought great fighters and lost every time by decision , not 2 mention while being d aggressor and not 2 mention that this is not even d case here because Ramirez actually won once by stoppage and once by decision , in addition 2 2 robberies , such a fighter at least proves that he can last d distance with greats , which is a telling thing and a necessary condition 2 greatness . Such a fighter still proved something that Ricardo Lopez never proved , not even once .
Ramirez however proved it plenty of times and proved even more than that , he proved that he can also win by decision against good fighters , which is not much more really , but also win by stoppage , and that against a proven puncher like Edwin Rosario .

2 out of 3 judges had Bradley beating Pacquiao, doesn't mean it was the right fucking result haha and a loss is a loss be it by competitive decision, lopsided decision, or a flat out ass whooping, if you couldn't land the W it means you weren't on that level

[TitoFan]

By "feather in your cap" is just a nice way of saying that you're putting importance on something that shouldn't even come into the conversation. Being a fan of a particular boxer doesn't exactly disqualify you from being a fan of boxing in general, and knowledgeable about other boxers. Difference is... I'm not timid about putting my personal preferences out there in my username.

About Ricardo Lopez, I think you're being a bit unfair. It's not like there's a bunch of household names in the light-flyweight division. Look at the list of champions in the division's history, and you'll see less recognized names than in other, even slightly heavier divisions. Just like cruiserweight. Everybody knows the heavyweights and the middleweights and super-middles. But ask for a list of great cruiserweights throughout the years, and you get a blank look from some fans.

To Lopez's credit, he began going abroad to fight fighters in their own home countries as early as his 25th fight. I compare that with the record of Julio Cesar Chavez, who ventured only a couple of times outside Mexico until his 45th fight, and only fought someone with a pulse at that time.

Lopez, I believe was victim of the "Klitschko syndrome", where he really didn't have much great opposition to fight. At least not to my knowledge. I don't know of him ever ducking a challenger for any reason. So while his list of opponents is not the greatest, it's unfair of you to say his record should really be 0-0-2.

Again #1 , he could have gone up 3 lbs and challenge Michael Carbajal , Melchor Cob Castro , Humberto Gonzalez , Rolando Pascua . Just 3 lbs up and he could have had plenty . Again #2 , i usually do not blame fighters 4 not moving up 2 where they do not belong , because i do think that weight classes r 4 a reason , unlike u probably . But in such cases when a man's record is null and void , 0-0-2 actually being slightly generous 2 him , he could have looked 4 more prestigious money fights . But i guess that he was overpaid 4 his opposition and had that blind following , like d Klitschkos get from d Germans . D difference is , that d Klitschkos don't have who 2 duck 2day , and nowhere 2 move up . A case might b made about Wlad ducking Chisora .

u 2 made me a fan of Ramirez , when in fact i haven't even seen all his fights yet , unlike other fighters . I do not even fancy his style 2 much , neither do i hate it .
just using d same judgement and criteria with him like i do with others , true that i respect him , but it's only due 2d facts . He was a warrior , Lopez wasn't . Greats from d past , and even not greats of 2day , seek greatness , fortune and notoriety by moving up divisions and challenging their main men , Ricardo Lopez was d antithesis of it . U think that i m being unfair with him but i use d same criteria with every 1 . I've seen astute followers of d sport , with more years of following d sport and more knowledge about d below 118 fighters "dissing" Lopez at least as bad as i do , and it was their reasoning that convinced me . Initially i thought just like u , that he was great , but when d questions arose , i had no problems facing d truth , that is he is not great , and y should i have a problem with it ? it's not like i'm a relative or anything , and actually even if some relative of mine was @ stake , i'd still exact d same criteria on him . If any1 is being "unfair" , biased and just wrong , then it's u 2 .
Just read our argument so far and take a note that u ignored some of my questions , answered wrong on others , and ignored some of my replies . just read it again and c how wrong u r , just look at his record , compare it 2 Ramirez' and then ask yourself : " if Ramirez fought only bums and drew twice with another bum beater , would that had made him greater than he is now ? is there any doubt that he could do just d same ? " . Ramirez actually beat more bums and stopped more of them , his record just trumps Lopez' big time if u just were balanced about it .

Ok, "u 2" is a lot of people, and I don't recall even having entered the Ramirez argument at all. So if you're going to have multiple arguments, keep your responses individualized. My only point is that I feel you're being unfair to Ricardo Lopez, is all. Just because the trend now is to go up in weight, sometimes numerous times, it's not like any boxer is obligated to do so. You don't know.... maybe some boxers absolutely feel better at one specific weight. And to turn it around... why didn't Carbajal and Gonzalez go DOWN 3 pounds and challenge Lopez? Fighters go up and down all the time. Why is the onus on Lopez?

I'm a fan of Lopez because of the type of fighter he was, and the skills he displayed. He was a masterful boxer/puncher. There are those in the forum who think I only defend Puerto Rican fighters, and that I'm always against Mexican fighters. That's a laugh. I've always admired good fighters, no matter what their nationality. And while Lopez hasn't had the world's best list of opponents, it doesn't take away from the fact that he was always a classy fighter, with consummate skills.

[Master]

I give up on you Franken Frank, Ramirez must be your father. That is the only explanation I have for you to re-write history and make up things to suit you favourite fighters. I could argue and make a case for Julio Cesar Chavez beating Whitaker if I tried hard enough.

[frankenfrank]

2 out of 3 judges had Bradley beating Pacquiao, doesn't mean it was the right fucking result haha and a loss is a loss be it by competitive decision, lopsided decision, or a flat out ass whooping, if you couldn't land the W it means you weren't on that level

But in this case d 2 out of 3 judges r not alone as i agree with them , Xplained Y , and u never countered my argument , all u do is claim that d majority agrees with u , Y should i care ? i watched d fight and Xplained 2u Y Ramirez deserved 2 win . It is listed as a win 4 him and it should b regarded as such .

Ok, "u 2" is a lot of people, and I don't recall even having entered the Ramirez argument at all. So if you're going to have multiple arguments, keep your responses individualized. My only point is that I feel you're being unfair to Ricardo Lopez, is all. Just because the trend now is to go up in weight, sometimes numerous times, it's not like any boxer is obligated to do so. You don't know.... maybe some boxers absolutely feel better at one specific weight. And to turn it around... why didn't Carbajal and Gonzalez go DOWN 3 pounds and challenge Lopez? Fighters go up and down all the time. Why is the onus on Lopez?

I'm a fan of Lopez because of the type of fighter he was, and the skills he displayed. He was a masterful boxer/puncher. There are those in the forum who think I only defend Puerto Rican fighters, and that I'm always against Mexican fighters. That's a laugh. I've always admired good fighters, no matter what their nationality. And while Lopez hasn't had the world's best list of opponents, it doesn't take away from the fact that he was always a classy fighter, with consummate skills.

Carbajal , Gonzalez , etc did not go down most probably because they couldn't do it and remain effective . No argument on them being more massive than Lopez was , but great fighters do overcome a few lbs disadvantage in weight or at least finish d fight on their feet , ask Juan LaPorte , Hector Camacho and Jose Luis Ramirez . And if u don't consider them great , and/or consider Ricardo Lopez as greater , Y did he not even manage 2 achieve what they did ? which was at d very worst challenge bigger men and remain upright ? should i even Xpect this 2b answered ? i think i replied about as much as i could already about d Ramirez vs Whitaker 1st fight .

U like skills ? so do i . u know which fighters' skills i like watching d most ? Montell Griffin's , James Toney's , Arnold Cream's , Corrie Sanders' , Mike McCallum (2 Xtent) and sometimes others' as well . My respect 4 Ramirez stems only from his actual achievements . I sorted d lists in this thread based on p4p , and 1 of my criteria was achievements . How is stating d truth about Ricardo Lopez' relevant achievements being 0-0-2 is unfair ? it's d truth . Show me where i m wrong . Teach me something new . Tell me which other fighter than Rosendo Alvarez on Lopez' record counts . U gave me a name . I tried 2 understand Y that name mattered but i couldn't . So I ask u again , Y ? and Y does even Alvarez count ? who did he ever beat ? it's very circular overrating them based on (their fighting) each other .
regarding d styles that i mentioned i love watching , it doesn't make me overrate them .
I don't have Corrie Sanders in my top 25 heavyweights of all times despite i enjoy watching him and do think that he was very good and dangerous .
I don't have Montell Griffin ranked in my top 25 top lightheavyweights of all times .
And I wouldn't have Arnold Cream ranked in my top 10 cruiserweights of all times .
And these men were far more proven than Ricardo Lopez even and had much greater wins , but they sometimes failed . And that was due 2 them being tested against good fighters , whereas Lopez' sternest test was Rosendo Alvarez . How does this continue 2 elude u ? i push it in your face and u keep ignoring . It's 1 thing being unaware and wrong , but it's much worse being proven wrong and keep arguing and ignoring . Just read our (not just d2 of us) argument so far .
Regarding skills it's deceptive when 1's skills r as untested as Lopez' , and skills Rent everything .
If u want ranking 2b made primarily on skills u will get outcomes considered ludicrous by most .
Here , top 10 all time HW based primarily on skills :

1) Corrie Sanders
2) Arnold Cream
3) Orlin Norris
4) Ezzard Charles
5) Riddick Bowe
6) Jeremy Williams
7) Chris Byrd
Tony Tubbs
9) Floyd Patterson
10) Joe Louis

HM : Jack Johnson and maybe a few others that i might have forgot (and probably not d 1's that u'd guess)

[frankenfrank]

I give up on you Franken Frank, Ramirez must be your father. That is the only explanation I have for you to re-write history and make up things to suit you favourite fighters. I could argue and make a case for Julio Cesar Chavez beating Whitaker if I tried hard enough.

u obviously didn't read d thread / did not understand what u read / intentionally ignore d truth .

which 1 is it ?

[Spicoli]

You lost me at Julio C. Gonzalez should be higher than Ricardo lopez. That is just flat glue sniffing talk. Lopez quality shined through regardless of 'the no names' he fought and the ease with which you dismiss him is just flip. Forget that ten or so were former or future world champions and others ranked in the alphabet soup. Lopez did what your supposed to do vs top available comp if you a top p4p fighter...beat them all.Can people even name 10 strawweights? A division that wasn't even recongnized until the 90's fully. Not knowing a guy or the network not knowing how to pronounce his name doesn't equate to them being a no name.

I love me some Carbajal. Always have, back to the Olympics until the end. He literally in company with Gonzalez put the division on near equal footing and respect to main stream fans. Carbajal was tied up in a needed triology after signing with King...who had Lopez stuffed under large ppv cards and the two on same bill a few times. I blame a King if anyone. Lopez wasn't quaking in his boots after watching Gonzalez turn boxer and pull off two albeit close bloody wins over Carbajal. They put him into full blown rebuild mode after that and IF those two had any chance of meeting it was around here. To think that Carbajal just goes out and flattens Lopez is wrong. It never happened, we'll never know but I think Lopez gets him. Lopez was just that damn good.

[ElTerribleMorales]

You lost me at Julio C. Gonzalez should be higher than Ricardo lopez. That is just flat glue sniffing talk. Lopez quality shined through regardless of 'the no names' he fought and the ease with which you dismiss him is just flip. Forget that ten or so were former or future world champions and others ranked in the alphabet soup. Lopez did what your supposed to do vs top available comp if you a top p4p fighter...beat them all.Can people even name 10 strawweights? A division that wasn't even recongnized until the 90's fully. Not knowing a guy or the network not knowing how to pronounce his name doesn't equate to them being a no name.

I love me some Carbajal. Always have, back to the Olympics until the end. He literally in company with Gonzalez put the division on near equal footing and respect to main stream fans. Carbajal was tied up in a needed triology after signing with King...who had Lopez stuffed under large ppv cards and the two on same bill a few times. I blame a King if anyone. Lopez wasn't quaking in his boots after watching Gonzalez turn boxer and pull off two albeit close bloody wins over Carbajal. They put him into full blown rebuild mode after that and IF those two had any chance of meeting it was around here. To think that Carbajal just goes out and flattens Lopez is wrong. It never happened, we'll never know but I think Lopez gets him. Lopez was just that damn good.

don't bother with the guy, the fact that he basically has a fighter as the winner if he drops his opponent regardless if he dominates afterwards just shows how little he really knows, he's using some of that heavy duty shit

[frankenfrank]

You lost me at Julio C. Gonzalez should be higher than Ricardo lopez. That is just flat glue sniffing talk. Lopez quality shined through regardless of 'the no names' he fought and the ease with which you dismiss him is just flip. Forget that ten or so were former or future world champions and others ranked in the alphabet soup. Lopez did what your supposed to do vs top available comp if you a top p4p fighter...beat them all.Can people even name 10 strawweights? A division that wasn't even recongnized until the 90's fully. Not knowing a guy or the network not knowing how to pronounce his name doesn't equate to them being a no name.

I love me some Carbajal. Always have, back to the Olympics until the end. He literally in company with Gonzalez put the division on near equal footing and respect to main stream fans. Carbajal was tied up in a needed triology after signing with King...who had Lopez stuffed under large ppv cards and the two on same bill a few times. I blame a King if anyone. Lopez wasn't quaking in his boots after watching Gonzalez turn boxer and pull off two albeit close bloody wins over Carbajal. They put him into full blown rebuild mode after that and IF those two had any chance of meeting it was around here. To think that Carbajal just goes out and flattens Lopez is wrong. It never happened, we'll never know but I think Lopez gets him. Lopez was just that damn good.

after RLopez watched Carbajal-Gonzalez 2&3 it is even supposedly more troubling Y didn't Lopez try 2 take on Carbajal or any of d names in d division above him . It's not that i consider weight jumping as d only thing that counts , but he fought no1 so he's only 1-2 notches above d nobodies that he fought . At least as far as proven facts go . This is what he proved , and u r speculating wildly if u think that his achievements against nobodies suggest anything on how he'd have done vs Carbajal / Gonzalez / Melchor Cob Castro . All of these names he did not fight . Yes they probably were "bigger" than him , but he proved himself less than JCGonzalez had . Gonzalez at least proved 2b durable against good opponents . RLopez had no good opponents , his best being Rosendo Alvarez , and it's circular . Or did u mean that Carbajal's management ducked RLopez ? they still had all d rest of those names that i mentioned 2 pick on .
Light flyweight was far more interesting than strawweight back then but he stirred away from it while fighting nobody . Beating nobodies can only maybe put 1 in d top 15 of his division during 1's time , but #3 all times p4p of his quite heritage loaded country ? R U serious ? I didn't list Gonzalez in my top 10 Mexicans , but he was tested and proven more than RLopez was . Did Gonzalez lose 2 nobodies ? no , just like Lopez had . So Y does Lopez deserve a higher ranking ? Maybe if Lopez fought fighters even on d caliber that Gonzalez fought , he could have been crushed by them . But u'll never know , b/c he never had . But u still ignore all my arguments and rank RLopez higher .

[ElTerribleMorales]

You lost me at Julio C. Gonzalez should be higher than Ricardo lopez. That is just flat glue sniffing talk. Lopez quality shined through regardless of 'the no names' he fought and the ease with which you dismiss him is just flip. Forget that ten or so were former or future world champions and others ranked in the alphabet soup. Lopez did what your supposed to do vs top available comp if you a top p4p fighter...beat them all.Can people even name 10 strawweights? A division that wasn't even recongnized until the 90's fully. Not knowing a guy or the network not knowing how to pronounce his name doesn't equate to them being a no name.

I love me some Carbajal. Always have, back to the Olympics until the end. He literally in company with Gonzalez put the division on near equal footing and respect to main stream fans. Carbajal was tied up in a needed triology after signing with King...who had Lopez stuffed under large ppv cards and the two on same bill a few times. I blame a King if anyone. Lopez wasn't quaking in his boots after watching Gonzalez turn boxer and pull off two albeit close bloody wins over Carbajal. They put him into full blown rebuild mode after that and IF those two had any chance of meeting it was around here. To think that Carbajal just goes out and flattens Lopez is wrong. It never happened, we'll never know but I think Lopez gets him. Lopez was just that damn good.

after watching that it is even supposedly more troubling Y didn't Lopez try 2 take on Carbajal or any of d names in d division above him . It's not that i consider weight jumping as d only thing that counts , but he fought no1 so he's only 1-2 notches above d nobodies that he fought . At least as far as proven facts go . This is what he proved , and u r speculating wildly if u think that his achievements against nobodies suggest anything on how he'd have done vs Carbajal / Gonzalez / Melchor Cob Castro . All of these names he did not fight . Yes they probably were "bigger" than him , but he proved himself less than JCGonzalez had . Gonzalez at least proved 2b durable against good opponents . RLopez had no good opponents , his best being Rosendo Alvarez , and it's circular . Or did u mean that Carbajal's management ducked RLopez ? they still had all d rest of those names that i mentioned 2 pick on .
Light flyweight was far more interesting than strawweight back then but he stirred away from it while fighting nobody . Beating nobodies can only maybe put 1 in d top 15 of his division during 1's time , but #3 all times p4p of his quite heritage loaded country ? R U serious ? I didn't list Gonzalez in my top 10 Mexicans , but he was tested and proven more than RLopez was . Did Gonzalez lose 2 nobodies ? no , just like Lopez had . So Y does Lopez deserve a higher ranking ? Maybe if Lopez fought fighters even on d caliber that Gonzalez fought , he could have been crushed by them . But u'll never know , b/c he never had . But u still ignore all my arguments and rank RLopez higher .

dude your "arguments" only put you in a deeper hole exploiting how clueless you are, FFS you don't even know who Alex "El Nene" Sanchez is when he was one of the more well known names at 105/108 in the early 2000's, he fought the likes of Lopez, Burgos, Dieppa, Cazares, and Calderon all of those names well known, yet you'll probably try and discredit that as well with some fake logic or FAKE "facts", Lopez fought the best that was available at his weight class, no different from the likes of the Klitschko's, in terms of that if there isn't much available in big names yet that's your best weight, you just take on the top 10 guys or other champions and dominate, which is exactly what Lopez did his ENTIRE career, there's a reason why you wont find a list from any person who REALLY knows boxing that doesn't have Ricardo "Finito" Lopez in the top 3 or at worst top 5 of greatest Mexican fighters, you claim you're a student of the game well buddy you better go back to class especially when it comes to latino fighters cause you're flunking out bad

[frankenfrank]

dude your "arguments" only put you in a deeper hole exploiting how clueless you are, FFS you don't even know who Alex "El Nene" Sanchez is when he was one of the more well known names at 105/108 in the early 2000's, he fought the likes of Lopez, Burgos, Dieppa, Cazares, and Calderon all of those names well known, yet you'll probably try and discredit that as well with some fake logic or FAKE "facts", Lopez fought the best that was available at his weight class, no different from the likes of the Klitschko's, in terms of that if there isn't much available in big names yet that's your best weight, you just take on the top 10 guys or other champions and dominate, which is exactly what Lopez did his ENTIRE career, there's a reason why you wont find a list from any person who REALLY knows boxing that doesn't have Ricardo "Finito" Lopez in the top 3 or at worst top 5 of greatest Mexican fighters, you claim you're a student of the game well buddy you better go back to class especially when it comes to latino fighters cause you're flunking out bad

Boxrec's computerized system has him @ #64 p4p of all times of Mexico alone .
BoxRec Boxing Records
I doubt if he even deserves that .
I already in4med u that there r ppl with more knowledge on Mexican fighters than i have and those ppl don't have him in their top 10 of Mexico .
From them i learnt 2 doubt his record , and when i tried 2 look deep in2 it , i found that it has no depth .
That "El Nene" must have been a monster because :
1) he had n alias which is a rarity among cab drivers
2) he was stopped by every name opponent that he fought , Xcept from Calderon whom had 2 settle 4 a decision .
3) he had a cool sounding alias
4) he was from Puerto Rico , which already makes a great out of him
5) his last name was Sanchez
6) his 1st name was Alex , as in Alex Stewart , Alex Schulz and Alex Gonzales
, yes , and Alex Ramos , Sascha Dimitrenko and Sascha Povetkin .
That puts him in a tremendous company .
7) only now i came 2 recognition that he actually held d WBO minimumweight title , won (d vacant title) and defended Xclusively vs bums .


Now i really know who "El Nene" was . Your posts inspired me 2 make a research about him .


And i don't have either Klitschko in my top 100 p4p , and unlike u i actually compiled such a list .
I now feel ashamed that i 1ce included Lopez in it , because d more i learn / know / think about him , d lower i think of him .

[ElTerribleMorales]

dude your "arguments" only put you in a deeper hole exploiting how clueless you are, FFS you don't even know who Alex "El Nene" Sanchez is when he was one of the more well known names at 105/108 in the early 2000's, he fought the likes of Lopez, Burgos, Dieppa, Cazares, and Calderon all of those names well known, yet you'll probably try and discredit that as well with some fake logic or FAKE "facts", Lopez fought the best that was available at his weight class, no different from the likes of the Klitschko's, in terms of that if there isn't much available in big names yet that's your best weight, you just take on the top 10 guys or other champions and dominate, which is exactly what Lopez did his ENTIRE career, there's a reason why you wont find a list from any person who REALLY knows boxing that doesn't have Ricardo "Finito" Lopez in the top 3 or at worst top 5 of greatest Mexican fighters, you claim you're a student of the game well buddy you better go back to class especially when it comes to latino fighters cause you're flunking out bad

Boxrec's computerized system has him @ #64 p4p of all times of Mexico alone .
BoxRec Boxing Records
I doubt if he even deserves that .
I already in4med u that there r ppl with more knowledge on Mexican fighters than i have and those ppl don't have him in their top 10 of Mexico .
From them i learnt 2 doubt his record , and when i tried 2 look deep in2 it , i found that it has no depth .
That "El Nene" must have been a monster because :
1) he had n alias which is a rarity among cab drivers
2) he was stopped by every name opponent that he fought , Xcept from Calderon whom had 2 settle 4 a decision .
3) he had a cool sounding alias
4) he was from Puerto Rico , which already makes a great out of him
5) his last name was Sanchez
6) his 1st name was Alex , as in Alex Stewart , Alex Schulz and Alex Gonzales
, yes , and Alex Ramos , Sascha Dimitrenko and Sascha Povetkin .
That puts him in a tremendous company .
7) only now i came 2 recognition that he actually held d WBO minimumweight title , won (d vacant title) and defended Xclusively vs bums .


Now i really know who "El Nene" was . Your posts inspired me 2 make a research about him .


And i don't have either Klitschko in my top 100 p4p , and unlike u i actually compiled such a list .
I now feel ashamed that i 1ce included Lopez in it , because d more i learn / know / think about him , d lower i think of him .

so fucking what? boxrec has Yoan Pablo Hernandez as the 13th best fighter in the world, ahead of Miguel Cotto, Orlando Salido, Amir Khan, Gamboa, Nonito Donaire, and Tomasz Adamek, meaning their ranking system is pure shit, as I said keep rambling with your clueless bullshit, you're just making yourself look like a bigger dumbass