When we talk abut the all time greats from Mexico

Julio Cesar Chavezand Salvador Sanchez seem to be the top choices for #1 but should
Ricardo Lopez be considered as well?

Lopez went 51-0-1. He was very talented/skilled boxer who won championships in 2 weight classes. He is considred by many to be the best mimmunweight of all time. Should he be ranked with Chavez and Sanchez if not higher?

 

He just can't be ranked higher than them, i can't have speculation as part of my criteria when it comes to ranking, ifs and buts are not rankable, but resume is, and other Mexicans have compiled better ones if we're going on quality of opponents beaten. Some on here actually think he's overrated as an effective operator.

Just look at the fighters Ruben Olivares beat, we can't have Lopez above him.

 

Quite a lot of knowledgeable people think that Lopez would be no1 if he had the opponents on his record that the others had.... he was an excellent boxer technically & hit like a mule for a lower weight guy.

His competition seems to be his only downfall for most when judging greatness.

 

Depends how he would look when fighting them though, doesn't it.

as far as the original post goes, Lopez is who he is, put him at number one if you feel he deserves it.It's your list.

 

Ripcity is a very redundant and unimaginative poster.

 

If Lopez had fought better quality opposition he might have a case.

Things being what they are, I think it's right to have Chavez and Salvador as the choices for the top spot.

 

He was a champion for 10 years.
Who should he have fought at 105 pounds ? Who did he duck ?

 

Thanks for your insight.

 

He's not bveing accused of ducking anyone. It's not his fault that other fighters had better competition. But we can't rank guys on speculation. Ruben Olivares was less consistent than Lopez but he emerged as the best of a golden bantamweight era. In my personal opinion he should be ranked above Lopez.

 

Yeah, but Lopez was champion (at 105 then 108 ) for over ten years. He won 23 straight title fights at minimumweight.
I see what you're saying but there will never be a golden era at that weight, or a slew of recognized greats, so it's loaded against him. I dont even know much about any of the challengers he beat, but i think that's more to do with them being minimumweights, rather than a problem with their quality.

I dont think it's "speculation" to rank a champion who dominated for so long through so many defences.

I'm not saying he's the best mexican fighter ever, but I dont see a reason to say he cannot be.
Just my take.

 

Would you place Olivares in the conversation with Chavez and Sanchez?

 

Yeah it is unfortunate for him, but the straw weight division he was in was actually just not a very good one at all. Carbajal and Gonzalez were small men too and they were famous because they were very good. An era or so before we had a spectucale time at 108-112, so it's not as though Lopez fought in a hugely underrated era at 105. He's one of the most dominant fighters in history and i rate dominance highly. He's up there for sure, he's one of the best fighters very possibly that we've ever seen. But i'm just saying the guys who also had great careers and compiled amazing resumes like Olivares, should be above imo.

Somewhat unfortunate maybe. I like Lopez, who doesn't?

 

Of course.

 

I'm logging off now everyone, bye

 

When I asked a few trainers from Mexico that I know to list their top 5 he was not even mentioned by anyone, then I brought him up and they all felt that it was hard to classify him but the highest they would go on him is 3rd.